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
MARCH 1, 2022
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Date: March 1, 2022
To: Bill Brand, Mayor
Redondo Beach City Council: Nils Nehrenheim, Todd Loewenstein, Christian Horvath, Zein Obagi, and Laura Emdee
City Manager Mike Witzansky
From: Juliana Sherwood, , Redondo Beach CA 90277
Rob Sherwood, , Redondo Beach CA 90277
Lisa Dodge, , Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Brooke Leit, , Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Jacqueline Lutz, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Marta Oller Petit, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Lourdes Bothwell, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Justin Carbone, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Jenna Carbone, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Christopher Bothwell, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Verona Roberts, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Jaya Chari, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Courtney Linton-Kanas, , Redondo Beach CA 90277
Scott Linton-Kanas, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Carrie LeGrand & Michael Leffler - Redondo Beach CA 90277 Divya Vats Redondo Beach CA 90277
Kristina Koehler, Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Jacqueline Cahalan Redondo Beach CA 90277
Jo Kothari, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Vik Kothari, Redondo Beach CA 90277
Randall Hart Redondo Beach CA, 90277
Claudia Hart Redondo Beach CA, 90277
Aathirai Anbuthayalan, , Redondo Beach CA 90277
Sujata Shenoy Redondo Beach CA 90277
Ram Shenoy Redondo Beach CA 90277
RE: Police Patrol in Veteran’s Park and King Harbor Pier Please See Attached Letter.
Dear City Council and Mr. Witzansky,
We, the residents of Redondo Beach, are concerned about our community's safety and well-being. We have a serious growing concern about the safety of Veteran’s Park and our Pier.
It is common knowledge that on the weekends Veterans Park and our Pier are inundated with people that are not residents of the Redondo Beach community.
Many of us have had very scary experiences recently - some of which have been reported to the police and some of which have gone unreported. The result is that we have an increased sense of fear in our community and for our children. It is now at the point where local residents are fearful of going to our own park and our own Pier. This is a situation that has continued for too long and needs to be addressed.
While we welcome people from other areas to enjoy the beautiful South Bay beaches, restaurants, stores, and parks, we must maintain the safety of our community. We want a safe park for our children to play and a safe pier for families and friends to gather.
Proposed Solution:
We believe that we are in need of a much stronger physical police presence in areas that are at high risk of having these types of violent and scary encounters.
We are hereby formally requesting that one (1) uniformed police officer be physically designated to be stationed outside of their car, walking around patrolling, the following locations on these days and times.
Patrol locations, days and times:
Veterans Park
One (1) Uniformed Police Officer:
Winter Hours:
Saturdays from 10am - 4pm
Sundays from 10am - 3pm
Spring/Fall Hours:
Saturdays from 10am - 5pm
Sundays from 10am - 4pm
Summer Hours:
Saturdays from 10am - 6pm
Sundays from 10am - 5pm
RedondoPier between Barney’s Beanery location to Redondo Coffee & Bait location Friday's from 5:00 p.m. till 10:00 p.m.
Saturdays from noon till 10:00pm
Sundays from noon till 5pm
International Boardwalk between Naja’s location and Fun Fish location Friday's from 5:00 p.m. till 10:00 p.m.
Saturdays from noon till 10:00pm
Sundays from noon till 5pm
We are asking that these 3 patrol officers be physically present at all times during these hours.
Cost:
Total Patrol Hours
Location Winter Spring Summer Fall
Veteran’s Park 11 13 15 13
Redondo Pier 20 20 20 20
International
Boardwalk
20 20 20 20
Total On Site
Patrol Hours Per
Week
51 53 55 53
Total Patrol
Hours Per
Quarter
612 636 660 636
Approximate
Cost of Patrol
Salary*
$23,538 $24,462 $25,385 $24,462
Total Cost $97,847
* This assumes a patrol officer earning $80,000 annually ($38.46/hour). According to Indeed.com, the average salary for Redondo Beach Police Officers is $78,737.
Source: https://www.indeed.com/career/police-officer/salaries/Redondo-Beach--CA.
For less than $100,000 - we can reclaim our park and pier as a safe place for local residents and our children to thrive.
Benefits:
1. This will act as a deterrent to inappropriate behavior.
2. It will make police reaction time almost immediate - which will have a compounding effect of reducing more inappropriate/dangerous behavior.
3. This is a great community outreach opportunity for the Police. While their stated business in patrolling will be to keep the peace and ensure a safe environment for all, this will give them an opportunity to connect with the community that values and appreciates them. Imagine the local officers talking with children at Veteran’s Park, handing out stickers at the Pier, smiling to neighbors. This is a huge opportunity for our police department to show not only the residents of Redondo Beach but those from other communities that the police are here to protect and serve. Police are not to be feared, they are here to help.
