J.1- Blue Folder — Redondo Beach City Council, April 5, 2022

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
April 5, 2022
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Letter from Planning Commission regarding outdoor living space requirements • Public Communication regarding park policies & RB Sailing Club • Multiple Public Communications regarding BCHD
Mayor and City Council:

The Planning Commission has seen a number of applications that meet the letter of the regulations for outdoor living space, but do not meet the intent, in the opinion of the Planning Commissioners, for addressing quality of life in the neighborhoods and within our City. The projects tend not to provide usable outdoor space. They maximize indoor space and minimize outdoor space. These proposed changes are to better align the regulations with the intent and provide balance.

The current regulations prioritized design over function when they were created. With changing trends in development, and since the regulations for outdoor living space were initially adopted over 25 years ago, the Planning Commission concurs that the zoning code on outdoor living space is antiquated. The Planning Commission is providing this clarifying language to address the concerns.

The Planning Commission voted to forward these proposed revisions to the City Council on January 21, 2021. This letter officially conveys these recommendations to the City Council.

Sincerely,
Redondo Beach Planning Commission
Matthew Hinsley
Gwenn Godek
Rob Gaddis
Doug Boswell
Sheila Lamb
Attachments
Planning Commission reasoning on revising Outdoor Living Space Proposed code amendments
Community Development Department
Planning Division
415 Diamond Street, P.O. Box 270
Redondo Beach, California 90277-0270
www.redondo.org
tel: 310 318-0637
fax: 310 372-8021
[email protected]
OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENTS-M/C 10-2.1510

EXISTING
Private Patio Private Balcony Private Deck Roof Deck Public Exterior Courts, Pools
and Activity
Areas
Public Interior
Recreation
Rooms
Required and
Non
Required
Setbacks
Min
Dimensions10x10 feet=100sqft.
5x10 feet=50sq ft. 10x10 feet=100 sq
ft.
15 x15 feet=
225sq. ft
20x20 feet=400
sq. ft.
20x20 feet= 400
sq. ft.
10 feet in
width
Qualifying Enclosed by no
more than 3
sides/on same
level/50% open to
the sky on same
level unit that
they serve.

Enclosed by no
more than 3
sides/50%on same
level/open to the
sky /on same level
unit that they
serve.

Enclosed by no
more than 3
sides/on same
level/50%open to
the sky /on same
level unit that they
serve.

Not less than
20% total area
devoted to
decorative
landscaping.

Remaining area
surfaced for
recreational
activities.

Immediately
adjacent to a
public space that
qualifies as an
outdoor living
space
Sole use of
one dwelling
Calculating Shall be counted
100% based on
actual area if
adjacent to
communal area
Shall be counted
100% based on
actual area if
adjacent to
communal area
Shall be counted
100% based on
actual area if
adjacent to
communal area
Shall be
counted 15%
of their actual
area
Shall be counted
100% but may
not comprise
more than 50%
of total
development.

Shall be counted
100%
Shall be
counted
100%
Exceptions Counted as 50% if
not adjacent to
communal area.

Bonus 150% bonus of
actual area
counted with min.
dimension of 7x10
feet if adjacent to
communal area
Bonus 200% bonus of actual
area counted with
min. dimension of
10x15 feet if adjacent
to communal area.
200% bonus of actual
area counted with min.
dimension of 10x15
feet if adjacent to
communal area.
200% bonus of actual
area counted with min.
dimension of 10x15
feet if adjacent to
communal area.
1 OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENTS-M/C 10-2.1510

OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT BY ZONE
R1 R1A R2 R3/R3A RMD MU2 RH1/RH2 RH3
800 sq. ft 400 sq ft 200 sq. ft.

Single
Family
800 sq. ft 800 sq. ft 800 sq. ft 800 sq. ft
Condo 450 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft
Multi
Family
Unit
400 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft
2 OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENTS-M/C 10-2.1510

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Per M/C 10-2.1510-

1. Minimum area requirement for outdoor living space=300 square feet. Note: RH violates at 200 sq. ft.

2. Minimum dimension for outdoor living space=10 Feet

BONUS CALCULATIONS

1. Balcony=150% bonus for 7x10 feet (70 sq feet) -Developer/homeowner receives a total credit of 105 sq. ft. (versus 70 sq. feet) toward meeting the minimum requirement for the zone. (See above).

2. Balcony, patio, deck =200% bonus for a 10x15(150 sq. feet) -Developer/homeowner receives a total credit of 300 sq. feet (versus 150 sq. feet) toward meeting the minimum requirement for the zone. (See above); 3 OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENTS-M/C 10-2.1510

CHANGES
Private Patio and
Deck
Private Balcony Private Patio and
Deck
Private/Public
Roof Deck
Public Exterior
Courts, Pools
and Activity
Areas
Public Interior
Recreation
Rooms
Required and
Non-Required
Setbacks
Min
Dimensions1015x10 feet=100150 sq. ft.
5x10 feet=50sq ft. 7x10 feet=70 sq. ft. 15 x15 feet=
225sq. ft
20x20 feet=400
sq. ft. BMP
Encouraged
20x20 feet= 400
sq. ft.
10 feet in
width x 10 feet
Qualifying Enclosed by no
more than 3
sides/50% open
to the sky on the
same level unit
that they serve.

Enclosed by no
more than 3
sides/50% open to
the sky /on the
same level unit
that they serve.

Not less than
20% total area
devoted to
decorative
landscaping.

Remaining area
surfaced for
recreational
activities.

Immediately
adjacent to a
public space that
qualifies as an
outdoor living
space.

Sole use of
one dwelling
Calculating Shall be counted
100% based on
actual area if
adjacent to
communal area
Shall be counted
100% 50% based
on actual area if
adjacent to
communal area
Shall be counted
75% based on
actual area if
adjacent to
communal area
Shall be
counted 15%
of their actual
area
Shall be counted
100% 50% but
may not
comprise more
than 50% of
total OLS for
development.

