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 15, 2022
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Public Communications
From: Grace Peng
To: CityClerk
Subject: Comment on non agenda item for tonight"s RBCC meeting Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 2:33:35 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I want to thank the RBPD for compiling statistics about crime and traffic in our city.
I am concerned about the high numbers of citations
issued to cyclists.
The explanation from Chief Hoffman that the jump from
6 bicyclist citations in 2020 to
51 cyclist violations in 2021 is mainly due to eBike riders, often exceeding 25 mph residential speed limits, is alarming.
I would like to see RBPD break out the statistics for
Class 3 eBikes, capable of higher than 19 mph, from
regular bikes and Class 1/2 eBikes.
I would also like to see the same type of traffic enforcement for motorists driving faster than the 25 mph speed limit, rolling through stop signs, and stopping in the middle of crosswalks instead of behind limit lines.
Those all imperil me as a walk and bike throughout our city. thank-you,
Grace Peng, PhD
Class 2 eBike rider
Transit+eScooter rider
From: Beverly ONeal
To: CityClerk
Subject: E-Bikes on the Strand
Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 2:35:25 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hello,
My name is Beverly O'Neal. I live in Torrance, but my family and I frequently ride our bikes on the Strand in Redondo Beach. I'm writing to voice my concern about the danger of e-bikes on the Strand, and to respectfully request that the city of Redondo Beach consider banning ebikes on the Strand and on sidewalks, as other neighboring beach cities have already done.
The Strand is a wonderful resource for those who want to walk, jog, roller skate/blade, or ride their bicycles recreationally. Although there is risk inherent in those activities, the presence of e-bikes adds an unnecessary level of danger. E-bikes can travel up to 30 miles per hour, well over the 8-mph limit for the Strand, and certainly well over cruising speed. They're also larger and heavier, and in the case of collision, can cause serious injury. A close family friend just experienced this -- their teenage son was biking along the Strand on March 13, and was hit by an e-bike rider. Though the other rider and his e-bike were unaffected by the collision, our friend's son's bike was wrecked. Thankfully, he is physically OK, but his bike is now unusable, with the front wheels and handlebars completely bent. When I ride my bike on the Strand with my own children, I see many e-bike riders weaving in and out between the regular bikes, impatient with our slower speed. It's nerve-wracking and dangerous, which runs counter to the very purpose of the Strand.
I understand that e-bikes can be a great alternative to cars and useful for commutes. They are great for the road, but since they have motors, seem inappropriate for a place like the Strand, or for sidewalk use. Please consider banning them from those places. Thank you for your time.
Beverly O'Neal
From: mjkisiler
To: CityClerk
Subject: Electric bikes on the strand
Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 10:08:55 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Mayor and Council Members.
My son was riding his cruiser bike yesterday(3/13/2022) and was hit by an electric bike, on the strand near the redondo pier. He was thrown off of the bike by the impact. I filed an incident report with officer Holley of the Redondo Beach police department. The report number is 220313-119. While I do support electric bikes for older adults to promote mobility and activity for a healthy lifestyle, I don't believe they have a purpose of being on sidewalks and on the strand.
I am writing to you to have electric bikes made illegal to use on the strand and sidewalks in the city of Redondo Beach, Ca. I did not see this item on the agenda for the meeting of 3/15/2022, however, I would like my concern to be known to the city. Please direct me to the appropriate council member if this is not the email in which I address this concern.
I have attached some photos so you can see the damage done to the bike. My son, who is a 9th grade student at RUHS, was (prior to this accident on 3/13/2022) using this bike to commute to and from school.
Thank you for reading this and for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Kisiler
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Formal written questions for the March 12, 2022 Conditional Use Permit Meeting Date: Saturday, March 12, 2022 11:16:53 AM
Attachments: BCHD Questions 1 of 3.png
BCHD Questions 2 of 3.png
BCHD Questions 3 of 3.pdf
BCHD height.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD CUP Public Meeting of 3/12/2022
The following 4 files provide BCHD questions regarding the project attributes as they regard compliance with the RBMC regarding Conditional Use Permits, Planning Commission Design Review, and Residential Design Guidelines for Beryl Heights. cc: Public Record City Councils of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Torrance
cc: Regional elected representatives
--
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.
From: Stop BCHD
To: [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Brandy Forbes; Martinez, Oscar Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - BCHD CONDITIONAL USE AND DESIGN REVIEW Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 6:51:48 PM
Attachments: BCHD CUP QUESTIONS 1.png
BCHD CUP QUESTIONS 2.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Mayors, Councils, Planning Commissioners and Planning Directors:
The following represent questions from the local group StopBCHD (StopBCHD.com) regarding the BCHD private RCFE and other commercial ventures on the P-CF property at the site of South Bay Hospital.