4. This type of proactive policing can generate positive press in both the Beach Reporter and possibly the LA Times where Redondo could become an example of the police interacting with the community in a proactive and positive manner.
Summary:
This is all of our homes. This is our community. We want to enjoy our community without fear.
We want our children to laugh and play in our beautiful new park. We want to build memories of laughter at the restaurants at the pier. But right now - we are fearful of going to these places.
We need your help - our city council and city manager - to step up and lead us to a better tomorrow.
WIth sincere appreciation,
Your neighbors
From: Dan Smith
To: Paul Novak; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Tom Bakaly (he/him/his); Cristan Higa
Subject: Facts about BCHD and the Healthy Living Campus Project Date: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:17:15 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
You have received e-mails from local residents regarding Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) and our Healthy Living Campus project. There have been many misstatements in these e-mails, which is why I am writing you today, to present the facts about BCHD and the project. The list below includes some of the claims made in the left column – taken from emails or social media posts – with the facts about the project and/or BCHD in the right column. These will be made available on our website soon.
If you have any questions, please reach out to me or our CEO, Tom Bakaly (cc’d), anytime. We look forward to working with you.
Dan Smith, Director of Communications, BCHD
Fiction/Claim Fact
BCHD has ignored a petition from 1,200 surrounding
residents
Not true. The organizers of the petition effort sent the petition to BCHD on June 8, 2021, two days before the end of the comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The sender did not reference the petition in his cover note to the EIR Team and it was included as one of several attachments to the email (EIR comment BW2).
By the time the petition was sent to BCHD, the design of the project had changed, making many of the concerns listed in the petition irrelevant or out-of-date. BCHD responded to the petition in the same way as other DEIR comments, via the Final EIR.
It's important to note that there were 1,134 unique
signatures, not 1,200. Perhaps more important, 802
signatures -- 70 percent -- are from outside the Beach Cities, including "surrounding residents" from Rancho Palos Verdes (31), Gardena (25), Lomita (15) and Rolling Hills (14). One signature is from a resident of Walnut, 42 miles away.
BCHD doesn't respond to public records requests. False. In fact, BCHD has responded to more public records requests in the last year than at any other time in its history.
Since 2019, one individual has submitted 1,085 requests, of which 906 have been responded to.
By contrast, BuzzFeed.com claims to have made more public records act requests than any other media organization
during the four years of the Trump Administration. During that time, BuzzFeed made 58 requests.
The proposed Healthy Living Campus is as big as the
Crypto.Com Arena (nee Staples Center) in Los Angeles.
This is false and misleading. According to the Los Angeles Sports Council, the Staples Center itself is 950,000 square feet, not including parking, and 150 feet high. The Healthy Living Campus – including the proposed parking structure – is estimated to be 792,520 square feet, according to Paul Murdoch Architects, with the tallest portion of the building being 83 feet. Using an "apples to apples" comparison (i.e., no parking), Crypto.Com Arena/Staples Center is double the size of the 473,020-square foot structure planned for the Healthy Living Campus.
BCHD does not have the authority to create an assisted
living facility. The building must remain a hospital.
False. As outlined in Section 32121(j) of the California Health and Safety Code, healthcare districts are empowered under state law to establish, maintain and operate healthcare facilities, including retirement programs, services and facilities. Additionally, all elements of the Healthy Living Campus will comply with local zoning regulations.
The Healthy Living Campus project will be “a privately
owned residential facility for the elderly.”
False. The plan is a public-private partnership (P3) – a finance model that utilizes private investments in public projects to bolster taxpayers’ return on investment. The result:
Taxpayers pay less for the programs and services they are receiving, while also benefitting from the improvement on the community asset. In this case, the project would include a youth wellness center focused on mental health, facilities for dozens of vital community health programs, more than two acres of green space, and senior living facilities.
South Bay Hospital District, predecessor to BCHD, filed Superior Court documents stating its voter approved
mission was to serve the three Beach Cities that approved the district.
Our legal team has weighed in and is confident that BCHD is in compliance with state and local regulations.
The District's business track record is poor - South Bay Hospital failed in 1984 while other local hospitals
flourished.
Beach Cities Health District received $4.3 Million dollars in taxes from residents - with a $13.9M budget for FY 2020-21, BCHD provided a $3.01 to $1 return on taxpayer monies
invested in the Health District.
Further, BCHD has received numerous accolades for its fiscal management and transparency. Last year, the Government
Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented BCHD with a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020. GFOA also awarded BCHD the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award with a Special Performance Measures Recognition. BCHD
learned in January, 2022 that GFOA has again awarded the District its Distinguished Budget Presentation Award.
The California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) also presented BCHD with an Excellence Award for its 2020- 21 operating budget. BCHD is the only healthcare district to meet the CSMFO standards of excellence and has received 16 CSMFO Excellence or Meritorious Awards since the 2007- 2008 fiscal year.