Shall be counted
100% 50% but
may not comprise
more than 25% of
total OLS for
development.

Rear setbacks
in R-2, R-3,
R-3A and RMD
zones shall be
counted 75%.

All other zones
100%.

Exceptions Counted as 50% if
not adjacent to
communal area.

Single
Family
800 sq. ft 800 sq. ft 800 sq. ft 800 sq. ft
Condo 450 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 200 300 sq. ft Multi
Family
Unit
400 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 350 sq. ft. 200 300 sq. ft
5 From: Gale Hazeltine
To: CityClerk
Subject: J 1
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 5:03:36 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hi Eleanor,
Can you please include my letter into the Blue Folder. (I believe that’s the place. See below) Thanks!
Gale
Dear City Council,
The Planning Commission voted to forward to you the important subject of Outdoor Living Space requirement in Redondo Beach. The amount of outdoor space a city requires ensures there is adequate open space for light, air, trees, native plants, wildlife and it encourages outdoor activities. I support the revisions put forward by the Planning Commission.

Thank you,
Gale Hazeltine
District 1
10 Jan, 2022
To: Members of the Redondo Beach Planning commission
City of Redondo Beach
From: Mr. Manuel George
Plinth Design Group
627 Aviation Way
Manhattan Beach, Calif.
90266
310-753-4180
E-Mail: [email protected]
R Re: Proposed Amendments to the Outdoor Living Space currently in effect
Dear Commissioners,
After reviewing the Planning Department’s review and assessment (OLS Sample Site Plans. PC Planning Department meeting 011.22.21) of the potential for possible changes to the Outdoor Livable Space requirements currently in effect, I am compelled to speak out against this change for the following reasons.

After reviewing the various Study Vignette’s depicting the Planning Department’s various Design concepts for different property sizes, it came to my attention that a huge misleading aspect was consistently portrayed through out.

The brief explanation at the beginning of each explains the current arrangement relative to unit size (square footage) and proposed Outdoor Living Space (OLS) removed from the overall unit size. For example lets use the Vignette “Scenario 2: Proposed OLS Requirements Option B:” as this is not only the most common of the 3 Unit Properties in Redondo but also the most reflective of the problem.

In the assessment it states an initial unit size of 2040 Sq. Ft. Then 300 OLS is pulled out of the first (ground level) leaving a 360 Sq. Ft. remainder on that floor.

This is done consistently with all the vignettes. What no one has apparently thought about is just how big that 360 Sq. Ft. remainder really is.

1. Being a two story building there are things that, regardless of design and layout, will have to be included.

Entry 6’ x 6’ = 36 Sq. Ft.

Stairs 7’ x 13’ = 91 Sq. Ft.

Hall adjacent to the stairs 3’ x 13’ = 39 Sq. Ft.

Powder room 6’ x 6’ = 36 Sq. Ft.
some kind of closet (if a bedroom down Stairs)3’ x 8’ = 24 Sq. Ft. total essential support items= = 226 Sq. Ft
Remainder usable living area : 360 Sq. Ft. - 226 Sq. Ft. = 134 Sq. Ft remainder.

To allow this OLS area on the first floor and USE this area, we need to get the new reduced proposed 100% increase which, to get we need this OLS off the Kitchen, Dinning Room and Living room space.

This in practice leaves these three spaces each 6’ x 8’ long. This might sound large to some but when you go home tonight, actually measure these rooms in your house and see what your left with. This just isn’t practicable, and no one would want to live in a space with these jail cell proportions! The effect will in fact be in the size of units that are built, which from these vignettes goes from 2040 Sq. Ft. down to 1585 Sq. ft. each. That’s a 455 Sq. Ft. reduction, times 3 = 1365 Sq. Ft. total reduction in buildable area. At todays market value that’s $985,000.00.

In my experience working in this city I have never had a couple designing their new home tell me “ wait, I need that deck twice the size!” They are the ones living in these homes and are much more qualified than you or I are to know weather they need twice the OLS to be happier or not. Front facing Garages are another issue, however that’s a conversation for a later time.

The next important consideration, which I hate to bring up is the Financial impact to the current property owners. Everyone likes to complain about the Greedy builders in this City Reaping havoc with the property owners by building these massive units. News flash here. This will not effect the Builders in any way.

The Builders or the Planning Department does not control the direction of what is built in the community. It is the new generation of Families that want to buy and live In this great City. The Builders just build what they want to live in. That is not a bad or undesirable thing.

What does that means in real terms to the property owner that currently owns that property? The owners that have lived in Redondo for the last 20 or 25 years,

2. who have raised their kids, with them now out of the house and are now looking to down size and sell? They’re going to be facing the reality of the fact that out of their resentment of the building community, and what appears to be the lack of foresight on the Planning Commission’s part, their retirement has just been slashed in half.

I want to be clear that I have nothing to gain or loose by the actions of the Planning Commission or the City Council regarding this issue before you. The only effect I will encounter is how to make an apartment unit look like something someone would want to own. However, I have been listening to these Meetings and Proceedings for over 35 years. What I never hear in the discussions or read in the minutes is how does a change of this magnitude ultimately effect the property owners?
Reach out and let them decide. This deserves more community input than what is normally giving with little notice to the Design community for input.

Regardless of the outcome on this issue, we really won’t know the hard reality of our actions in the next 3 months for a year or so, when the new generation of building designs reflecting this new direction that you choose start coming down to the planning department. I fear that with where I think this will all end up, the changes that you are proposing will do nothing for the City environment other than put it back to the 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment buildings of yesteryear.

Regards,
Manuel George

3. From: Barbara Epstein
To: Bill Brand; CityClerk
Cc: Todd Loewenstein; Nils Nehrenheim; Zein Obagi; Cameron Harding; Mike Witzansky Subject: Parks Policies
Date: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:15:08 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Please forward to the Recreation and Parks Commission
Disclaimer: I am writing as a resident, not representing anyone but myself.

