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
JULY 19, 2022
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Stop BCHD
To: [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected] Subject: Four Sets of Pre-existing StopBCHD Comments to BCHD Fully Defining the Defects and Corrections in the BCHD Project Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 2:36:02 PM
Attachments: BCHD Has Full Knowledge of StopBCHD"s Resident Needs.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - Torrance and Redondo Beach Councils, Planning Commissions Public Comment - Electeds
Public Comment - LALAFCO Board
BCHD is Fully Aware of the Neighbors' Specific Needs Regarding BCHD's 110-foot tall, 800,000 sqft Development Against Residences
BCHD's taxpayer funded PR efforts instead misrepresent the neighborhood comments. StopBCHD.com has published its 4 sets of comments to BCHD and electeds that were provided to BCHD PRIOR to Tom Bakaly's false assertion that BCHD does not know the neighborhoods' needs. The comments are at https://bit.ly/BakalyLiedinER
The full statement is at
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/bchd-has-full-knowledge-of-stopbchd-s-resident-needs BCHD Has Full Knowledge of StopBCHD's Resident
Needs
BCHD and CEO Bakaly need to learn how to read apparently. Instead they are too busy in the media lying that they don't know what the surrounding neighborhoods' needs are.
The reason that neighborhood groups refuse to meet any more times with BCHD, is because BCHD simply lies about reducing the project's height and size and continues to leave the project ON THE EDGE of a 30-foot elevated lot ABOVE THE NEIGHBORS.
Neighbors and groups such as StopBCHD and its residents have literally filed THOUSANDS OF PAGES of comments on the defects of the design and how to fix those fatal defects. BCHD IGNORED THEM.
BCHD also ignored 1,200 petition signers and 100+ residents at its June 17, 2020 Board Meeting after BCHD dumped a
new, taller design out after 6PM on Friday night June 12th to HIDE IT FROM THE PUBLIC.
Using misdirection, BCHD reduced the number of $12,500 assisted living units at the same time it removed 160,000 sqft of underground parking and proposed an 8-10 story parking ramp above neighborhoods around Prospect & Diamond. The net outcome - BCHD reduced units and increased surface buildings by nearly 100,000 sqft. BIGGER and TALLER.
THE BCHD PR SPIN MACHINE WON'T TELL THE TRUTH
HOWEVER
Why would Neighbors continue discussions with BCHD?
The Cities of Torrance and Redondo Beach have the final say, as independent finders-of-fact that are obligated to protect residents using the full force of the Municipal Code. And BCHD's plans do not comply with the RBMC. BCHD has moved the increased both the size and height of the project its first 2019 EIR-revealed design.
There is no reason to meet and allow BCHDs $1M annual PR budget and $800,000 project PR budget and $10,000 per month out-of-town PR consultant to continue to misrepresent the neighborhoods' positions. OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
StopBCHD has provided Bakaly and the BCHD Board with four separate sets of comments that are clear - TOO TALL - TOO BIG - TOO CLOSE TO HOMES. https://bit.ly/BakalyLiedinER
--------
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-oflife, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; [email protected]; CityClerk
Cc: Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - Brown Act Non-Agenda Item - BCHD Media Assertions Date: Sunday, July 17, 2022 12:10:24 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD, LALAFCO, Redondo Beach Planning Commission
LALAFCO Board and Alternates, RB Planning Commissioners In a recent Easy Reader News Article, BCHD CEO Bakaly asserts that BCHD is unaware of the needs and views of surrounding neighbors.
While the statement is a clear indictment of BCHD failure to act on surrounding residents' needs, it is also a clear demonstration of BCHDs fiduciary failure to taxpayers.
BCHD has literally thousands of pages of surrounding resident comments, a 1,200+ signature petition, and public testimony in dozens of BCHD Board and Finance Committee Zoom meetings and in person. Yet somehow, BCHD CEO Bakaly is attempting to blame the public and to make the public do more work yet for BCHD? How is this possible? Clearly, this appears to be either a deliberate act by BCHD to ignore the surrounding residents that have been damaged for over 60 years by the District, with nearly 40 years of damage following South Bay Hospital's 1984 failure as the publicly owned and operated emergency hospital that the District was solely formed to provide residents of the three beach cities of Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach according to Superior Court filings.
As a sample of the unacknowledged voluminous communication from the public:
BCHD NOP - 373 pages of comments, nearly 100% negative, regarding too tall, too big, too close to homes BCHD DEIR - 2,963 pages of comments, nearly 100% negative, regarding too tall, too big, too close to homes BCHD BoD Project Approval Meeting (June 2020) - 132 additional pages of comments, nearly 100% negative Note: In the June 2020 BoD process, BCHD released its taller, larger never before seen plan on a Friday evening (June 12, 2020) at 6PM.
BCHD allowed only 3 business days to read, analyze and comment on the plan before BCHD refused to extend the comment period and subsequently approved the plan on June 17, 2020. BCHD subsequently raised the height of the project to 103-feet without any public input after the Board approved 76-feet in public on 6/12/20.
Most project proponents would beg for 3,500 pages of written comments to understand the views of surrounding properties, along with hundreds of hours of testimony. BCHD discards the information and asserts that it doesn't understand the surrounding property owner and resident positions. As a developer who has done far more work than BCHD, this is unimaginable.
BCHD is spending $4,520,750 in architecture fees, yet the architects have apparently not yet converted public comments into actions that the BCHD CEO can understand?
BCHD is spending $1,852,358 in legal fees, yet the lawyers have apparently not yet converted public comments into actions that the BCHD CEO can understand?
BCHD is spending $811,001 in PR fees, yet the spin consultants have apparently not yet converted public comments into actions that the BCHD CEO can understand?
Why after over $7M in taxpayer expenses does the BCHD CEO assert a lack of knowledge? Is there no competence being provided for our tax dollars?
HOW CAN BCHD CEO ASSERT THAT BCHD IS LOW ON PUBLIC INPUT? PERHAPS BCHD NEEDS A NEW TEAM?
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment Fwd: BCHD FEIR and Board Record Comments Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:02:16 PM
Attachments: BCHD Final Comments on FEIR and Regulatory Non-compliance with RBMC.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Planning Commissions of Torrance and Redondo Beach
Public Comment under Brown Act, non-Agenda Item
The following contains comments in regard to the incomplete and incorrect DEIR that BCHD self-certified. As with most comments, they were ignored by BCHD. They contain detail on BCHD's EIR's insufficiency for use in the City of Redondo PCDR and CUP actions. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 3:17 PM
Subject: FEIR and Board Record Comments
To: EIR <[email protected]>, Communications <[email protected]>
STATEMENT OF EVENTS AND FEIR ERRORS
BCHD OVER-DEVELOPMENT GROUP
REDONDO BEACH, CA
The BCHD FEIR Project Chronology is Defective and the DEIR is Non-Compliant with the Regulatory Requirements of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code
BCHD FORMATION AND CHRONOLOGY OF PROJECT EVENTS
South Bay Hospital District executed a TAKING – it legally condemned – the Prospect Ave property for the express purpose of a Hospital for the residents of the 3 Beach Cities and attached that legal action to the title record of the land.
To emphasize – the title to the land is for a hospital, and the purpose of the district as formed by voters is exclusively the benefit of the residents of the 3 beach cities. BCHD currently serves none of the functions required by its condemnation of private land following the failure of South Bay Hospital.
South Bay Hospital failed in 1984 after less than 25 years of operation as a publicly owned hospital.
South Bay Hospital District became a real estate management company after that, renting the shell of the hospital out to commercial operators.
In 1993 SBHD distanced itself from its upcoming failure as landlord of the hospital and renamed itself BCHD. The hospital that rented the failed South Bay Hospital building ceased operations in 1998.
Since 1993, BCHD has not developed budgets, done cost-accounting, or computed cost-effectiveness for its 40+ individual programs according to CPRA responses by BCHD. Therefore, BCHD has no objective information as to whether or not everything it does could be done better and cheaper by others. Nor does BCHD have any evidence of which programs are beneficial and which spend precious tax resources and fail to provide benefits that exceed costs.
BCHD has no objective, quantitative measure of the benefits of its property tax spending nor of its spending of rents from taxpayer owner purchased land and buildings.
Approximately 50% of BCHD property tax revenues are spent on salaries and benefits for the top 10 executives.
In 2009, consultants proposed the current commercial real estate development that BCHD is attempting.
In 2017, BCHD formed the Community Working Group and in the second meeting, BCHD discussed how the project will have clear negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods and provided a presentation including a slide demonstrating the BCHD philosophy to reduce its negative impacts by surrounding any development with surface parking lots along the perimeter of the lot.
BCHDs 2019 design “The Great Wall of Redondo” reneged on its promise not to damage surrounding neighborhoods and proposed a 60 foot tall, 4-story structure along the north, east and south perimeter.
Over 1200 local residents signed a petition opposing the project as too tall and too large.
In June of 2020, BCHD allowed only 3 business days for public review, analysis and comment on a 75- foot tall proposal, with an additional 70,000 sqft of surface building sqft.
In March of 2021, BCHD increased the height to 103 feet while retaining the additional 70,000 sqft, bringing the total development to 793,000 sqft.
In September of 2021, BCHD published a nearly 2000 page Final EIR on September 2, allowing only two business days for public review, analysis and comment prior to the September 8 self-certification meeting by BCHD. Neither BCHD, nor any of its Board members have ever certified an EIR. In the past two developments on the campus, BCHD/SBHD deferred to the City of Redondo Beach, an experienced and qualified CEQA agency.
During Covid, about 6 out of every 7 Covid tests by BCHD was for a non-resident of the district. LA County Health had the legal obligation to provide testing and pay for it, yet BCHD used our tax money from the 3 beach cities.
In Board meeting documents, BCHD states that it spent $4M on Covid and will be reimbursed $1M from FEMA. Therefore, taxpayers of the 3 beach cities paid about $2.5M in BCHD expenses to run testing and vaccination operations for non-residents.
BOTH BCHD COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND PROGRAM BENEFITS
ARE UNSUPPORTED
The project provides on de minimis benefits to the residents of the 3 beach cities that own BCHD. Less than 20% of the RCFE facility will serve residents. Less than 10% will serve residents of Redondo Beach that sustains the damages. Less than 5% will service south Redondo 90277. Private, $12,500 per month full market rate facilities are in supply, built by the private sector on private commercial land.As such, BCHD has no quantitative demonstration of net benefits to support any statements of overriding consideration.
In 28 years of operation, BCHD has failed to conduct budgeting, cost accounting or program cost effectiveness evaluation at the program level. Thus, BCHD has no demonstration that it provided net benefits in the past, currently provides net benefits, or will provide them in the future.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IN INCORRECT
The “No Project” Alternative is incorrect. BCHD consultants and outside counsel both state that the 514 building meets all applicable codes and standards for continuing use. Furthermore, the consultant states that “best practice” would allow 25 years continued use. BCHD had incorrectly characterized the No Project Alternative and its financial benefits to BCHD and its taxpayer-owners and overstated the damages by falsely asserting that the building must be demolished.
AESTHETICS DAMAGES
Impact VIS-1 is significant. BCHD falsely asserts that only scenic vistas can be the cause of a visual impact. Clearly that is false on its face. By BCHDs so-called standard, a 10 story, gray, concrete block building would have no visual impact on the surrounding neighborhoods so long as it does not block the BCHD determined vista. The environmental, physical and mental disbenefits of blocking views of blue sky, trees, or other views are well understood and BCHD rejected peer-reviewed studies demonstrating negative impacts.
Impact VIS-2 is significant. No where in the Torrance or Redondo Beach general plans is the height and mass of buildings specified. As such, BCHD falsely states that the aesthetics are consistent with the general plan. Further, the surrounding neighborhoods all have 30 foot or lesser height limits, and as a result, BCHDs proposed and unknown height appears to be 400 to 500% of the surrounding neighborhoods and significantly degrades the character. Using BCHD incorrect interpretation, a 500 foot tall structure that serves any general plan use would have no visual impact. Clearly that is false and BCHD logic is flawed.
Impact VIS-3 is significant. BCHD has a long history of ignoring excess nighttime light emanating from non-directional lighting on the existing campus. BCHD falsely assumes that its compliance is assured, it is not, and the damages of BCHD were well documented in various peer reviewed health studies provided to BCHD.
Impact VIS-4 is significant. BCHD rejected valid, NIH peer-reviewed and published studies showing the damages of the interruption of sunlight (known as shadowing or shading). BCHD standards of evaluation are apparently flawed, for as a health organization, BCHD should have the expertise to develop peer-reviewed, evidence based standards.
Negative impacts to blue sky views are ignored and are significant. The extreme height of BCHD planned commercial development blocks both blue sky views from east and north, and sunset views from east neighborhoods. BCHD analysis ignores the impact of its destruction of the blue sky views and the negative impacts on the mental health of surrounding residents.
Representative View 1 is deceptive and defective. BCHD must use the cudesac at the north end of Tomlee, north of Towers, to demonstrate the impact.
Representative View 2 is a significant impact. BCHDs own language highlights the significant aesthetic damages to the surrounding neighborhood and cements the violation of CUP requirements.
BCHD states “While the existing Project site is barely visible, the view along Flagler Lane is influenced by the open sky above the slope. The
Project would substantially reduce access to open sky from this view, and would change the visual character of this view from the residences in this Torrance neighborhood as well as travelers along Flagler Lane and Towers Street. Source: VIZf/x 2021.” Representative View 3 is defective. BCHD refers to compliance with RBMC 10-2.622 which does not appear to exist. Also RV3 contains the same significant impacts as RV2, and is in fact, more impactful in its damages to the open blue sky.
Representative View 4 is a significant impact. BCHD makes an unsupported assertion that the 133 foot tall structure’s obscuring open sky and blue sky is not significant. The opinion is unfounded and not based on quantitative measures that demonstrate an additional 62.7% reduction in sky over the existing buildings.
Phase 2 View Impacts from Prospect are significant. An additional 47% of sky view is removed by the proposed Phase 2 which represents a significant impact to the surrounding neighborhoods.
AIR QUALITY AND RELATED HEALTH DAMAGES
Impact AQ-1 is significant. BCHD has established a moral obligation standard as elucidated by the CEO that BCHD has an affirmative moral obligation to protect the health of the community. Any increased loading of toxic air contaminants, particulates, Nox, etc. are detrimental to health and under a moral obligation standard are significant. The allowed amount of toxic pollution under AQMD, CARB and federal rules is excessive and non compliant with moral obligations to protect health.
Impact AQ-2 is significant. BCHD has established a moral obligation standard as elucidated by the CEO that BCHD has an affirmative moral obligation to protect the health of the community. Any increased loading of toxic air contaminants, particulates, Nox, etc. are detrimental to health and under a moral obligation standard are significant. The allowed amount of toxic pollution under AQMD, CARB and federal rules is excessive and non compliant with moral obligations to protect health.
Impact AQ-3 is significant. BCHD has established a moral obligation standard as elucidated by the CEO that BCHD has an affirmative moral obligation to protect the health of the community. Any increased loading of toxic air contaminants, particulates, Nox, etc. are detrimental to health and under a moral obligation standard are significant. The allowed amount of toxic pollution under AQMD, CARB and federal rules is excessive and non compliant with moral obligations to protect health.
Impact AQ-4 is significant. BCHD has established a moral obligation standard as elucidated by the CEO that BCHD has an affirmative moral obligation to protect the health of the community. Any increased loading of toxic air contaminants, particulates, Nox, etc. are detrimental to health and under a moral obligation standard are significant. The allowed amount of toxic pollution under AQMD, CARB and federal rules is excessive and non compliant with moral obligations to protect health.
Impact AQ-5 is significant. BCHD has established a moral obligation standard as elucidated by the CEO that BCHD has an affirmative moral obligation to protect the health of the community. Any increased loading of toxic air contaminants, particulates, Nox, etc. are detrimental to health and under a moral obligation standard are significant. The allowed amount of toxic pollution under AQMD, CARB and federal rules is excessive and non compliant with moral obligations to protect health.
GREEN HOUSE GAS AND RELATED HEALTH DAMAGES
Impact GHG-1 is significant. The state of California and the United States both have in place policies to reduce GHG emissions. Such policies make the explicit declaration GHG creation in California and the United States is not de minimis. The BCHD claim that it will generate GHGs, but that they are de minimis and do not impact the overall amount of GHGs is false. The state of California and the United States are both highly effective in mitigating GHGs via high efficiency use of energy, however, both are pursuing policies of GHG reduction, not de minimis use. Even without BCHDs moral obligation to protect the community, BCHD cannot assume nor declare that it is allowed to generate GHGs and that they GHGs are irrelvant. BCHD GHG generation is significant and requires mitigation to net zero under moral obligations.
NOISE AND RELATED HEALTH DAMAGES
NOI-1 is significant. Construction noise is significant, non-mitigable, and results in a wide array of mental and physical health damages are demonstrated in various peer-reviewed studies provided to BCHD regarding the well understood mental and physical stress impacts of noise. BCHD under its CEO mandated moral obligation to protect the community, must mitigate the activities, up to and including, termination of the project in order to protect the health of the surrounding community.
NOI-2 is significant. Construction transport vibration and related noise is significant, non-mitigable, and results in a wide array of mental and physical health damages are demonstrated in various peerreviewed studies provided to BCHD regarding the impacts of intermittent noise to learning, physical and mental health. BCHD under its CEO mandated moral obligation to protect the community, must mitigate the activities, up to and including, termination of the project in order to protect the health of the surrounding community.
NOI-3 is significant. Outdoor activity until 10PM will present both constant and intermittent noise to surrounding residential receptors in excess of 50 db day and 45 db night as stated in RBMC. Further, since BCHD was presented peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the negative health impacts of consistent and intermittent noise, application of the BCHD CEO mandated moral obligation to protect the community standard declares the activities to be significant. The activities must be banned.
SCOPE OF THE EIR
The scope of the EIR is defective. Despite public input at the NOP time, BCHD deliberately ignored an analysis of Recreation. BCHD has significant and non-mitigable shading/shadowing/sunlight interruption impacts on the Towers fields used for public recreation in addition with school activity.
AREAS OF KNOWN PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
The areas of known public controversy discussion is defective. The presence of a 1200+ petition of opposition to height and size is ignored.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION – PHASE 2
2.5.2.2 Physical Design Considerations and Priority-based Budgeting is defective. BCHD priority based budgeting is nascent and covers a de minimis portion of the $15M annual budget. As such it is inappropriate for a $100s of millions expenditure. Further, BCHD has no quantitative benefits analysis, such as CDC Polaris, and BCHD accounting and budgeting have been consistently unable to provide cost effectiveness metrics. Thus, BCHD Phase 2 must be discarded and brought as a separate EIR. Data collection for BCHD Community Health Report was defective and cannot be relied upon. BCHD failed to use a representative sample and the survey suffered from significant bias. BCHD has never provided any bias analysis, and as such, BCHD prior studies are also defective. The damage of the environment cannot be allowed based on defective public sector analysis.
REGULATORY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RBMC
The BCHD project is incompatible with both RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review and RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits. As such the project/program cannot be CEQA certified as it fails regulatory compliance in Redondo Beach.
The current design and location of the facility is unable to meet RBMC design standards. 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review.
(a) Purpose. Planning Commission Design Review is established to ensure compatibility, originality, variety, and innovation in the architecture, design, landscaping, and site planning of developments in the community. The provisions of this section will serve to protect property values, prevent the blight and deterioration of neighborhoods, promote sound land use, encourage design excellence, and protect the overall health, safety, and welfare of the City.
Ensure compatibility is the first attribute of the Planning Commission Design Review. BCHD proposes a 133-foot above the surrounding residential neighborhood commercial RCFE facility. It is a commercial facility because it will charge full commercial rates, be owned 80% by a commercial entity, and be operated 100% by a commercial entity. It is also commercial because over 95% of the tenants per BCHD consultant MDS computations will be from outside the local neighborhood sustaining the damages, and over 80% will be non-residents of the three beach cities that are the taxpayer owners of BCHD. Thus, the facility will be offering commercial services.
BCHD p roject is incompatible – as a non-residential, non local serving, commercial enterprise owned (undeniably up to 80% or more privately owned) and operated venture, the BCHD project is incompatible with the surrounding largely residential, 30-foot or under neighborhoods of both Redondo Beach and Torrance. The only other commercial in the area is the Von’s Plaza, which unlike the BCHD proposed project, services the local neighborhood. As noted above, BCHD project is 95% outsiders of the local neighborhoods by BCHDs own estimation. Since the facility is both commercial, for nonresidents, and over 100-feet taller than the surrounding community, it is clearly incompatible with the surrounding community. Further planning criteria do not require evaluation, as an absolute failure to be compatible, the first criteria, moots any further review.
Unlike BCHD, SBHDs hospital was voter-approved and developed to service the local area BCHD cannot make an appeal to prior use. BCHD is a result of the failed SBHD and SBHD was formed explicitly by a vote, funded by the public as a bond measure, granted ongoing operating funding through property taxes, and served the three beach cities. The legal documents justifying the “taking” of the Prospect land are crystal clear. BCHD can make no such representation and has openly stated in Board meetings that it is pursuing this development to deliberately circumvent the public as BCHD expects it will not receive approval for funding this project.
BCHD has depressed surrounding property values
Proprietary statistical models clearly show a negative impact on local housing values due to BCHD.
BCHD expansion will further depress surrounding property values Proprietary statistical models clearly show a further negative impact on local housing values due to BCHD planned expansion.
BCHD construction and operation will have negative health impacts on the surrounding community BCHD acknowledges a significant and unavoidable impacts on the local community. Further, BCHD refutes peer reviewed, NIH published research demonstrating significant negative health impacts from added particulates, constant noise, sirens, traffic, intermittent noise and stress. Peer reviewed studies provided to BCHD in the EIR process as comments clearly demonstrate that the project will have many negative health impacts, including chronic stress (the Blue Zones LLC Silent Killer). BCHD CEO has acknowledged that the process has “stressed people out” and as such, even BCHD concurs that it causes stress which has undeniable negative health impacts.
BCHD design is not innovative or excellence
As a scaled down version of the 1954 Fountainbleau Miami Beach, the design is anything but innovative or excellence. It is aged, stale, and recycled, failing the design review criteria.
BCHD net benefits do not protect the health, safety and welfare of Redondo Beach Contemporaneous legal documents demonstrate that SBHD was voter approved to provide benefits to the three beach cities, not 80% non-residents. Further, Redondo Beach and to a lesser extent neighboring Torrance, absorb 100% of the damages during the construction period and the next 100 years. BCHD has no demonstration that the benefits to Redondo Beach are outweighed by the facilities damages to Redondo Beach via construction, health impacts, traffic, emissions, etc. Recall that little more than 60 years ago medical doctors supported cigarette smoking. Today’s current levels of noise, stress, particulates, toxic air pollutants and other negative impacts of BCHDs proposal will like be known as carcinogens and other hazards 50 years from now, when the facility is in midlife and surrounding neighborhoods have had their early deaths accelerated. (https://tobaccofreelife.org/resources/smoking-medical-professionals/) (b) Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in determining a project’s consistency with the intent and purpose of this section:
(1) User impact and needs. The design of the project shall consider the impact and the needs of the user in respect to circulation, parking, traffic, utilities, public services, noise and odor, privacy, private and common open spaces, trash collection, security and crime deterrence, energy consumption, physical barriers, and other design concerns.
BCHD will significantly invade surrounding privacy
From a vantage point of 133 feet above the surrounding neighborhoods, BCHD will clearly be a “Peeping Tom.” Interestingly that’s a role that BCHD is comfortable with, having responded to comments that BCHD already can see into windows, yards and homes from high floors of the failed hospital building. Somehow, we are already Peeping Toms, was not the response I expected, however it does clarity why BCHD believes it should be able to invade residential privacy. (2) Relationship to physical features. The location of buildings and structures shall respect the natural terrain of the site and shall be functionally integrated with any natural features of the landscape to include the preservation of existing trees, where feasible.
BCHD exacerbates the physical features of the site
Sitting atop a 30-foot bluff, with a significant height advantage on the surrounding neighborhoods, and with over 10 taxpayer bond funded acres of land, it is truly puzzling how BCHD arrived at a 100-foot structure built on a hill. South Bay Hospital has been an eyesore for three generations. BCHD must embrace the design principles of Kensington Redondo Beach and spread out a 2-story development and not create a “mountain” as it would be put in Feng Shui. The current design fails to even consider the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods due to height and mass. (4) Balance and integration with the neighborhood. The overall design shall be integrated and compatible with the neighborhood and shall strive to be in harmony with the scale and bulk of surrounding properties.
BCHD project is wholly incompatible with no harmonious scale or bulk relationship to surrounding property
By intent, BCHD is 133-feet above the neighborhood, with a broadside of windows facing north into the densest local area with over 1000 residents between Beryl and 190th, Flagler and Prospect per the US Census. The surrounding buildings are 30 feet or less and fail to reach up to the foundations of the proposed building. In plain English, BCHD plan is an abject failure in compatibility with surrounding property.
(7) Consistency with residential design guidelines. The project shall be consistent with the intent of residential design guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council BCHD project is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Beryl Heights residential design guidelines The BCHD project is not consistent with the intent of Beryl Heights residential design guidelines as published by the City of Redondo Beach. Beryl Heights shares the Prospect Ave border with BCHD, and as such, Beryl Heights design guidelines should apply to any Beryl Heights facing buildings or surfaces.
(8) Conditions of approval. The conditions stated in the resolution or design considerations integrated into the project shall be deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
BCHD and the Planning Commission are obligated to set conditions of approval that meet the requirements of the design reivew
Specific, non-exhaustive code authorized changes to the BCHD plan to render it compliant include:
1) Reduced heights to 30-feet, yielding a mere 60-feet above street level due to physical setting 2) Increased setbacks on all sides of the project for noise reduction and privacy (“Peeping Tom” reduction)
3) Noise barriers to mitigate health damaging impacts of construction and construction traffic 4) Consistency with the design guidelines of Beryl Heights 5) Demonstration of affirmative need for duplicative PACE facility to reduce public health damages from negative impacts
6) Cost-based rates for Redondo Beach residents to avoid negative public health and welfare impacts from the use of public land for commercial development
10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit shall be to review certain uses possessing unique characteristics, as listed in Article 2 of this chapter, to insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties nor disrupt the orderly development of the community. The review shall be for the further purpose of stipulating such conditions regulating those uses to assure that the criteria of this section shall be met.
BCHD is adversely affect surrounding uses and properties Existing CUP is insufficient for expanded, new built RCFE. The existing CUP for memory care at the Silverado location is limited in scope. It encompasses only 60 units (maximum 120 beds) and per the Silverado management during a Redondo Beach Council meeting, only houses 80 persons. BCHD expansion to over 200 rooms in a perimeter facing, 133 feet above ground facility is a much larger, and more invasive level of use. Therefore, the current CUP is insufficient and a CUP must be considered de novo.
Substantial remediation is due to the current design to allow for issuance of the 2 needed CUPs.
PACE requires a CUP. If PACE is a medical facility, then it is not allowed in C2 by either right or by CUP. If PACE is an adult daycare, then it requires a CUP in C2 zoning.
Surrounding uses are damaged by proposed height. If the current planned 103 foot building is required as stated by Cain Brothers to provide expansive views, then the CUP must be denied. The provision of expansive views as stated by Cain also invades the privacy of the surrounding neighborhoods, thereby impacting their residential use.
BCHD admits it has significant negative impacts on local neighborhoods. BCHD also admits in its EIR analysis that it has negative and significant impacts on the community, which were easily demonstrated via peer reviewed, NIH published studies to have negative health impacts. As a public health agency with a CEO stated policy of a moral obligation to protect the surrounding community, BCHD internal policy prohibits the damages on surrounding uses and home values as well.
BCHD has reduced surrounding property values and further expansion will have further impact.
Proprietary statistical models also demonstrate that the expansion of the BCHD facility will have continued negative impacts on the surrounding areas.
BCHD has no demonstrated need for PACE. As a public agency on public land, BCHD has provided no need demonstration for its PACE facility, and as such, we have no idea if 2% of the daily 200 transportees will be local or 20%. Given that PACE is 90% funded by Medicaid, it is unlikely that many surrounding seniors will be participants based on household income and assets. As a result, the CUP requirement for the PACE facility cannot currently be fulfilled due to a lack of responsible analysis by BCHD. The current presumption must be that BCHD consolidates pickup service and minimizes the peer reviewed negative health impacts of vehicle emissions on the surrounding neighborhood.
BCHD will require deep setbacks to reduce damage to surrounding uses. As a commercial use, majority owned by a commercial entity and 100% operated by a commercial entity on a 30 foot bluff, BCHD will require deep setbacks to reduce its noise, glare and privacy impacts that diminish the surrounding uses.
BCHD will require 2 story construction to reduce damage to surrounding uses. As a commercial use, majority owned by a commercial entity and 100% operated by a commercial entity on a 30 foot bluff, BCHD will require deep setbacks to reduce its noise, glare and privacy impacts that diminish the surrounding uses.
BCHD will require alternatives to an 800 car parking ramp at Prospect and Diamond to manage impacts on school drop off and pickup. Access to the ramp is directly damaging to Prospect traffic and will increase emissions and delay pickup and dropoff at Beryl, RUHS and Parras schools. The parking ramp must be moved to an alternative location and replaced with bus transit, or, the access point must be moved onto Beryl to avoid Prospect.
BCHD must use only directional, less than 3000K lighting. BCHD and SBHD before it have been careless at best and malicious at worst using what the American Medical Association calls “prison lighting” outdoors. The bright white light has been struck down in a memo by the AMA. Further, BCHD uses non directional lighting and sample photos were filed a number of times, including as formal EIR comments. Peer reviewed studies, also provided to BCHD, demonstrate the damages of excess nighttime lighting.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paul Novak Cc: Communications; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; CityClerk; CityClerk; Bill Brand; [email protected]; Brandy Forbes Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT TO ELECTEDS AND AGENCIES - BCHD Refuses to Utilize Public Health Sector Benefits Evaluation Methods - Fwd: CPRA - Benefit-to-Cost Ratios, Net Benefits, CDC Polaris Analysis for Priority Based Budgeting
Date: Saturday, July 16, 2022 5:19:21 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Brown Act Non-Agenda Comments to LALAFCO and all other agencies Interestingly, BCHD now asserts that public benefit analysis of programs is beyond its skills/abilities and mission. BCHD is therefore asserting that it has no obligation to spend our taxpayer funding in a manner that provides net benefits to the District residents.
From BCHD in a CPRA response Please note that the District has previously explained that calculating a dollar community benefit for each program is beyond the scope of the District’s mission, financial resources and abilities.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 3:12 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:
PUBLIC RECORD COMMENT TO ELECTEDS AND AGENCIES:
It is quite clear by BCHD non-response to the CPRA request that BCHD for its nearly 30 years of existence since 1993 has failed to conduct Program Level Budgeting, Program Level Cost Accounting or Program Level Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. BCHD fails to have the information because BCHD is fundamentally unconcerned about whether it spends taxpayer property taxes and rents from property in a cost-effective manner to best serve the residents that formed South Bay Hospital District.
BCHD lack of analysis is a de facto demonstration of a lack of program level controls and operational understanding. Basic public health policy dictates that programs be evaluated in order to use society's scarce resources to provide maximum societal benefit. CDC and other organizations provide analysis methodologies in order to evaluate public health expenditures relative to each other, relative to the private sector delivery and relative to outcomes.
A simple example is one of 2 programs. If one program is marginally cost effective in regard to its public health benefits and the other is exceptionally cost effective, then society is only served by shifting funds from the low efficiency program to the high efficiency program. BCHD has 40+ programs per Vanessa Poster, therefore, it would only be through absolute random chance and dumb luck that BCHD has appropriate funding allocation. It would also be nearly impossible for each of BCHD programs to even have positive public health benefits (avoided medical costs from non-intervention outcomes minus direct and overhead costs of BCHD taxpayer expenditures). In any event, the mere fact that BCHD fails to collect data to answer the question is symptomatic of an undisciplined and poorly run organization.
From a public health perspective, it is clear that BCHD needs to terminate programs, shift funds, and add more important and effective programs. However, BCHD has been negligent and malfeasant in an economic and public health analysis view. BCHD has not collected data, completed analysis, nor considered outside input from professional trained economists like myself and Dr Timothy Ozenne, a UCLA expert.
In short, our elected officials have been allowing BCHD to operate with $14M a year of taxpayer funds in a by gosh and by golly, non-accountable way. This needs to stop and BCHD needs to be held accountable. At a minimum, it must be directed to budget, conduct cost accounting, and CDC Polaris or other quantitative benefits analysis and demonstrate that its use of taxpayer funds is beneficial and even remotely appropriate.
Clearly, BCHD cannot do that today, and worse yet, asserts that it has no obligation to spend taxpayer money in an optimized, or even net positive benefit manner.
In a practical matter, BCHD has falsely asserted that its net benefits (wholly unquantified per BCHD) outweigh its continued damages to the surrounding neighborhoods. BCHD can make no such statement. BCHD cannot lawfully assert a statement of overriding concern, because BCHD admits it has no analysis that its benefits are net positive, nor can it assert that its benefits outweigh its damages. Again, this is a direct choice of BCHD to avoid evaluation of its programs and expenditures in any rigorous method of public health economics.
Mark Nelson
Expert Witness
3+ Year BCHD Volunteer
Statistical Economist
Note: As BCHD is like to do, it provides an uncited, non-specific, general response that is absolutely antithetical to the CPRA law and request ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: PRR <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: CPRA - Benefit-to-Cost Ratios, Net Benefits, CDC Polaris Analysis for Priority Based Budgeting To: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Cc: PRR <[email protected]>
Hi Mark,
Please see below for the District’s 10-day response (in red) to your public records requests received 10/12/21 that reads:
For each program listed in PBB for the 1/2 day strat plan meeting, provide:
1) Benefit to Cost ratios considering the fully loaded program cost including overheads and quantitative measured or forecasted and monetized benefits 2) The monetized, program life cycle net benefits
3) The CDC Polaris analysis of all existing programs for their historic performance There are no documents responsive.
The District mission is not served by following the public benefit measurements you are referencing. https://www.cdc.gov/policy/polaris/economics/cost-benefit/index.html The Polaris model (summary snippet below) requires analysis of data the District is not able to nor have resources for to access or analyze.
We invited you to engage with the District to the ½ Day Strategic Planning process to give input to the Priority Based Budgeting tool implemented to evaluate and prioritize its programs. Here we discussed each programs alignment with the District’s Mission (and legal authority) of filling health priority gaps in the District. That is the District’s legal authority as you know, as you recently asked for the ByLaws reads “To Promote the Public Health and General Welfare”, which is the foremost objective, which of course requires evaluation of its programs and services but cannot be done to the extent you are implying the District should do.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:07 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - Benefit-to-Cost Ratios, Net Benefits, CDC Polaris Analysis for Priority Based Budgeting For each program listed in PBB for the 1/2 day strat plan meeting, provide:
1) Benefit to Cost ratios considering the fully loaded program cost including overheads and quantitative measured or forecasted and monetized benefits 2) The monetized, program life cycle net benefits
3) The CDC Polaris analysis of all existing programs for their historic performance