BCHD assertions that the existing campus is 75-feet tall are misleading and likely outright false by any reasonable assessment.
The issue of height for the Healthy Living Campus has been addressed in the final EIR.
BCHD sought priority based budgeting input only from
meeting "packing" with BCHD insiders
False. BCHD's Strategic Planning meetings, held twice a year, are always open to the public and noticed for public
participation.
THE CHF Open House defied LA County COVID guidance /
BCHD ignored LA County COVID guidance with its CHF
Open House. Non-essential gatherings, such as the
False. The "guidance" referred to was issued Jan. 11, three days after the Open House took place. The event was held in compliance with L.A. County Dept. of Public Health
commercially motivated January 8th 2022 CHF open
house were outside LA County Health Covid policy during the Omicron surge.
guidelines.
The Los Angeles Times story covering the guidance from
Public Health (“L.A. County urges residents to postpone nonessential gatherings, activities as Omicron surges”) included this: “The recommendation is voluntary and officials have not imposed any new restrictions that would force the cancellation of any events.” Thousands of restaurants and businesses - including gyms - remained open for business during this time, much like CHF.
BCHD continues to have a $10,000 monthly advocacy
contract with out-of-district vendor VMA Consulting
BCHD issued a Request for Qualifications for Community
Engagement Services in 2017. VMA Communications was
selected as part of that process.
FUNDED BY ONLY 39 VOTES 1) The South Bay Hospital
bond measure passed 6601-3242 (required 2/3rd
majority or 6562 votes) by only 39 votes in its required 2/3rds majority demonstrating only thin support in the
three beach cities.
6601-3242 is a margin of 3,359, meaning it passed by a
better than 2-to-1 margin.
It should be noted that the vote for the creation of the South Bay Hospital District in Jan. 1955 was 5,148 for (86%), 824 against.
BCHD TAKES THE MONEY AND RUNS ... OH YEAH! The
SBHD renamed itself BCHD and kept all the assets, cash, and land the hospital condemned, despite the fact that
BCHD no longer satisfied SBHDs voter approved mission
nor the story it spun for the Superior Court in order to seize the land on Prospect Avenue from home developers
via asset condemnation.
We have continued to serve the community since 1955.
Those assets and cash have been re-invested in the
community and its residents to provide free preventive
health programs and services (e.g. LiveWell Kids garden and nutrition education, care management, etc.).
The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors duly elected by the residents within the hospital district. A result of the long-term lease (with American Medical
International, Inc.) was a great deal of confusion on the part of the residents within the district as to where to go for what services. The persistent confusion between the South Bay Hospital District and the South Bay Hospital was such that the South Bay Hospital District Board of Directors authorized by resolution a name change. The South Bay Hospital District became Beach Cities Health District (District) on January 7, 1993." (SOURCE: L.A. County Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) Final South Bay Municipal Service
Review, Sept. 28, 2005)"
BCHD exploited younger, browner, less affluent residents We don't know what the author is referring to here. BCHD fosters a environment of equity, inclusion and respect. BCHD recently established a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) task force working on subjects related to DEI in the Beach Cities.
BCHD spends 50% of property taxes on executive pay
($2+M annual).
Regarding salaries, this claim distorts BCHD's budget
numbers and misrepresents the impact of employee salaries to the total budget.
In FY20-21, the District had a $13.9 million budget and received $4.3 million in property taxes. Other incoming funding incudes is a mix of leases(42%), limited partnerships (9%), user fees from AdventurePlex and Center for Health & Fitness (2%) and investments and other revenues (13%).
During the most recent fiscal year (2020-21), BCHD spent 63% of its budget ($8.8 million) on programs, services and grants. Administrative costs, including salaries, made up 18% of BCHD's expenses.
As part of District policy, BCHD provides a compensation program that is competitive, legally compliant, and
equitable. The pay structures conform with California
minimum wage standards and the pay grade assignments
maintain internal equity for hourly, non-exempt, exempt, and management jobs. A compensation consultant reviews
the compensation structure and ensures alignment with the organization structure, job content, market trends, and other developments. BCHD salaries are at or below the market for comparable positions.
The CEO salary range was established by considering similar job classifications and qualifications standards to assure that the job would be assigned to a pay grade that was
competitive and aligned appropriately using the District's major internal job evaluation factors.
Dan Smith
(he/him)
Director of Communications
Beach Cities Health District
1200 Del Amo St., Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Ph: 310-374-3426, x8156
www.bchd.org
www.facebook.com/beachcitieshealth
From: Stop BCHD
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Board Meeting - 2/23/22 - Topics include: lack of transparency, commercial real estate development
Date: Monday, February 21, 2022 1:08:47 PM
Attachments: Slide1.PNG
Slide4.PNG
Slide3.PNG
Slide5.PNG
Slide2.PNG
Comments on BCHD Commercial Development 2-14-22.pdf
4up BCHD 1200 person petition-compressed (1).pdf
BCHD Secret Negotiations.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Because BCHD has elected to further reduce the transparency of its 100-foot tall, 800,000 sqft commercial development project for 80% non-residents of the 3 beach cities by no longer reading public comments, the following public comments are distributed widely to:
Mayors, Councils, Planning Commissions, and Directors of HB, RB, MB, and Torrance Electeds
LALAFCO
PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM MULTIPLE RESIDENTS (NAMES LISTED AT
BOTTOM)
The following is a written public comment to all addressed parties regarding BCHDs attempted permitting for 3rd party developer actions on the 514 N Prospect site. BCHD has indicated that it does not have the financial capacity to develop the site, and that it plans to lease the site to a 3rd party for commercial development. BCHD further indicates that it refuses to allow voters the opportunity to approve a bond measure since BCHD expects voters will not approve its project and financing. As such, BCHD plan is to exclude low cost public bond funding as was used for the South Bay Hospital.
These comments address correcting the current lack of taxpayer transparency in the BCHD permitting process with the City. These comments also address specific development themes and the legacy disclosure issues of BCHD interactions with the City and taxpayers.
BCHDs damages will extend into the surrounding neighborhoods of Torrance, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach.
KEY PUBLIC COMMENT THEMES
1. TAXPAYERS OPPOSE BCHD PROJECT AND WANT TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES AND PROCESSES INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT SECRET DISCUSSIONS
2. TAXPAYERS MUST BE UPDATED ON BCHD PLANS IMMEDIATELY
3. DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN BCHD AND THE CITY MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
4. ALL DOCUMENTS TRADED BETWEEN BCHD AND THE CITY MUST BE PUBLISHED
5. BCHD MUST NOW PROVE ITS CLAIMS IN THE WITHHELD FEBRUARY 2019 MEMO
6. INSIDER RELATIONSHIPS WITH BCHD MUST BE HALTED IMMEDIATELY
7. INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH BCHD MUST BE HALTED IMMEDIATELY
8. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS OPPOSE BCHD PLAN
9. BCHD MISSTATES ITS ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
10. BCHD MISSTATES THE HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT CAMPUS
11. BCHD SITE PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION PLAN FAILS TO “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” AS REQUIRED IN RBMC DESIGN REVIEW
12. BCHD HAS BEEN FULLY AWARE OF ITS DAMAGES TO THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS FROM PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION SINCE 2017
13. BCHD MUST MITIGATE ITS PROPOSED 85 dB NOISE WITH SHORTER HEIGHT CONSTRUCTION AND BETTER SOUND WALLS TO 70 dB TO PROTECT HEALTH
14. BCHD MUST SELECT A COMPATIBLE DESIGN FOR SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS PER RBMC
15. BCHD, LIKE THE KENSINGTON, MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS PER RMBC
16. SURROUNDING HOMEOWNERS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY VALUE RISK
THAT MUST BE PROTECTED PER RBMC DESIGN REVIEW
17. BCHD MUST BE IN HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES PER RBMC ON DESIGN REVIEW AND BERYL HEIGHTS GUIDELINES
SUBMITTED BY:
Ann Cheung
Barbara Epstein
Candace Nafissi
Christine Ferrero
Darryl Boyd
Geoff Gilbert
Hamant and Robin Patel
Janet Smolke
Joyce Field
Joyce Stauffer
Linda Zelik
Lisa Falk
Lisa Youngworth
Marcia Gehrt
Marcie Guillermo
Mark Donna Miodovski
Melanie Cohen
Melissa White
Mike Woolsey
Pat Wickens
Ruby Sonadres
Steve Saber
Tim Ozenne
Tom McGarry
Warren Croft
--
STOP BCHD ([email protected]) is a neighborhood organization of residents concerned about the economic and quality-of-life damages that BCHDs 100-foot tall, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years.
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment to Mayors and City Councils on BCHD False Development Project Objectives Date: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 5:52:56 PM
Attachments: BCHD Flawed Objectives.png
BCHD Flawed Objectives.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
See link on StopBCHD.com https://www.stopbchd.com/post/bchds-project-is-unneededtheir-objectives-are-outright-false or see image below
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Paul Novak; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; PublicLands@HCD; Martin, Thomas G@HCD; McDougall, Paul@HCD; Metcalf, Ben@HCD; Nickless, Greg@HCD; Noel Chun; Vanessa I. Poster; [email protected]; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - The case for a Civil Grand Jury Investigation of BCHD Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 2:17:55 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
A California Public Communication to Parties Above, Including but not Limited to:
Mayor & City Councils - Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance LA County Attorney
LALAFCO
CA HCD
Various Electeds
Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) states that it has adequate resources to move ahead with $16M in pre-development spending on a neighborhood character destroying 100-foot tall, 800,000 sqft development project, yet, BCHD claims it has insufficient resources to promptly reply to California Public Records Act Requests regarding the same project.
The lack of transparency and willful misconduct to actively prevent timely information disclosure prior to BCHD decision making is highly unethical, potentially illegal, and requires a Civil Grand Jury investigation and potential removal of the CEO and Board.
1. A CLEAR CASE OF BCHD DENYING THE PUBLIC ACCESS - 3 BUSINESS
DAYS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW/ANALYSIS/COMMENT BEFORE A MAJOR BOARD
DECISION
On Friday June 12th, 2020 at approximately 6PM after the close of business, BCHD did a "weekend dump" of a never before seen $400M development plan to the public and the BCHD Community Working Group (CWG), of which I was a 3+ year volunteer member. BCHDs intent was to approve the plan on June 17th, 2020 at a Board meeting. This allowed the general public and the CWG only 3 business days to read, analyze and create public comments. When the CWG members and public asked for an extension of time, Dr. Noel Chun made a statement against allowing the public to be fully informed, and clearly implied that if the Board did delay a week, that the outcome would be the same. Clearly, this reeks of Brown Act violation. BCHD materials for the project exceed 1,000 pages.
The June 12, 2020 development design was materially different from the prior design that was provided in the June 2019 CEQA documents. The June 2020 plan was TALLER - 76-feet vs 60-feet and LARGER 793,000 sqft vs 729,000 sqft of surface buildings as BCHD added an 8-10 story parking ramp in place of 160,000 sqft of subterranean parking.
Clearly, under perfect conditions, the experienced public had no reasonable expectation of being able to read, analyze, and meaningfully comment. A three day notice on a $400M materally changed project by a public agency is a willful act to deny access.
The public was deliberately denied due process and transparency by BCHD.
In addition to providing a mere 3 day window, BCHD also provided defective documents.
The documents were provided to the public and CWG with such low resolution that no meaningful analysis was possible. From a practical perspective, architectural sized 24x36" pages were reduced to PDF letter size. Only an investigation will determine if this was a deliberate act.
2. BCHD CONTINUING ACTS TO DENY PROMPT CPRA RESPONSES
BCHD has been up to 1 year in arrears on fulfillment of CPRA responses. BCHD is still significantly in arrears on fulfillment, as BCHD indicates it plans to hire a development company for the 100-foot tall, 800,000 sqft $400M development in the next 60 days. Clearly, BCHD is denying the public its right to information as BCHD refuses to fulfill records act requests prior to a decision, and, BCHD has previously refused to delay the decision.
Only intervention by LALAFCO, a Civil Grand Jury or the LA County Attorney can bring BCHD into a modicum of compliance and afford the public its right to information regarding a $400M commercial development project, primarily built for non-residents of the BCHD, and on public owned and zoned land that was condemned for exclusive use as a public hospital.
Mark Nelson
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer
Redondo Beach
Retired Development Executive, Expert Witness
Note: A potential Brown Act violation was revealed in a message from a BCHD Board member, and I will be providing the email along with my formal written request for investigation later today.
From: M. Nava
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Brandy Forbes; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Brand; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: (JUST REPLY AND WE"LL SEND COMMENTS FOR YOU IF YOU LIKE) This what we plan to send out to the City Councils/Mayors/Planners
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2022 6:36:04 PM
Attachments: Comments on BCHD Commercial Development 2-14-22.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The following is a written public comment to all addressed parties regarding BCHDs attempted permitting for 3rd party developer actions on the 514 N Prospect site. BCHD has indicated that it does not have the financial capacity to develop the site, and that it plans to lease the site to a 3rd party for commercial development. BCHD further indicates that it refuses to allow voters the opportunity to approve a bond measure since BCHD expects voters will not approve its project and financing. As such, BCHD plan is to exclude low cost public bond funding as was used for the South Bay Hospital.
These comments address correcting the current lack of taxpayer transparency in the BCHD permitting process with the City. These comments also address specific development themes and the legacy disclosure issues of BCHD interactions with the City and taxpayers.
BCHDs damages will extend into the surrounding neighborhoods of Torrance, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach.
KEY PUBLIC COMMENT THEMES
TAXPAYERS OPPOSE BCHD PROJECT AND WANT TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES AND PROCESSES INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT SECRET DISCUSSIONS
TAXPAYERS MUST BE UPDATED ON BCHD PLANS IMMEDIATELY
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN BCHD AND THE CITY MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
ALL DOCUMENTS TRADED BETWEEN BCHD AND THE CITY MUST BE
PUBLISHED
BCHD MUST NOW PROVE ITS CLAIMS IN THE WITHHELD FEBRUARY 2019 MEMO
INSIDER RELATIONSHIPS MUST BE HALTED IMMEDIATELY
INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS MUST BE HALTED IMMEDIATELY
A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS OPPOSE BCHD PLAN
BCHD MISSTATES ITS ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
BCHD MISSTATES THE HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT CAMPUS
BCHD SITE PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION PLAN FAILS TO “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” AS REQUIRED IN RBMC DESIGN REVIEW
BCHD HAS BEEN FULLY AWARE OF ITS DAMAGES TO THE LOCAL
NEIGHBORHOODS FROM PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION SINCE 2017
BCHD MUST MITIGATE ITS PROPOSED 85 dB NOISE WITH SHORTER HEIGHT CONSTRUCTION AND BETTER SOUND WALLS TO 70 dB TO PROTECT HEALTH
BCHD MUST SELECT A COMPATIBLE DESIGN FOR SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS PER RBMC
BCHD, LIKE THE KENSINGTON, MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS PER RMBC
SURROUNDING HOMEOWNERS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY VALUE RISK
THAT MUST BE PROTECTED PER RBMC DESIGN REVIEW
BCHD MUST BE IN HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES PER RBMC ON DESIGN REVIEW AND BERYL HEIGHTS GUIDELINES Attachment: Detailed Comments
From: BCHD DEIR <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 7:59 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; BCHD DEIR <[email protected]> Subject: (JUST REPLY AND WE'LL SEND COMMENTS FOR YOU IF YOU LIKE) This what we plan to send out to the City Councils/Mayors/Planners
IF YOU HAVE ALREADY REPLIED - NO NEED TO REPLY AGAIN! THX! We are Emailing to:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
With a subject line of: PUBLIC COMMENT:BCHD site commercial development concerns and text and attachment below.
The following is a written public comment to all addressed parties regarding BCHDs attempted permitting for 3rd party developer actions on the 514 N Prospect site. BCHD has indicated that it does not have the financial capacity to develop the site, and that it plans to lease the site to a 3rd party for commercial development. BCHD further indicates that it refuses to allow voters the opportunity to approve a bond measure since BCHD expects voters will not approve its project and financing. As such, BCHD plan is to exclude low cost public bond funding as was used for the South Bay Hospital.
These comments address correcting the current lack of taxpayer transparency in the BCHD permitting process with the City. These comments also address specific development themes and the legacy disclosure issues of BCHD interactions with the City and taxpayers.
BCHDs damages will extend into the surrounding neighborhoods of Torrance, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach.
KEY PUBLIC COMMENT THEMES
TAXPAYERS OPPOSE BCHD PROJECT AND WANT TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES AND PROCESSES INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT SECRET DISCUSSIONS
TAXPAYERS MUST BE UPDATED ON BCHD PLANS IMMEDIATELY
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN BCHD AND THE CITY MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
ALL DOCUMENTS TRADED BETWEEN BCHD AND THE CITY MUST BE
PUBLISHED
BCHD MUST NOW PROVE ITS CLAIMS IN THE WITHHELD FEBRUARY 2019 MEMO
INSIDER RELATIONSHIPS MUST BE HALTED IMMEDIATELY
INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS MUST BE HALTED IMMEDIATELY
A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS OPPOSE BCHD PLAN
BCHD MISSTATES ITS ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
BCHD MISSTATES THE HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT CAMPUS
BCHD SITE PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION PLAN FAILS TO “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” AS REQUIRED IN RBMC DESIGN REVIEW
BCHD HAS BEEN FULLY AWARE OF ITS DAMAGES TO THE LOCAL
NEIGHBORHOODS FROM PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION SINCE 2017
BCHD MUST MITIGATE ITS PROPOSED 85 dB NOISE WITH SHORTER HEIGHT CONSTRUCTION AND BETTER SOUND WALLS TO 70 dB TO PROTECT HEALTH
BCHD MUST SELECT A COMPATIBLE DESIGN FOR SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS PER RBMC
BCHD, LIKE THE KENSINGTON, MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS PER RMBC
SURROUNDING HOMEOWNERS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY VALUE RISK
THAT MUST BE PROTECTED PER RBMC DESIGN REVIEW
BCHD MUST BE IN HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES PER RBMC ON DESIGN REVIEW AND BERYL HEIGHTS GUIDELINES Attachment: Detailed Comments
TAXPAYERS OPPOSE BCHD PROJECT AND WANT TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES AND PROCESSES INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT SECRET DISCUSSIONS
TAXPAYERS MUST BE UPDATED ON BCHD PLANS IMMEDIATELY
The public has been held in the dark by BCHD on several occasions, notably as BCHD raised the height of the project from 60-feet to 75-feet to 103-feet without any public notice or input.