History shows that BCHD will not answer them, so they are formally submitted to the owners of BCHD (Redondo, Hermosa and Manhattan) and the Torrance and Redondo Beach planning processes.
Thank you.
QUESTION LINKS
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/questions-1-for-bchd-at-conditional-use-permit-meetings-this-week https://www.stopbchd.com/post/questions-2-for-bchd-cup-meetings https://www.stopbchd.com/post/10-hard-questions-for-bchd-on-its-over-development-proposal
10 Hard Questions for BCHD on its Over Development
Proposal
Updated: 2 days ago
WHY DID BCHD ABANDON ITS COMMITMENT TO PROTECT NEIGHBORS WITH A BUFFER ZONE? In June of 2017, BCHD committed to protect surrounding neighborhoods with a buffer zone of surface parking and greenspace. Why did BCHD abandon protecting the neighbors and instead propose a 100-foot tall building on the north & east; an 8-10 story parking ramp on the southwest, and a 76- foot tall building on the west? (June 2017 Community Working Group presentation by BCHD) WHY DID BCHD IGNORE THE VOICES OF OVER 1,200 SURROUNDING RESIDENTS? BCHD has increased the height and square feet of above ground buildings since the presentation of a petition from neighbors to BCHD and Assemblymember Muratsuchi. BCHD increased compound height from 60-feet to 76-feet to 103-feet and is now at 97-feet.
WHY DOES BCHD CLAIM THE EXISTING CAMPUS IS 76-FEET TALL? Only 0.3% or 968 sqft of the campus's 312,000 sqft is 76-feet tall. The rest of the campus, over 99%, is 51-feet tall or less. Why should BCHD be allowed to go above 51-feet tall?
WHY IS BCHD BUILDING $12,500/MO SENIOR HOUSING THAT IS ONLY AFFORDABLE FOR A SMALL NUMBER OF HERMOSA, MANHATTAN, AND REDONDO RESIDENTS? BCHDs consultant report Exhibit 3-3 shows less than 20% of income qualified senior tenants are expected to be from the three beach cities that own and tax fund BCHD.
WHY SHOULD BCHD BE ALLOWED TO DAMAGE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO LEASE OUR PUBLIC LAND TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER TO HOUSE 80% WEALTHY NONRESIDENTS? The land was condemned by South Bay Hospital and paid for by voter approved bonds.
Why should local residents suffer 100% of the damage from construction and 50-100 years of operation to allow 80% non-resident tenants on our public land?
WHY DID BCHD IGNORE THE DAMAGES ITS LOUD NOISE WILL MAKE? Many studies were presented to BCHD about the mental and physical health damages from noise. Because BCHD wants to build 100-feet tall, it will damage surrounding neighborhood health for 5 years of construction (and longer in operation). BCHD ignored the noise damages and the solution of reducing the height of the massive BCHD compound.
WHY IS BCHD BUILDING AN $8,000 PER MONTH "PACE" (ADULT DAYCARE) FACILITY FOR ONLY 17 RESIDENTS OF MANHATTAN, HERMOSA, AND REDONDO BEACH? BCHD is planning a PACE facility for 400 patients. Only 1 in every 1,000 seniors in the U.S. uses PACE. The three beach cities that own BCHD have only 17,000 seniors, so that's only 17 likely patients or 4% of facility capacity. Over 95% of BCHDs PACE patients will be NON-RESIDENTS based on US averages and will be bussed in using polluting vehicles that add traffic to our streets. 99% of PACE patients receive Medicare and MediCaid and 100% of PACE patients are MediCaid certified for nursing home care. Those are very limiting requirements.
WHY SHOULD REDONDO BEACH RESIDENTS BE FORCED TO ENDURE THE DAMAGES OF BCHD CONSTRUCTION AND CONTINUED OPERATION? Fewer than 10% of the wealthy tenants are predicted to be from Redondo Beach according to BCHD Exhibit 3-3. About 2% of the PACE patients are expected to be from Redondo Beach. Why should Redondo Beach suffer 100% of the damages for generations for trivial benefits?
HOW IS A 100-FOOT TALL COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE EDGE OF A 30-FOOT ELEVATED SITE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS? Surrounding Torrance and Redondo Beach neighborhoods have height limits of 30-feet and below. BCHD believes that it has a RIGHT to build to heights over 150-feet above the neighbors. That cannot be compatible with Conditional Use, Design Review, or Design Guidelines.
WHY DOES BCHD REFUSE TO USE LOW-COST PUBLIC BONDS TO BUILD THIS AS A PUBLIC FACILITY? BCHD is planning to lease our public land to a commercial developer to make a for-profit facility. Why is BCHD circumventing voters that could provide low-cost bond financing, the same way they did for the South Bay Hospital?
Email these and any other concerns to the Redondo Beach Council and Planning Commission at [email protected] and [email protected] BCHD must be able to answer these questions and more - and honestly - its doubtful they have answers.