Dear Mayor Brand, Councilmen Loewenstein, Nehrenheim, and Obagi, Director Harding, and City Manager Witzansky,
Though I am retired from the SBPC Board, I have long been very excited about the 45th Birthday Celebration and Earth Day Weekend coming up April 23 and 24. I am hoping you can be there with us.

Today I’m writing to say that Wilderness Park users will not be able to find enough parking in the coming weeks. I understand that the city will be using several spaces there for a planned improvement project, taking up several scarce parking spaces. My concern has always been that there will not be enough parking for all the participants who will want to come.

Parking is already short. I was there Saturday to check out the new plants, and had a hard time finding parking on an ordinary Saturday. There is no street parking.

My question - Is there any other place for the city to park needed vehicles for the improvement project, other than Wilderness Park?
My hope is that the city can re-think the current custom of using public parkland for non-park uses. A few years back I learned that we gave Dominguez Park land to a utility company to use for their operations. Sorry, I was horrified!
Everyone knows that we are very short of public space for our citizens to enjoy. The Pickle-ball people are still waiting. Finding space for skateboarding has been torture.

I am hoping that we can develop an ironclad policy to protect public lands, especially park lands, from private or non-appropriate use. This would apply to the Beach Cities Health District’s planned project on public land, as well.

To me, privatization of public land and resources should be considered a crime, yet it has become a tradition here in Redondo.

Thank you all for your consideration, and for all you do for Redondo Beach.

Best Regards,
Barbara Epstein
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk; Jerald Pancake
Subject: City Council, Non-Agenda Item Comment
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:50:23 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Re: March 13th Redondo Beach City Council virtual meeting, Redondo Beach Sailing Club discussion
Thank you Redondo Beach Mayor and Council! It was refreshing and heartening to see City leadership stand up in support of the Redondo Beach Sailing non-profit organization and our gem of a harbor. For the past several decades, in partnership with the City, the Redondo Beach Sailing Club’s goals are, and always have been to promote fellowship through sailing and the enjoyment of our unique ocean harbor.

Thank you, City Council and Mayor, for navigating this issue in a positive direction.

We look forward to reinvigorating the relationship so more folks can enjoy the blessings of sailing and our beautiful harbor and ocean.

Jerry Pancake, Redondo Beach Sailing Club member and former Club Secretary Best Wishes!
[email protected]
><((((º>`•. .• `•... ><((((º>
`•. .• `•. ><((((º> `•...

From: BCHD DEIR
To: [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: BCHD Board Public Comment - Redevelopment Project Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 5:58:01 PM
Attachments: image.png
BCHD is spending $16M Total to BUY building permits for a Commercial Developer to use.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD is spending $16M Total to BUY building permits for a Commercial Developer to use
BCHD has scheduled $16M in our tax dollars so it can BUY the permits a commercial developer will need so that the DEVELOPER - NOT BCHD - can build/own/operate a $12K a month senior housing for 80% non-residents of the 3 beach cities.

And for the $4.5M in Architecture fees, BCHD is getting a recycled 1955 design that is INCOMPATIBLE/INCONSISTENT/IRRESPONSIBLE with the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
cc: Public Comment
Torrance Mayor, Council and Planning Commission
Redondo Beach Mayor, Council and Planning Commission
Manhattan Beach Mayor and Council (owner of BCHD)
Hermosa Beach Mayor and Council (owner of BCHD)
--
BCHD DEIR is a group of local residents surrounding the former South Bay Hospital site. Our primary goal is to protect the neighborhood character, health/safety, and property values from BCHD's excessive commercial development. BCHD's plan is to build luxury, unaffordable for most, $12,500 per month senior housing for 80%+ non-residents of the three beach cities that formed, own and tax fund BCHD. BCHD also plans to build a 400 patient PACE (adult daycare) facility that is expected to serve only 16 local seniors - with the other 96% of PACE patients being transported in and out of the city daily via bus/car services.

F om h
To CityCle k
Subject Evidence Of ope ty Value Decl ne
Date Monday Ap l 4 2022 4 08 43 M
CAUTION Email is from an external source Stop Look and Think before opening attachments or links. > Honorable City of Redondo Beach Mayor and City Councils. > My name is Abbes Khani. I am a resident of the city of Torrance since 1983. BCHD has no statutory authority to negati ely impact my life and my possession in any shape or manner. BCHD’s consultant company Wood being well aware of Real Estate alue decline of the adjacent residential neighborhood by consent of BCHD’s CEO and Board of Directors del berately ha e not addressed the neighborhood’s Real Estate aluation impact in their DEIR. Appro al of any such project needs to address remedial/monitory compensations for ad ersely impacted neighbors. To illustrate the property alue decline I am disclosing following > I placed my property at 567 Towers street on market for sale on 11/6/2019. All poten ial buyers withdrew their interest from buying my property upon learning about outstanding BCHD HLC RCFE. As the result by consent of my real estate agent I remo ed my property from listing hoping the ssue will be rectified by city of Redondo Beach responsible authorities. To document detrimental impact of BCHD HLC RCFE I am pro iding below a copy of “Addendum No. 1” (prepared by my brokerage firms that time) as e idence of real estate property decline resulting from BCHD HLC RCFE project. I plea to your good conscience not to grant BCHD “Conditional Use Permit” to build it’s massi e HLC RCFE. > With Great Respect
> Abbes Khani
>
>
From: Volney Howard
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:14:34 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

I am communicating several concerns about the BCHD proposed project in advance of BCHDs formal permit filing with the City. Along with neighbors, I am very concerned about the negative impacts of BCHDs proposal to nearly triple the size of the campus buildings and build on the edges of the site at 110-feet above Beryl and Flagler streets.

TRANSPARENT PERMIT PROCESSING
I am requesting that you direct the Planning Commission and Planning Staff to make the BCHD permitting process 100% transparent to the public. Two taxpayer funded government agencies should not hide behind any disclosure exclusions in the California Public Records Act. Instead, agencies should be completely transparent and publish each and every document on the internet for public access within 3 days of sending or receipt. Because one agency is the project developer, I request that the City make all documents public.

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

In general, we are concerned about the 110-foot above the street height and its destruction of local privacy; the construction of the senior living, parking ramp, and pavilion building on the edges of the elevated site without respect for the natural terrain; the inconsistency and incompatibility of the buildings and design with the surrounding neighborhoods; the non-conformity with RDGs of the nearly 800,000 sqft final size that will be larger than all Beryl Heights homes taken together; and the non-compliance with the intent of the Torrance HODS caused by the development’s height, outward facing windows and balconies, position on the edge of campus, and the 8-10 story, 24-hour operation parking structure.

Along with others, I will continue to participate in the BCHD permitting process, however, we all rely upon the City to be transparent and provide us with full information in real-time in order to have intelligent participation and protect our neighborhoods.

Thank you.

From: Pam Absher
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:33:19 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

As a resident of Redondo Beach, and one who drives Prospect frequently, I am passing this on to the City of Redondo Beach. I am asking that this project be stopped.....it is not conducive for the neighborhood where the property is located.

Pam Absher
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022, 02:49:45 PM PDT
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

Thank you.

From: Podegracz
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: FW: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 8:44:25 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From Greg Podegracz, Torrance Resident near Beryl and Flagler.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

PROPERTY VALUE PROTECTION
One explicit purpose of the PCDR is to protect property values. Within a one-half mile radius of the project, there is over $2.6B in single family property value and an additional $1.1B in multi-family value. Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing. In general, we are concerned about the 110-foot above the street height and its destruction of local privacy; the construction of the senior living, parking ramp, and pavilion building on the edges of the elevated site without respect for the natural terrain; the inconsistency and incompatibility of the buildings and design with the surrounding neighborhoods; the non-conformity with RDGs of the nearly 800,000 sqft final size that will be larger than all Beryl Heights homes taken together; and the non-compliance with the intent of the Torrance HODS caused by the development’s height, outward facing windows and balconies, position on the edge of campus, and the 8-10 story, 24-hour operation parking structure.

Thank you.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: BCHD is put on formal notice regarding willful non-compliance with CPRA Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 5:06:34 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment to RB Council Record
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:03 PM
Subject: BCHD is put on formal notice regarding willful non-compliance with CPRA To: Communications <[email protected]>, Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]>, Noel Chun <[email protected]>, Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>, Jane Diehl <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: Paul Novak <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Due to BCHDs refusal to provide timely CPRA responses, 228 citizens in the BCHD HLC processing, the Redondo Beach CUP and the Redondo Beach PCDR processes are being denied their ability for full public participation.

Mark Nelson
From: Mary Watkins
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:04:45 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From Mary Watkins; ; homeowner for 28 years
Please, please, heed us!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022, 2:48 PM
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
CC:

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs preCUP filing. In general, we are concerned about the 110-foot above the street height and its destruction of local privacy; the construction of the senior living, parking ramp, and pavilion building on the edges of the elevated site without respect for the natural terrain; the inconsistency and incompatibility of the buildings and design with the surrounding neighborhoods; the non-conformity with RDGs of the nearly 800,000 sqft final size that will be larger than all Beryl Heights homes taken together; and the non-compliance with the intent of the Torrance HODS caused by the development’s height, outward facing windows and balconies, position on the edge of campus, and the 8-10 story, 24-hour operation parking structure.

Thank you.

From: Paul Lieberman
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:33:56 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 4, 2022, 2:48 PM
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

From: Stephen Parker
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:29:19 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Apr 4, 2022 2:48 pm
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

Thank you.

Stephen Parker
Redondo Homeowner
From: Aileen Pavlin
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 6:17:14 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: April 4, 2022 at 2:48:44 PM PDT
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

From: William Shanney
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 6:18:37 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

Thank you.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 6:19:15 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From Mark Nelson, Redondo Beach
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 2:48 PM
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

From: Paula Shoda
To: CityClerk; Stop Bchd
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 7:44:22 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Redondo Beach Mayor and City Council,
Please stop this misuse by BCHD of public funds and lands for privatization. You will be doing us irreparable harm for generations. This unnecessary behemoth will be an eyesore blocking our sunlight and breezes, inflicting hazardous traffic, noise, and pollution on our quiet residential area. It is unbelievable that the plans keep growing and edging the cliff towards our homes. It simply does not fit.

Sincerely,
The Shoda family
West Torrance
Begin forwarded message:

From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: April 4, 2022 at 2:48:46 PM PDT
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

From: Hamant and Robin Patel
To: CityClerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 7:54:15 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

Robin Patel
From: ROBERT LEVY
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 2:57:05 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From LuJean & Robert Levy
>
> Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:
>
> I am communicating several concerns about the BCHD proposed project in advance of BCHDs formal permit filing with the City. Along with neighbors, I am very concerned about the negative impacts of BCHDs proposal to nearly triple the size of the campus buildings and build on the edges of the site at 110-feet above Beryl and Flagler streets.
>
> TRANSPARENT PERMIT PROCESSING
> I am requesting that you direct the Planning Commission and Planning Staff to make the BCHD permitting process 100% transparent to the public. Two taxpayer funded government agencies should not hide behind any disclosure exclusions in the California Public Records Act. Instead, agencies should be completely transparent and publish each and every document on the internet for public access within 3 days of sending or receipt. Because one agency is the project developer, I request that the City make all documents public. >
> NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION
> Along with many other surrounding neighbors of BCHD, I want to be certain that BCHD is held to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR), and Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) criteria. I am also concerned that Torrance residents be protected by BCHDs compliance to the intent of the Hillside Overlay Development Standards (HODS). The HODS protect the privacy and other residential conditions of the many Torrance residents surrounding the project. >
> PROPERTY VALUE PROTECTION
> One explicit purpose of the PCDR is to protect property values. Within a one-half mile radius of the project, there is over $2.6B in single family property value and an additional $1.1B in multi-family value. Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home. >
> CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
> Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing. In general, we are concerned about the 110-foot above the street height and its destruction of local privacy; the construction of the senior living, parking ramp, and pavilion building on the edges of the elevated site without respect for the natural terrain; the inconsistency and incompatibility of the buildings and design with the surrounding neighborhoods; the non-conformity with RDGs of the nearly 800,000 sqft final size that will be larger than all Beryl Heights homes taken together; and the non-compliance with the intent of the Torrance HODS caused by the development’s height, outward facing windows and balconies, position on the edge of campus, and the 8-10 story, 24-hour operation parking structure.
>
> Along with others, I will continue to participate in the BCHD permitting process, however, we all rely upon the City to be transparent and provide us with full information in real-time in order to have intelligent participation and protect our neighborhoods.
>
> Thank you.

LuJean & Robert Levy
From: Warren Croft
To: CityClerk
Cc: Stop BCHD
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:32:23 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

Warren Croft
From: Tim Ozenne
To: CityClerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 6:48:28 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Below are comments regarding BCHD's redevelopment project provided by StopBCHD. I agree with these comments, of course. I would just add two items:
(1) Redondo has development rules requiring "compatibility" with the neighborhood. No one who has looked at the proposal would imagine that the proposed structures, placed as near as possible to surrounding homes, are compatible. BCHD makes much of height reductions while ignoring increases in mass and proximity to homes. (2) In the case of the Kensington facility approved by the RB city council, the facility was plainly stated to be "private" rather than "public," and its approval included corresponding property taxes. I expect any approvals for the BCHD project would be consistent with the Kensington treatment.

Sincerely,
Tim Ozenne
NW Torrance
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

From: joyce field
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Over Building
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:11:22 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

Thank you. Joyce Field
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Desired Generator and Fuel Storage on Diamond Date: Sunday, March 27, 2022 2:23:49 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD FEIR fails to include any noise, vibration or emissions analysis from its desired 2000kW backup generator near the Diamond culdesac.

Further, BCHD FEIR fails to include the backup fuel storage specification, size, explosiveness, or periodicity of test use.

As such, BCHD FEIR does not include the backup generation and will require defect correction and comments.
--
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: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Paul Novak
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected]; Letters Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Out of District Expenditures of Taxpayer Funds Date: Friday, March 18, 2022 12:24:42 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To: LA LAFCO for Civil Grand Jury, MSR, and Malfeasance Review cc: Mayors and Councils of Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beach (owners of BCHD) cc: Electeds
BCHD is 100% funded by the property tax revenues of Hermosa, Manhattan and Redondo Beach and the revenues from taxpayer assets, such as the campus of the failed public South Bay Hospital.

BCHD "IMAGE" ADVERTISING REVEALS 45% OF BCHD COVID VACCINES

FOR NON-RESIDENTS
In what are estimated to be several thousand dollar$ in pure "image" ads, without call to action or current health advisories, BCHD indicates that BCHD administered 45% of Covid vaccines to non-residents.

LA COUNTY DATA DEMONSTRATES 84% OF BCHD COVID TESTING FOR

NON-RESIDENTS
LA County Department of Public Health's data demonstrated that BCHD's Covid testing was for over 84% non-residents (see BCHD CPRA response Mon, Sep 14, 2020, 3:42 PM). Thus, this is plain evidence to LALAFCO and the three Cities that own and fund BCHD that BCHD is collecting funding from the three cities and spending that funding in areas that have made no contribution to the district's formation or operation for over 60 years.

BCHDs failure to use taxpayer funding and assets exclusively for the benefit of the owners severely disadvantages the taxpayer-owners of BCHD that formed the district. The South Bay Hospital District was formed by a public vote to build, own and operate a PUBLIC EMERGENCY HOSPITAL for the benefit of the three beach cities that formed the District.

Voters have made no changes since that approval, and the district has made no change since its certification of public necessity. The hospital district rebranded in 1993 to BCHD, nine years after the failure of South Bay Hospital as a publicly owned and operated facility.

BCHD CONSULTANT STUDY SHOWS 80% OF $12.5K/MO ASSISTED LIVING

WILL BE NON-RESIDENTS
Exhibit 3-3 of BCHDs MDS marketing study (and MDS assertion that 30% of residents will be from outside the area completely) shows that based on income qualified "prospects" for BCHD's expensive, ocean-view, high-rise, 80% of BCHD RCFE tenants are non-residents.

A full analysis and documentation has previously been provided to LALAFCO and is available.

NATIONAL PACE ASSOCIATION DATA SHOWS 96% OF BCHD PACE FACILITY

WILL BE NON-RESIDENTS
THe PACE association data shows that only 1 in 1,000 seniors is enrolled in PACE, and the growth rate of 10% per year suggests that in 7 years, only 2 in 1,000 seniors will use PACE.

There are only 16,000 seniors in the three beach cities, so that amounts to only 16 of the 400 PACE participants. Thus 96% of BCHD PACE facilities will be non-residents. In addition, the zip codes in the BCHD study by MDS are all currently served by LA Coast PACE, so the BCHD service is purely duplicative of the other state-registered PACE.

OBLIGATION TO PROTECT TAXPAYER-OWNERS OF BCHD
BCHD appears to have spent about three-fourths of its $5M Covid budget outside the district based on activity. That is a heavy tax burden on the three beach cities. Further, BCHD is using public property (Redondo Beach P-CF zoned) to build facilities that will be only 4-20% RESIDENT USE and therefore, the BCHD RCFE AND PACE WILL BE 80-96% NONRESIDENT UTILIZED.

BCHD Board member Poster asserts that when the non-residents move into BCHD facilities, they will then be residents, so BCHD actions are justifiable. This ridiculous position of the BCHD Board to attempt building non-resident facilities on land zoned for the Public Benefit of Redondo Beach must be rejected. LALAFCO, the three Cities that own BCHD, and other Electeds are obligated to protect the taxpayers of Redondo, Hermosa and Manhattan Beach and assert formal control over BCHD finances and practices.

Mark Nelson
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Paul Novak; [email protected]; CityClerk; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD withheld planned installation of dangerous Electrical Generation Equipment and Potentially Explosive Fuel Tanks from the Public
Date: Wednesday, March 23, 2022 9:20:35 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Slide1.PNG
Slide2.PNG
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Below is a CPRA response from BCHD where they deliberately withheld from surrounding neighbors information about a potential fire and explosion hazard.

In December 2020, BCHD placed a set of structures on their engineering diagrams and refused to reveal the name or purpose of the diagrams. Eventually, in 2022, BCHD revealed to neighbors less than 100 feet away that the enclosure will contain a 2000 kW electric generator and associated fuel storage. This puts emissions, vibration, and an explosion hazard directly across a residential street from homes and abuts 1410 Diamond following the CIty of Redondo's donation of Flagler Alley to BCHD.

BCHD has continually sought to hide information from the public by hiding behind various CPRA exemptions of release. BCHD asserts it is transparent, but hiding the nature of dangerous industrial equipment and fuel storage from the neighborhoods, after direct CPRA questioning, is unconscionable.

BCHD CEO Bakaly uses the following statement ONLY when it's convenient for BCHD financial motives, such as seeking to demolish the 514 building, but when placing potentially 1000s of gallons of explosive fuel near homes, CEO Bakaly conveniently ignores his own statement of BCHD having a "moral obligation to protect the community." Moral organizations do not deliberately deceive the public and refuse to disclose explosive storage of fuel along with toxic air contaminants that are upwind from neighborhoods and elementary schools.

Mark Nelson
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer
The City of Torrance has upcoming elections. It is important that candidates explain how they will protect Towers and residents from BCHD's non-disclosure and dangerous equipment. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Charlie Velasquez <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: CPRA - Never before seen structures included in Dec 2020 presentation To: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Mark,
Please see below for the District’s response (in red) to your public records request dated 1/8/21 that reads:

Please provide documents explaining the size and purpose of the structures on the BCHD diagram below that appear to be adjacent to the Diamond culdecac:

Your request seeks records that are not related to final determinations, or to records that have not already been published. Such information remains privileged by the District.

Below is additional information/context.

Under the Public Records Act (“PRA”), Cal. Gov. Code § 6254 sets forth certain categories of records that have been exempted from the disclosure requirements of the PRA. These exemptions have been enumerated due to concerns regarding the confidentiality and sensitivity of the information contained therein. Additionally, Cal. Gov. Code § 6255 recognizes that not every specific category of records can be detailed in a statute, and instead sets forth a standard under which any record may be exempt from disclosure if “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” This same balancing-of-interests test is also set forth in the §6254(a) exemption related to preliminary drafts, notes and intra-agency memoranda. One of the important public interests that the California Supreme Court has recognized as exempting documents from disclosure is known as the “deliberative process privilege.”
Under the deliberative process privilege, senior officials of all three branches of government are not required to disclose or to be examined concerning the mental processes by which a given decision was reached, as well as the substance of conversations, discussions, debates, deliberations, and like materials reflecting advice, opinions, and recommendations by which government policy is processed and formulated. California courts have recognized three policy bases for the deliberative process privilege: (1) It protects creative debate and candid consideration of alternatives within an agency, (2) it protects the public from the confusion that would result from premature exposure to discussions occurring before the policies affecting it had actually been settled on, and (3) it protects the integrity of the decision-making process itself by confirming that officials should be judged by what they decide, not for matters they considered before making up their minds. Cal. First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 4th 159 (quoting Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 3d 1325, 1351 [1991], Jordan v. United States Dept. of Justice 591 F.2d 753, 772-773 [D.C. Cir. 1978]). “Courts have been particularly vigilant to protect communications to the decision maker before the decision is made.” Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 3d 1325, 1341 (1991).

Additionally, Cal. Gov. Code § 6254(k) exempts from disclosure records that are otherwise privileged under state law, such as “official information”, which is information provided to a government entity on a confidential basis, and “trade secrets”, such as proprietary tools and assessments developed by a third party.

The identified requests seek exactly the type of pre-decisional information that is protected by the deliberative process privilege, such as proposals, analyses, and preliminary reports that may contain internal discussions and recommendations considered by the District prior to reaching final conclusions.

Covid-19 disclaimer:

Please also note that the District is currently operating under its emergency protocols, which require reallocation of resources to meet the critical needs of the community at this time. As a result, the District’s responses to certain public records requests may require more time than normal. We apologize for the inconvenience, and are committed to working with the public to provide all requested information as soon as reasonably possible.

As a reminder, to date (2019-2021), the District has responded to approximately 195 emails containing approximately 430 individual requests/questions from you. Of the 430 individual request/questions received from you, 336 have been closed/answered, 28 have been withdrawn by you and 66 remain open. The District has determined that your numerous requests for public documents will impose an excessive burden on the District’s limited staff and resources, thereby disrupting its ability to provide due attention to its primary government functions. Several of your most recent requests are overly extensive, over-broad, vague, and in many cases unlimited in time and scope. The District’s public purpose is not well served by diverting its personnel from their normal duties of serving the public to the time consuming task of searching for and reviewing potentially thousands of ill-defined documents on a disparate array of topics. Despite the cumulative impact of your limitless and increasing requests imposing an undue burden on the District, we continue to respond to your requests.

If you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, please resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.

Best Regards,
Charlie Velasquez
Executive Assistant to the CEO
Beach Cities Health District
Ph: 310 374-3426, x 213
Fax: 310-376-4738
www.bchd.org
www.facebook.com/beachcitieshealth
Creating a healthy beach community.

THE PRECEDING E-MAIL, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CONTAINS

INFORMATION THAT MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL, BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY

CLIENT OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES, OR CONSTITUTE NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED ONLY TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE,

PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR

REPRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE BY UNINTENDED RECIPIENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Charlie Velasquez <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - Never before seen structures included in Dec 2020 presentation Please provide documents explaining the size and purpose of the structures on the BCHD diagram below that appear to be adjacent to the Diamond culdecac:

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: RDG Update; CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - GPAC and Biro must be removed from interaction on the Residential Design Guidelines Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 11:28:14 AM
Attachments: Spring 2022 - Final-34-37-compressed.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The GPAC chair is a paid vendor to BCHD and BCHD is pursuing permitting at the City of Redondo Beach that requires compliance with design guidelines. During any processing of the BCHD commercial development activity, GPAC and Biro must be removed for conflict.

The City allows its GPAC chair to sit on a BCHD committee and hold a $300K no-bid contract from BCHD without removing him from GPAC. In addition, the BCHD Finance Director interlocks with BCHD on their Finance Committee.

The City has recently shilled for BCHD by allowing BCHD City endorsed advertising in what is likely both an electronic and hardcopy distribution of official Redondo Beach materials promoting a commercially owned development that is under active consideration by the City for permitting.

In short, the City has made a mess of even the appearance of fiduciary care for property owners, taxpayers and residents and active mitigation is now required.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Abbes Khan
To: CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:59:17 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

Abbes G Khani
Sent from my iPhone
From: Doug Field
To: CityClerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:48:43 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

Thank you.

Doug Field
From: Paul Lieberman
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:11:08 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

Paul and Gretel Lieberman
[email protected]
From: Sharon
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 3:21:42 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From: Sharon Burns, 40 year resident of Redondo Beach
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

Thank you.

From: Tennyson Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comments regarding BCHD Development
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 6:25:06 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayors and City Councils:

As one of the many neighbors surrounding the proposed BCHD development, I worry about the negative impacts of the project's construction and operations. For most people, our homes are our single largest asset, an important part of retirement planning, and the protection of property values is a stated purpose in the Redondo Beach Planning Commission Design Review process.

It is very difficult to see how 5 years of BCHD demolition, heavy equipment operation, loud noise, diesel truck emissions and construction protects property values or neighborhood health. It is also difficult to see how 80-foot tall buildings on the edges of a 30-foot elevated site protect either privacy or property values for surrounding neighbors. As BCHD builds Phase 1 and Phase 2, it will be making a 50 to 100 year irreversible change to neighborhood character, design, property values, traffic patterns, and a host of other factors that, taken together, define our neighborhoods.

Residents and neighbors have banded together to protect our neighborhood character, health, and property values. We have presented a 1,200 signature petition to BCHD and the City, sent many letters of our concerns to BCHD, the Planning Commission and Council, conducted personal and Zoom discussions with BCHD, and put in thousands of hours reading, analyzing, and commenting to BCHD and the CIties of Redondo Beach and Torrance. Taken together, the Conditional Use Permit, Planning Commission Design Review process, and Residential Design Guidelines can provide guardrails against inconsistent and incompatible projects and property value degradation.

As both groups and individuals, we will continue to work with the City Planning departments in Redondo Beach and Torrance to protect our property rights and to receive at least the same treatment as the neighborhood surrounding The Kensington at Knob Hill and PCH. The City of Redondo Beach made a specific finding that The Kensington was "compatible with the type, character, and intensity/density of adjacent residential and commercial uses." It is unimaginable that a nearly 300,000 square foot, 110-foot above the street BCHD building constructed on the far north and east perimeter of the elevated lot could be considered to be "respecting" the site, or be consistent or compatible with the majority surrounding 30-foot limit uses. When taken together, ignoring those three important ordinance criteria cannot be seen as protecting neighborhood character or property values.

We look forward to an open and transparent process that includes the public, our taxpayer funded health district, and the two Cities. The permit applications, responses from the Cities and other agencies, and any correspondence should be readily available throughout the permitting process to assure the neighbors and residents are not excluded. A simple process, such as posting correspondence on the City's website would provide some level of assurance of fair dealing with the public.

We represent our own interests, and the interests of an estimated $2.6B in single family residential property value within a one-half mile radius of BCHD (according to estimates by Orange County firm Melissa Data Corp.) That includes roughly 2,000 homes in Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and Torrance.

I urge the Mayor and Council of Redondo Beach to provide full transparency throughout this entire permitted process, including all documents and correspondence, and to have frequent public meetings to hear the public concerns that have not been heard or incorporated to date.

Non-transparent and secret discussions between the City and BCHD during this critical permitting phase will lead us into another CenterCal debacle, and that can only be avoided by adequate sunshine.

Tennyson Nelson
From: Joan Davidson
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: RE: BCHD
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 4:31:18 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

I have great concerns with the BCHD project that is proposed.

Before the formal permit filing with the City please read my trepidation regarding this enormous project.

There are negative impacts of this proposal not the least of which will nearly triple the size of the campus buildings and build on the edges of the site at 110-feet above Beryl and Flagler streets.

1. Please make any/all disclosures on the project that happen at the city offices to the public.

2. Please make every document available on the internet for public access within 3 days of sending or receipt. Because one agency is the project developer, I request that the City make all documents public.

3. Redondo Beach Neighborhood needs to be protected by any CUP issued.

The Public needs to be apprised of any/all Planning Commission Review process or decisions.

The privacy of every household within Redondo Beach needs to be protected as the Torrance Hillside Overlay protects its' residents.

4. Every home within the 1/2 mile radius of the project is going to be hurt by the mountainous project looming over the area.

This is not in the best interest of the Neighborhood home values.

5. And in fact the quoted rental of the Senior units stated at the $12,000 monthly fee will be greatly increased by today's inflation.

Will these units be affordable to anyone?
What if the units are empty?
Who holds the responsibility for that?

6. The 800,000 sqft final size that will be larger than all Beryl Heights homes taken together; and the non-compliance with the intent of the Torrance HODS caused by the development’s height, outward facing windows and balconies, position on the edge of campus, and the 8-10 story, 24-hour operation parking structure.

I will continue to participate in the BCHD permitting process and we all rely upon the City to be transparent and provide us with full information in real-time in order to have intelligent participation and protect our neighborhoods.

Yours truly,
Joan Davidson
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Bill Brand; Michael Webb; Todd Loewenstein; Nils Nehrenheim; Laura Emdee; Christian Anthony Horvath; Zein Obagi; Christian Horvath; CityClerk
Cc: Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected]
Subject: When did the City of Redondo Beach begin running Advertisements for Commercial Developers? / PUBLIC

COMMENT
Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 11:17:07 AM
Attachments: Spring 2022 - Final-34-37-compressed.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor, Council and City Attorney:

As a Redondo Beach property owner and taxpayer, I am very disturbed that the City of Redondo Beach is allowing a developer, BCHD, to advertise its commercial development project that is planned for over 90% non-residents of Redondo Beach during the active processing of BCHDs Conditional Use Permit and Planning Commission Design Review.

This clearly demonstrates a severe bias in favor of the project by the City and undermines the public's belief that the City is protecting the interests of property owners, taxpayers, and residents as it must with any development project.

As BCHD refuses to approach voters on their development project, this will be privately funded and owned, like any other development project on a BCHD leasehold.

CenterCal would surely have not received such a tacit endorsement and circulation of its development materials in a City newsletter. Nor would the new AES owners. Can you even imagine a full page CenterCal advertisement or advertorial in the City of Redondo Beach newsletter during the processing of the CEQA EIR documents for the project or the subsequent CUP/PCDR touting the necessity of rebuilding the waterfront? Surely not. It is inappropriate for any pending permitting action before the City.

This is a very disturbing turn of events at the City of Redondo Beach, and displays a clear and perhaps unmitigatable bias that prevents any ability of the City to fairly process the BCHD commercial development. Mitigation is necessary, and necessary at the same widespread level that the City has now become an advertising and free endorsement vehicle for a development project. I can see no current action besides agendizing the City's action and suspending any processing of the BCHD commercial development permits until such time as mitigation at an equal level of distribution is performed by the City, including electronic and printed documents.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach

From: Yahoo
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: From Paulina resident. Attention Redondo Beach Mayor Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 9:38:03 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: April 4, 2022 at 2:48:45 PM PDT
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Thank you.

From: Tom McGarry
To: CityClerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 9:33:13 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers of the City of Redondo Beach:

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

Thank you.

Tom McGarry
Redondo Beach
From: Geoff Gilbert
To: CityClerk; Todd Loewenstein; Bill Brand
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 12:18:16 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
----
From: Geoff and Charlene Gilbert
To: City Clerk, Redondo Beach
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
Honorable Mayor and Council members of the City of Redondo Beach:

BCHD Staff and Board have made getting any disclosure information very difficult. Rather than publish disclosure information regarding BCHD making it easy to access by the public, they tend to bury it in hard to locate places where one must spend a great deal of time hunting for the information. I have asked BCHD staff for information, which should be readily available, only to be told to look on line in their web site giving no specific location. That is like telling someone, "you can find the information in the library".

BCHD is deliberately making it most difficult to secure information. BCHD has received many complaints about this and they have yet to make public information readily and easily accessible. This project affects all of the residents of the Beach Cities. That means potentially thousands of questions being directed to BCHD. Staff at BCHD have complained to the Board and Management about the deluges of information requests. The BCHD Board and Management regarded many of these questions for information as harassment to tie up staff rather than legitimate questions seeking more than the superficial information (actually, misleading marketing/advertising promotion) the BCHD provides the public.

NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION
Along with many other surrounding neighbors of BCHD, I want to be certain that BCHD is held to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR), and Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) criteria. I am also concerned that Torrance residents be protected by BCHDs compliance to the intent of the Hillside Overlay Development Standards (HODS). The HODS protect the privacy and other residential conditions of the many Torrance residents surrounding the project. It was well after the DEIR was approved that BCHD Board decided to include testing (not specified as to the kind of testing) to determine if there would be any environmental damage/impact on the surrounding neighborhood and residents. The Board hadn't even considered this testing when the DEIR was commissioned to have it included in the first place. This certainly speaks to the BCHD concern for the public.

Even small property value damages will translate to large reductions in the value of most families’ largest single asset, their home. This was never addressed by BCHD during any of the Community Working Group meetings that I attended as a member.

CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
Many of us have been providing comments to the Planning Commission based on BCHDs pre-CUP filing.

Furthermore, as a resident on Diamond St. directly next door to the BCHD property, I and my neighbors are most concerned about the green space buffer area between the present hospital buildings as well as future construction. The original HLC plans showed the removal of the green space to be replaced with a towering parking and resident structures. The Diamond St. residents voiced their concerns to the BCHD Management who said they maintain the green space. The latest and current HLC plans, as stated in the DEIR/EIR, has the removal of ALL of the green space trees (the DEIR indicated some 22 trees when there are fewer than that now because of poor grounds keeping) so that a SC Edison Electric Substation be placed directly across the street from the Diamond St. residences. There are other locations better suited for the substation but this would take away from the HLC's center open space which is a selling point for its commercial elder care facility. There was NO mention of any environmental health impacts of the Electrical Substation in the DEIR.

Not only this, we will we lose the trees and foliage of the green space buffer area blocking noise, lighting from buildings and parking lot cars, and traffic.

The green space has been in existence since the Diamond St. neighborhood was first built.

Thank you.

Redondo Beach City CouncilApril 5, 2022

Redondo Beach City Council
April 5, 2022