The public is currently in the dark regarding the stale BCHD master plan that was last provided with a date of March 8, 2021 that is no longer consistent with the CEQA findings. It has been nearly one year since the public has seen an accurate master plan from taxpayer funded BCHD. The City must publish whatever BCHD materials it possesses regarding the project. The City’s role is to protect the public – not the project proponent.
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN BCHD AND THE CITY MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Two taxpayer-funded public agencies must not hide behind the Public Records Act and refuse to provide COMMUNICATIONS to their Taxpayers. The Act does not REQUIRE withholding, and in the case of two agencies and million$ in potential damages to surrounding neighborhoods, withholding is inappropriate.
ALL DOCUMENTS TRADED BETWEEN BCHD AND THE CITY MUST BE PUBLISHED The public can never again be blindsided by secret discussions by BCHD. BCHD documented its secret discussions with the City in a February 2019 letter to the Redondo Beach City Attorney. BCHD then WITHHELD the letter until July of 2020 – AFTER – BCHD Board had ALREADY approved the project. THAT WAS UNACCEPTABLE! BCHD MUST NOW PROVE ITS CLAIMS IN THE WITHHELD FEBRUARY 2019 MEMO BCHD denied the public its right to examine and contest its misrepresentations to the City of Redondo Beach by withholding the documents for nearly 18 months. BCHD must now provide evidence of its claims, including but not limited to: 1) economic damages to the surrounding home prices, and 2) significant net benefits to Redondo Beach residents from an RCFE that is less than 10% for Redondo Beach use, and a PACE facility that could be as low as 2% Redondo Beach use. Note that BCHD has stated in numerous records act requests that it does not have any benefit-cost analysis of its programs, it has no damages analysis, and it has no home price analysis, yet – BCHD guaranteed net benefits to Redondo Beach residents.
INSIDER RELATIONSHIPS MUST BE HALTED IMMEDIATELY
BCHD has a $400M commercial development pending at the City. Insider relationships taint the objectivity of city staff and deprive taxpayers of the protections they deserve. As such, all city employees must relinquish any BCHD committee positions immediately and for the duration of the CUP, design review, and other permitting of the commercial project.
The City of Redondo Beach finance director services on a BCHD Board approved committee.
That creates a conflict of interest and fiduciary failure to taxpayers. Taxpayers are unable to Public Comment on BCHD Development Page 1
monitor information flows that occur inside and outside of those committee meetings, nor can taxpayers ever be clear that decisions and analyses are not tainted.
INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS MUST BE HALTED IMMEDIATELY
If the following situation were happening with CenterCal as the commercial development proponent, the City would not stand for it. However, this is a clear example of the convoluted and improper relationship between the City and BCHD during a $400M application process.
GPAC Chair Biro is both a BCHD Board Approved committee member and a Redondo Beach Council approved member of the GPAC. BCHD has been presenting and participating in GPAC since 2017, and BCHD has made dubious claims that were allowed to stand by GPAC, such as, BCHD planned $12,500 per month RCFE or expected $7,500 per month low income RCFE would count for RHNA. That claim was laughable, yet it took the public to vigorously challenge it.
Further, BCHD hired Chair Biro with a no-bid, roughly $300,000 contract to advocate for the BCHD commercial development. Again, given Biro’s interlocking relationships, he must be discharged from GPAC or taxpayers can have no expectation of a fair decision of the CUP and Design Review.
So if Chair Biro had a $300,000 contract with CenterCal during the Mall-by-Sea application, if he sat on an internal committee of CenterCal before that contract, and if CenterCal presented before GPAC, THEN JUST HOW QUICKLY would Chair Biro have be removed from GPAC? There is NO MATERIAL DIFFERENCE to taxpayers between BCHD leasing our public land to a private developer and CenterCal’s proposal from a local damages point of view.
A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTS OPPOSE BCHD PLAN There are approximately 6,000 residents within one-half mile of BCHD. Over 1,200 local residents (20%) signed onto a petition to reduce the size of the BCHD proposed development following submission of BCHDs NOP in June 2019. That NOP was for a 60-foot tall, 730,000 sqft of surface buildings compound with 160,000 sqft of underground parking. Subsequently BCHD increased the height to 103-feet and the above ground buildings to 790,000 sqft.
BCHD MISSTATES ITS ACTIONS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC COMMENTS The majority of comments to BCHD plan have come from surrounding resident opposition.
BCHD claims about 650 comments from public meetings, while over 1,200 neighboring residents signed the petition and hundreds repeatedly commented against the project.
BCHDs final proposal was 170% as tall at 103-feet, removed the 160,000 sqft of out-of-sight underground parking, added an 8 to 10 story parking garage, and increased the total above ground buildings to 110% at 790,000 sqft. Clearly, BCHD assertion that it “heard” the public and modified the plan as a result is flatly false.
BCHD MISSTATES THE HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT CAMPUS
BCHD fails to state that only 968 sqft “the penthouse” of the existing (0.3%) campus exceeds 51-feet tall. BCHD repeatedly asserts that the campus is 76-feet tall, while the facts support only a penthouse. Factually, the other 311,032 sqft of the 312,000 sqft of the campus have an average height of about 30-feet and a maximum height of 51-feet. The BCHD proposal of Public Comment on BCHD Development Page 2
103-feet represents a doubling of campus height. The nearly 800,000 sqft of the proposed project represents a near tripling of size.
BCHD SITE PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION PLAN FAILS TO “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” AS REQUIRED IN RBMC DESIGN REVIEW
South Bay Hospital District located the hospital very nearly in the center of the parcel. As a result of this respect of the terrain, the visual size and mass of the building were minimized.
BCHD instead maximizes mass and damages to the surrounding neighborhoods by building on the north, northeast, southwest and west perimeters of the site at over 100-feet. (Note:
BCHD has steadfastly refused to provide updated documents to the public, so this is based on their last, published, complete master plan). BCHD must be forced to move development to the center of the site, or, BCHD must conform so surrounding design guidelines as did The Kensington at PCH and Knob Hill.
BCHD HAS BEEN FULLY AWARE OF ITS DAMAGES TO THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS FROM PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION SINCE 2017
In the very first Community Working Group advisory
panel meeting in May 2017, BCHD acknowledged
that its development would have multiple negative
impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. As a result
BCHD stated and showed its plan to surround the
development with green space and perimeter surface
parking as a transition between commercial and
residential land uses (5/15/2017 presentation by
BCHD).
BCHD disrespects the natural, elevated terrain of the site with its current high-rise development of a 6-story RCFE for 80% non-residents of the three Beach Cities that own BCHD on the north and northeast perimeter; its current 8-10 story parking structure plan at Prospect and Diamond on the southwest perimeter corner; and its current plan for a roughly 70 foot urban cliff along Prospect Avenue with an inward facing stair step design to maximize Beryl Heights facing mass while minimizing inward, campus facing mass.
BCHD MUST MITIGATE ITS PROPOSED 85 dB NOISE WITH SHORTER HEIGHT CONSTRUCTION AND BETTER SOUNDWALLS TO 70 dB TO PROTECT HEALTH RBMC 24.301 states that residential neighborhoods should never receive incoming sound levels above 70 dB. BCHD has granted itself 85 dB in it EIR. BCHD oil field services environmental firm, Wood PLC stated that because BCHD was exceeding 3-stories, the noise would propagate at the high level to other areas, but, if BCHD reduced the height, typical noise reducing material would dampen the noise. Because noise measurement is logarithmic, 85 dB is 15-times higher than the World Health Organization safe for human hearing standard of 70 dB. Further RMBC on Design Review and Conditional Use require protection of the public health – including the surrounding neighborhoods.
Public Comment on BCHD Development Page 3
BCHD MUST SELECT A COMPATIBLE DESIGN FOR SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS PER RBMC
The current BCHD proposed design is a knock off of1955 Miami Beach hotel construction. It is completely out of character with the surrounding Torrance and Redondo Beach neighborhoods and violates RBMC Design Review and the Residential Design Guidelines adopted to protect Beryl Heights neighborhood character.
BCHD 2022 MIAMI 1955
BCHD, LIKE THE KENSINGTON, MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS PER RMBC
“The proposed facility is compatible with the type, character, and density/intensity of the adjacent residential and commercial uses” – City of Redondo Beach Public Comment on BCHD Development Page 4
SURROUNDING HOMEOWNERS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY VALUE RISK THAT
MUST BE PROTECTED PER RBMC DESIGN REVIEW
The surrounding one-half mile of residences have an estimated market value of $3.8B, of which $2.6B represents owner’s equity. Econometric modeling demonstrates that homes closer to BCHD bear a disproportionate part of the financial burden of the existing campus and operation..Note: on 8/10/2020 BCHD disclosed from PRR responses that it had no studies of housing value impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. Other responses indicated that BCHD has also made no estimates of damages on surrounding neighborhoods from causes other than relative home value declines.
BCHD MUST BE IN HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING
PROPERTIES PER RBMC ON DESIGN REVIEW AND BERYL HEIGHTS GUIDELINES BCHD design for its aquatic center demonstrates BCHD willful lack of consideration of both mass and bulk on surrounding neighborhoods. BCHD design puts a roughly 70-foot wall of glass and concrete toward Beryl Heights, while carefully stepping down the 3-stories where they face the inside of the campus. This design both conveys BCHD complete failure to adhere to RBMC on the north, east, southwest and west sides of campus, and BCHD clear understanding of de-massing for its own internal use. Whether malfeasance or malevolence toward the surrounding neighborhoods, BCHD plan fails RBMC review.
Public Comment on BCHD Development Page 5