--
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.
From: Stop BCHD
To: [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - RB GPAC Chair Removal
Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 3:18:07 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Mayors and Councils of Torrance and Redondo Beach:
Redondo Beach General Plan Advisory Chair Biro continues to represent BCHD before the City of Redondo Beach via an approximately $300,000 no-bid contract issued by BCHD. Biro should be removed from the Redondo Beach GPAC for conflict. At a minimum, Biro should be removed from at least the following GPAC functions and topics: scheduling, BCHD, RCFE, PACE, zoning, land use, residential design guidelines, recommendations to the Planning Commission, or open space.
--
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.
From: Tim Ozenne
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment- BCHD Contract with Mr. Nicholas Biro Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 7:12:45 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Attn: Ms. Manzao: I ask that you forward copies of this to the mayor, council, and city attorney as a public comment to tonight's council meeting. I looked to send in an "comment" but the navigation was hard to understand and the system rejects lengthy comments.
Mayor, Council and City Attorney:
I am writing you today seeking that the City of Redondo Beach be made aware of what seems to me, as a layman, to be an obvious conflict of interest and to ask that you take steps to correct this.
As you may know, Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) has filed a pre-application for a Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for very substantial new facilities on its property at 514 N. Pacific Coast Highway. On November 12, 2021, the BCHD's Chief Financial Officer stated in a memo for consideration by the BCHD Board, that the Board should approve a consulting contract with Blue Mountain Development, a firm owned by Nicholas Biro, and that the purpose of that contract was to guide the submission and completion of applications pertaining to the BCHD development plans. On February 24, Mr. Biro submitted the pre-application to the Redondo Community Development Department.
Mr. Biro is, of course, quite well known among Redondo's planning people. As stated in the November 12 memo, "Blue Mountain Development is a real estate professional consulting services firm with over 20 years of experience in real estate, specializing in project delivery of development projects including large scale master plans. The Company has experience in Redondo Beach, and has navigated communications required, like with Planning Commissions, Building and Safety Departments, City Councils, etc. Mr. Nicholas Biro is the President of Blue Mountain Development and currently serves on the District Property Committee. " Indeed, he has served as a commissioner for the BR Planning Commission, the Harbor Commission and now heads the General Plan Advisory Commission.
I don't doubt that Mr. Biro is both talented and experienced. However, he is also on the BCHD Properties Committee, described by BCHD as follows: "The Properties Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibility for managing District properties. The Committee is responsible for policy advice to the Board on property assets; acquisition, development, leasing and disposition of District properties; lease negotiation oversight; and capital development plans." Indeed, his experience and contacts were likely important in his selection to guide" the Redondo permit application
However, it seems apparent to me that Mr. Biro should be recused, if that is the property term, from any and all involvement with the current BCHD applications. To me, and I suspect to most other members of the public, it would be a clear conflict of interest to have him working for both the BCHD Properties Committee and for the Redondo Beach General Plan Advisory Commission.
Furthermore, I would also suggest that everyone in the RB planning community be made aware of the contract he has with BCHD. That contract pays him a monthly fee of $13,500 per month but also includes a success fee of $54,000 if he gets the needed approvals in 12 months. Shouldn't any planning staff personnel he calls or meets should know of his financial incentives if the permits are issued? To the extent he is merely ensuring everything is done by the book, knowing of his incentive would not seem to matter, so full disclosure would not matter. But if he seeks additional information or assistance based on his long-standing relationships with staff members, perhaps realizing his financial stake would matter.
Thank you for your attention.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; CityClerk; Brandy Forbes; Michael Webb; Martinez, Oscar Cc: Paul Novak
Subject: Re: Public Comment - CUP Determination for BCHD Proposed 793,000 sqft, 103-foot tall RCFE/PACE/Medical Office Building Project
Date: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:26:50 PM
Attachments: BCHD CUP de novo Review Required Final 12-3-21.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The public comment below (email and PDF) is being resubmitted, as recently, BCHD's CEO has been informing the public that BCHD already has a valid and usable CUP for 60 memory care units (120 beds) and is only required to gain a CUP for the incremental units.
That is simply not true. The current CUP in use by Silverado was for conversion of existing hospital rooms inside the 514 building. A new build, in a different building, at a different location of the site has whoilly different impacts that what was originally permitted. RCFE is a conditional use, not a "by right" use.
For example, under the BCHD CEO's tortured logic, BCHD could new build a 6-story building with 10 rooms per floor, on the farthest extremes of the lot and not require a new CUP. That is simply nonsensical.
BCHDs CUP for existing 60 rooms of memory care should be invalidated at the time of decommissioning of the 514 building. The new, 110-foot tall above Beryl Street, 300,000 sqft RCFE facility is a unique permitting requirement.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 8:00 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:
Mayors, City Councils, Planning Commissioners, City Attorney and Planning Directors of Torrance and Redondo Beach:
BCHD has engaged a member of its Board-approved Properties Committee to a roughly $300,000 no-bid contract to develop and prosecute a Conditional Use Permit for BCHDs proposed Staples Center-sized project. The contract contains a bonus payment for completion within 1 year. The attached document contains excerpts from various City of Redondo Beach CUP applications, planning commission memos, and council resolutions regarding the failed Sunrise memory care project and the current Silverado project in the 514 N Prospect Medical Office Building. It is very clear that all CUP deliberation and CEQA review was conditioned exclusively on the conversion of internal space in the 514 MOB. Therefore, BCHD's future CUP consideration must set aside the existing record and be conducted with a de novo standard of review.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer
cc: LALAFCO Record of BCHD Activity
BCHD’s Conditional Use Permit Application Must be Subject to de novo Review CEO Bakaly has previously asserted that BCHD may not even require a new CUP for its proposed project and may be able to reuse the existing CUP of Silverado. Further, Bakaly recently asserted that the City was bound by the prior CUP and Design Review Findings.
That assertion is in error and BCHD’s CUP application must be subject to de novo review and processing. The prior underlying CUP was conditioned on the conversion of an existing facility and bears no relationship to the current over 100-foot tall, roughly 250,000 sqft RCFE proposal by BCHD.
In fact, the proposed Campus Master Plan requires the demolition of the existing 514 Medical Office Building (MOB) also referred to as the failed former South Bay Hospital building. Further, the information regarding the facility size, occupancy, non-resident tenancy level, and other consideration required to protect the surrounding uses and process the permit are stale. Thus, all findings of the prior CUP are inapplicable to the new build facility.
The publication description that underlies the current CUP is reproduced below and quite clearly conditions any issuance on the use of the existing 514 MOB.
Further, BCHD provided additional confirmation of the request being conditioned on the use of the existing building
The subsequent amendment for the use of Silverado also clearly stated the use was limited to the existing building and conversion of beds and its publication description is reproduced below.
And again, BCHD via a CPRA response provides confirmation that the 2010 action was conditioned on the use of the existing building:
Specifically, Findings 1(a) through 1(c) of the 2010 case above are conditioned on the exclusive use of the existing 514 MOB and the conversion of existing beds for memory care use. Those findings cannot be generalized to the proposed BCHD project for a facility with general assisted living, memory care, approximately 5-times the square feet, and over twice the height of 99.7% of the existing campus buildings. The proposed plan requires demolition of the 514 “existing” MOB, the basis of the prior CUP and its amendment.
Further, the entirety of Finding 2 (2(a) through 2(d)) is inapplicable to the proposed BCHD project. Finding 2 refers exclusively to the reuse of the existing 514 MOB. Findings 3, 4 and 5 are specific to the 2010 request and are also irrelevant to the proposed BCHD project. Given the irrelevance and non-applicability of the Findings to the proposed BCHD project, it follows that the Conditions and any subsequent decisions are irrelevant to the proposed BCHD project as well.
With regard to the concluded need for the facility in the 2005 application, the following claim was asserted based on the conditions in place over 15 years ago:
A review of the 2005 record fails to provide any documented support for the claim as stated, so it is unclear if it were an accurate claim even then. Recent concerns regarding safety, drug use, and homelessness on the BCHD campus yielded public comments from outside the three beach cities that own and fund BCHD, clearly demonstrating that Silverado is using Redondo Beach P-CF publicly zoned land to serve mostly non-residents of both Redondo Beach and the three beach cities.
According to the CEQA record of BCHD, the project proponent and self-certifying lead agency, 92% of the RCFE tenancy will be from outside Redondo Beach and 81% will be from outside the three beach cities. Hence, with 100% of the construction and operation damages and property devaluation damaging Redondo Beach, it is very difficult to imagine that the project has any net benefit to Redondo Beach residents. It seems far more likely to assert that the project net damages the area.
Therefore, BCHD must provide a CUP application and that application requires de novo review, setting aside the current use and any prior approvals based on stale data and changed conditions. The proposed project is significantly changed from the proposed Sunrise and existing Silverado projects including:
roughly 400% increase in the number of rooms;
roughly 500% increase in square footage;
practical doubling of facility height compared to 99.7% of the current campus; move to the far north perimeter of the lot adjacent to young, lower income, brown nonhomeowners with limited financial and political ability to protect themselves from BCHD’s proposed project;
demolition of the “existing” building that was referred to in both the 2006 and 2010 publication descriptions; and
no foreseeable net benefits (local benefits less damages) to Redondo Beach residents.
The existing conditional use permit is fully conditioned on the use of an existing, permitted facility and bears no relationship to the much larger, taller, perimeter located facility that BCHD proposes.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer