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
AUGUST 2, 2022
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: Blue folder, non-agenda item 8/2/22
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 2:19:28 PM
Attachments: MetroROWdisparities.pdf
Metro Multimodal Objectives.pdf
Multimodal pitch for cc 8222.pages
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear City Clerk,
Please find attached documents for the blue folder. I plan to speak in person during non-agenda about them and will include that pitch in writing as well.
Can you please make sure all 5 cm's and the mayor each get a copy of my docs so they can review and know what I'm talking about?
Let me know if there is anything else you need from me.
Thank you so much!
Niki Negrete-Mitchell
District 3 resident homeowner
ATTACHMENT A
Metro Objectives for Multimodal Highway Investment
1. Advance the mobility needs of people and goods within LA County by developing projects and programs that support traffic mobility and enhanced safety, economic vitality, equitable impacts, access to opportunity, regional sustainability, and resiliency for affected local communities and the region.
2. Recognizing LA County’s history of inequitable highway investment policies and construction, work with local communities to reduce disparities caused by the existing highway system and develop holistic, positive approaches to maintain and improve the integrity and quality of life of those communities during the implementation of highway improvements.
3. Ensure that local and regional investment in LA County’s highway system— particularly the implementation of Measures R and M priorities—is considered within the context of a countywide multimodal, integrated planning vision that reflects a holistic approach to meeting the needs of local communities, reducing disparities, creating a safer and well-maintained transportation system, and fostering greater regional mobility and access to opportunity.
4. Develop early, constructive, and meaningful public engagement processes and planning tools with subregional partners that foster engagement with a wide range of stakeholders, specifically people most directly impacted, with the goal of informing the planning, development, and implementation of subregional corridor investment strategies in LA County’s highway system aligning with local and subregional needs and priorities.
5. Partner with Caltrans and regional stakeholders to create an LA County multimodal highway strategic plan that is developed through a collaborative planning approach to improve the overall regional mobility of people and goods throughout the county, safely and equitably, while taking action to reduce the negative environmental and climate impacts of car and truck travel.
6. Support the optimization of existing highway facilities by using technology and innovation that maximizes the throughput and travel time of people and goods, while supporting sustainable, resilient, and healthy outcomes, including reducing air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions generated from the use of the facilities.
Based on Metro Board’s conclusions for the I-710 South Corridor Widening Project, 710 “Stub” SW Pasadena connector to 210 Frwy pivot to NO-BUILD.
Metro Objectives for Multimodal Highway Investments for major transportation projects, while recognizing past inequities, are saying the aim is to preserve the integrity and Quality of Life for the communities along major transportation projects with residential safety, equity and sustainablity without causing disparities.
Community engagement is critical. Thorough outreach to directly affected and neighboring households must be a priority and considered urgent.. Empathetic, respectful and meaningful consideration while taking in public input about their private homes is essential. Community trust erodes as Metro staff suggest bandaid mitigations which are never satisfactory. Any level of critical thinking leads to the conclusion that these are only meant to persuade stakeholders into an agreement which will lead to life altering irreversible problems.
Once the decision is official to use the community preferred alternative Hawthorne Blvd route, the ROW property acquired by Metro in the past, prior to any meaningfully thorough environmental study, should either be well maintained or sold to best suit the community and the city The problematic composition of the dirt all along the ROW not only has a serious history of 30' deep sinkholes as documented ed by others, but also making it impossible to maintain a healthy level of cleanliness both outside and inside homes. The latter needs to be addressed and brought to a healthier standard if Metro’s intentions are to retain that property rather than sell.
The Metro C (Green) Line extension to Torrance should be a project that promotes traffic mobility with enhanced safety, economic vitality, produces positive equitable impacts,increases access, regional sustainability, and resiliency for the affected local community. Taking into account LA’s history of inequitable transportation investment policies and construction, Metro and the county must work with our local community to reduce similar potential disparities caused by implementing a new rail system and develop holistic, positive approaches to maintain and improve the integrity and Quality of Life for our community.
We need to ensure that investment in LA County’s transportation system to this locality is considered within the context of a localized planning vision that reflects a holistic approach to meeting the needs of our local community, eliminating potential disparities, creating a safer and well-maintained transportation system, while fostering greater regional mobility and access to opportunity.
Metro and LA County must meaningfully and constructively take to heart the community’s wishes for processes and planning that foster needs for stakeholders, specifically people most directly impacted, with the goal of planning and implementation of strategies that serve the local and subregional needs and priorities.
Metro and LA County should consider partnering with the city and local stakeholders to create a strategic plan for public transportation. A plan should be developed through collaborative planning efforts to enhance the overall regional mobility of people throughout the county, safely and equitably, while taking action to reduce the negative environmental and Quality of Life impacts that directly affect the property line sharing stakeholders, a diverse private household community consisting of retirees and young families with children.
LA County along with Metro must support sustainable, resilient, and healthy outcomes for the Greenline project without compromising the safety and quality of life for our community at risk for disparities while at the same time providing access to opportunity and maintaining the integrity of the unique local landscape.
From: Glen and Nancy Yokoe
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Stop BCHD
Subject: BCHD HLC Project
Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 5:28:05 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
To Whom It May Concern,
I have written and spoken up against the BCHD HLC multiple times. I continue to do so as a concerned, long-time resident of west Torrance.
The HLC(Healthy Living Campus), as designed, is an expansive behemoth. It towers over and is out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The excavation, demolition, concrete grinding and transport of debris is a 24/7 health hazard to all that live and work nearby. Most concerning are the effects of 5+ years of airborne pollution of irritants and carcinogens on our most vulnerable school children at Beryl Heights Elementary School in RB and Towers Elementary School in west Torrance.
Noise will be beyond acceptable standards for residential areas. It will have an unbearable effect on those nearby and noise itself has been shown to have deleterious effects on one's wellbeing.
Heavy truck trips will add to an already congested traffic situation. Just ask any parents who take and pick up children going to and from the two elementary schools mentioned, about a quarter of a mile apart.
The CEO and BoD of BCHD seem to have forgotten what the "H" stands for in their acronym.
They have lost touch with the negative effects of their HLC, and that will have on the surrounding community.
Respectfully, Glen H. Yokoe, PharmD
From: M. Nava
To: [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: BCHD Public Comment for September 2022 LALAFCO Board Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 10:02:27 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Board Members of LALAFCO:
This is a comment for your September 2022 Board meeting where you will be considering the BCHD Municipal Service Review report.
BCHD should be dissolved because it is not operating for the benefit of, or in the best interest of the residents of the District.
If BCHD's project proceed, District residents will lose 3 acres of our land for up to 95 years when BCHD signs a lease with a private developer/owner/operator and if BCHD receives the needed permits from the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance. The developer plans to build a $12,000+/month assisted living facility for people with $200,000 and above incomes. The private facility is being built for 80% non-residents of the District.
BCHD will have no ownership in the project.
Even though BCHD will receive a rent payment of $1.5M per year for the land, BCHD will have to pay more than half of that back to the developer in rent for BCHD’s new offices and facilities in the developer’s building.
BCHD has already signed a deal for a youth wellness program called “allcove” where BCHD will provide services as far away as Long Beach. 91% of the service area for BCHD’s program will be non-residents of the District.
BCHD plans to offer an adult daycare program called PACE. BCHD refuses to say how many PACE participants they think will be from the District. National statistics show that the District should expect only 16 out of its 400 person planned capacity to come from the three beach cities. 96% of PACE enrollees will be non-residents of the District.
When South Bay Hospital District was voted into existence, it was for the benefit of the residents of the District. It is bond and property tax funded by the residents.
BCHDs proposed future project, the HLC, is for over 80% non-residents of the District. Even during Covid, BCHD tested nearly 85% non-residents and left District taxpayers with several million dollars in costs for out-of-District services and overheads.
If BCHD prefers to serve non-residents of the District, then it should be dissolved and the District’s property tax funding put to better health uses inside the District. Please add my comment to the Municipal Service Review record at the September Board meeting as a formal comment in favor of opening a proceeding to dissolve BCHD.
Thank you.
Marcio N
From: Deb Whitcas
To: [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: BCHD Public Comment for September 2022 LALAFCO Board Meeting Date: Monday, August 1, 2022 8:01:23 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Board Members of LALAFCO:
This is a comment for your September 2022 Board meeting where you will be considering the BCHD Municipal Service Review report.
BCHD should be dissolved because it is not operating for the benefit of, or in the best interest of the residents of the District.
If BCHD's project proceeds, District residents will lose 3 acres of our land for up to 95 years when BCHD signs a lease with a private developer/owner/operator and if BCHD receives the needed permits from the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance.
The developer plans to build a $12,000+/month assisted living facility for people with $200,000 and above incomes. The private facility is being built for 80% non-residents of the District.
BCHD will have no ownership in the project.
Even though BCHD will receive a rent payment of $1.5M per year for the land, BCHD will have to pay more than half of that back to the developer in rent for BCHD’s new offices and facilities in the developer’s building.
BCHD has already signed a deal for a youth wellness program called “allcove” where BCHD will provide services as far away as Long Beach. 91% of the service area for BCHD’s program will be non-residents of the District.
BCHD plans to offer an adult daycare program called PACE. BCHD refuses to say how many PACE participants they think will be from the District. National statistics show that the District should expect only 16 out of its 400 person planned capacity to come from the three beach cities. 96% of PACE enrollees will be non-residents of the District.
When South Bay Hospital District was voted into existence, it was for the benefit of the residents of the District. It is bond and property tax funded by the residents.
BCHDs proposed future project, the HLC, is for over 80% non-residents of the District. Even during Covid, BCHD tested nearly 85% non-residents and left District taxpayers with several million dollars in costs for out-of-District services and overheads.
If BCHD prefers to serve non-residents of the District, then it should be dissolved and the District’s property tax funding put to better health uses inside the District. Please add my comment to the Municipal Service Review record at the September Board meeting as a formal comment in favor of opening a proceeding to dissolve BCHD.
Thank you.
Deborah J Whitcas
cc: City Councils of Torrance and Redondo Beach
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: BCHD"s Proposed Commercially Developed/Owned/Operated Facility will reduce health and increase costs for residents Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 9:03:02 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD is proposing a non-compete agreement for the project's developer/owner/operate/ As a result, the D/O/O would be unable to develop further projects in the area that would be able to compete with this project. BCHD's intent is to keep its prices high, reduce the supply, and raise the equilibrium price of Assisted Living in Beach Cities.
This is morally and ethically unacceptable for a public agency. Further, this damages the health and safety of the residents of Redondo Beach and cannot be granted a CUP or PCDR review. --
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, 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: info
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: LALAFCO Board Comments for August 2022 Meeting Date: Thursday, July 28, 2022 5:47:40 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
To Board Members and Alternates of LALAFCO (Non-Agenda Public Comment) CC: Mayors, Councils, Planning Commissions of Redondo, Hermosa, Manhattan Beach and Torrance (Non-Agenda Public Comment) BCHD has inked and spent communications resources on a deal to provide "allcove" services to a supermajority non-residents of the District, and to a supermajority of non-residents of the SOI.
BCHD made no application to LALAFCO that has been disclosed, and I fail to see how providing SUPERMAJORITY service outside of the SOI is allowable.
Furthermore, BCHD will be paying between an annual lease rate for this supermajority of non-residents between $250K-$370K annually to rent space for "allcove", with 91% of the cost for nonresidents of the District and 100% of future obligations and risk accruing to District residents.
I can easily understand how incidental use could extend to Long Beach. I have no conception of how BCHD is planning for 75% non-residents of the SOI and 91% non-residents of the District without any formal hearings or analysis by LALAFCO.
I am requesting a formal investigation of BCHD practices in this matter.
Mark Nelson
Former 3+ Year BCHD Volunteer
Redondo Beach Taxpayer-Owner of BCHD
From: Dan Smith
To: Paul Novak; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Brand; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; Laura Emdee; Christian Horvath; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi
Cc: Tom Bakaly (he/him/his); Cristan Higa; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; Vanessa I. Poster; [email protected]; [email protected]; Monica Suua (she/her/hers) Subject: More Facts (and a news release) about BCHD and the Healthy Living Campus Project Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 7:00:35 PM
Attachments: HLC_mythvsfact_Round4_072622.pdf
HLC developer_lessee process_final.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hello,
In addition to the attached July edition of “Myth v. Fact” from Beach Cities Health District, today’s message also includes a news release with information about an agenda item for the BCHD Board of Directors meeting tomorrow night (July 27): the recommendation of a developer / lessee for the Residential Care for the Elderly facility that is part of the Healthy Living Campus revitalization plan.
If you’re interested in participating in Wednesday’s BCHD Board meeting, the agenda, meeting link and more is available at https://www.bchd.org/board-directors-meetings.
Here’s one more “myth v. fact” item, with multiple facts provided by BCHD’s Chief Financial Officer, Monica Suua:
Myth: “The BCHD project is bad for taxpayers.” (paraphrasing e-mails that have previously been sent to you as a public official)
Facts:
The plan calls for a Public Private Partnership (P3) – which doesn’t use taxpayer money Taxpayers will get more return on their investment
The developer/operator/lessee will pay the City of Redondo Beach property taxes for the land and building
There is a local market demand for Assisted Living/Memory Care Units offered at 10% below market rate is part of the development plan District Cities, Schools will continue to receive funds from BCHD If you have any questions, please reach out to me or our CEO, Tom Bakaly (cc’d), anytime. We look forward to working with you.
Dan Smith
(he/him)
Director of Communications
Beach Cities Health District
1200 Del Amo St., Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Ph: 310-374-3426, x156
www.bchd.org
www.facebook.com/beachcitieshealth
Developer-Lessee Recommended for Beach Cities Health District’s Campus Revitalization Project
Proposed Residential Care for the Elderly facility to be part of modern campus that serves as hub for preventive health
Media Contact: Dan Smith, BCHD, (310) 374-3426, x. 8156 or [email protected] REDONDO BEACH (July 26, 2021) – As part of a rigorous selection process, a Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) subcommittee has recommended PMB LLC, a San Diego-based real estate developer & Watermark, a Tucson-based senior living operator, to build and operate a Residential Care for the Elderly (RCFE) facility at the BCHD Campus. The recommendation has been submitted to the district’s Board of Directors for consideration at their meeting Wednesday night.
BCHD is in the midst of revitalizing its 60-year-old, 11-acre Redondo Beach campus, which will include the proposed 217-unit RCFE facility to provide assisted living and memory care. “The RCFE will serve as a centerpiece for our campus, a modern, environmentally sustainable complex that will serve older adults, local youth and everybody in between,” says BCHD CEO Tom Bakaly. “Housing is a health need, and with Baby Boomers turning 66 years old by 2030, we’re creating space for Beach Cities older adults to age gracefully while receiving assistance including healthcare, housing, and activities of daily life (ADLs). So, after a thorough review process with input from citizens, we’ve identified a highly qualified senior living partner.”
BCHD management and Cain Brothers, a healthcare investment banking firm, prepared a Request for Qualifications, a Request for Proposal and established a framework and schedule to solicit, evaluate and recommend qualified firms to develop and operate the proposed RCFE.
One of the key components of the process has been community participation. An RCFE Advisory Working Group (AWG) was formed as a subcommittee of BCHD’s Property Committee. The AWG, comprised of three BCHD community members and four members of BCHD Management, provided public participation in the selection process by assisting with the evaluation of RFQ & RFP proposals and transaction structure and terms. The AWG was unanimous in their selection of PMB LLC & Watermark.
This recommendation next goes before the BCHD Board of Directors at Wednesday’s meeting (July 27), when the process, scoring methods and results will be presented. The board will review the staff recommendation, then will consider finalizing the selection and terms of the deal at a special meeting to be scheduled for August.
The other finalists are: RhodesMoore Development, based in Cardiff; and Senior Resource Group, based in Solana Beach.
The energy-efficient, seismically compliant redeveloped campus will include a youth wellness center, out-patient programs that help people age in their homes, community activities ranging from Yoga to cooking classes that promote preventive health, and two acres of green space and bike/walking paths replacing acres of asphalt.
The finance model for the campus revitalization is a public-private partnership, which utilizes private investments in public projects to bolster taxpayers’ return on investment. This philosophy enabled BCHD to provide a $3.01-to-$1 return on investment for tax revenues received in fiscal year 2020-21.
The agenda and board packet for Wednesday’s meeting is available at https://www.bchd.org/boarddirectors-meetings.
About Beach Cities Health District
Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) is a healthcare district focused on preventive health and serves the communities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. Established in 1955 as a public agency, it offers an extensive range of dynamic health and wellness programs, with innovative services and facilities to promote health and prevent diseases across the lifespan. BCHD also operates AdventurePlex, a health and fitness facility where kids play their way to good health, and the Center for Health & Fitness, a comprehensive fitness center that is the only Medical Fitness Association-certified facility in California. BCHD was named the 2021 “Special District of the Year” by the Association of California Healthcare Districts. Visit www.bchd.org or call (310) 374-3426 for more information. ###
Beach Cities Health District’s
HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS
With Beach Cities Health District’s Healthy Living Campus in the Conditional Use phase, we’re here to help separates myths from the facts.
For more information, visit www.bchdcampus.org
MYTH VS FACT
MYTH FACT
“We were told that the
building size was reduced in
order to keep market rents
high and not saturate the
market.” (M. Nelson e-mail
to elected officials, June 16,
2022)
Pants on fire false. The building size was reduced to restrict its height as a response to neighbors’ concerns about units overlooking the Torrance neighborhood. When the plan was reconfigured, moving the RCFE building to the northern border of the property, the overall size was reduced – from 461,000 sf in the 2019 plan to 283,070 sf in the 2020 design – in an effort to restrict the building’s height.
“According to statute, even
if BCHD is allowed to
participate in either class
of venture (PACE or RCFE),
it would be a de novo
service and would require
activation of a latent power,
if, that latent power can be
demonstrated by BCHD to
be allowable.” (M. Nelson
to city clerks and LA
LAFCO, June 23, 2022)
He’s looking at the wrong statute, referencing a case involving an Irrigation Special District. “The Local Health Care District Law” (California Health Care District Law, section 32000; amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 696, Sec. 1.) went into effect January 1, 1995 and enumerates various powers granted to health care districts including, but not limited to:
• Operating health care facilities such as hospitals, clinics, skilled nursing facilities, adult day health centers, nurses’ training schools, retirement facilities and childcare facilities.
• Operating programs that provide chemical dependency services, health education, wellness and prevention, rehabilitation and aftercare. • Carrying out activities through corporations, joint ventures or partnerships. • Establishing or participating in managed care.
• Contracting with and making grants to provider groups and clinics in the community.
• Other activities that are necessary for the maintenance of good physical and mental health in communities served by the district. “This property was acquired
by eminent domain/
condemnation for the
specific public purpose of
building and operating a
hospital at the site. The
hospital closed many years
ago, as your records presumably show. BCHD has
not, as far as I know -- and
as far as BCHD has stated
to me in email -- taken any
steps, pursuant to a
Resolution of Necessity, to
establish any new public
use or uses.” (T. Ozenne
email to City of Redondo
Beach officials, July 5, 2022)
To keep pace with the health care changes and give local health care and hospital districts greater latitude, in 1994, the legislature began amending the original state law. Section 32121 of the Health and Safety Code provides Special Districts the power “to do any and all things that are necessary for, and to the advantage of” any type of health promoting service or health care facility. In short, the law generally allowed for anything that is ‘necessary for the maintenance of good physical and mental health in the communities served by the districts.’
(Source: https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PDF-Californi- asHealthCareDistricts.pdf) Section 32121, item J, also includes the following: To establish, maintain, and operate, or provide assistance in the operation of, one or more health facilities or health services, including, but not limited to, outpatient programs, services, and facilities; retirement programs, services, and facilities; chemical dependency programs, services, and facilities; or other health care programs, services, and facilities and activities at any location within or without the district for the benefit of the district and the people served by the district. “Health facilities,” as used in this subdivision, may also include those facilities defined in subdivision (d) of Section 15432 of the Government Code.
(Source: https://www.achd.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/12/ACHD-HCDCode-12.15-FINAL.pdf) Beach Cities Health District’s
HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS
CONTINUED
MYTH VS FACT
MYTH FACT
BCHD cannot be allowed
to build on the perimeter
of the site, maximizing the
invasion of privacy, mass
and visual impacts... BCHD
cannot be allowed to build
a nearly 800,000 sqft development that is larger
than all of the Beryl Heights
homes combined.”
(copied and pasted by
multiple residents at the
urging of a “community
group.”)
Section 32121 of the Health and Safety Code provides Special Districts the power “to do any and all things that are necessary for, and to the advantage of” any type of health promoting service or health care facility. In short, the law generally allowed for anything that is “necessary for the maintenance of good physical and mental health in the communities served by the districts.” (Source: https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PDF-CaliforniasHealthCareDistricts.pdf) BCHD is selecting a
“DEVELOPER /OWNER/
OPERATOR” (BCHD board
meeting quote) that will be
the owner (and developer/
operator). BCHD has not
indicated that it will have
any ownership.” (M. Nelson
email to Mayors, City
Councils and Planning
Commissions of Redondo
Beach and Torrance, June
29, 2022)
Just like other lessees that do business with BCHD, the selected lessee(s) for the Healthy Living Campus project will develop the land, own the business and operate the business. BCHD will retain ownership of the land and will continue to have significant control over the use and operation of the property. At the conclusion/termination of the lease, the property - including the building - will be retained by BCHD.
Beach Cities Health District, one of the leading preventive health agencies in the nation, is working with the community to reimagine our aging, former hospital site to better reflect our mission and meet the current health needs of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach residents. In pursuit of this vision, since May 2017 we’ve collected feedback from the community, consulted with experts and publicly vetted numerous designs and concepts for the 11-acre site with our board of directors.
This once-in-a-generation project is our community’s unique opportunity to chart the future of health in the Beach Cities by purposefully building a vibrant campus where people of all ages can engage in healthy behaviors, form meaningful connections and be well … for many years to come.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Paul Novak Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; CityClerk Subject: Public Comment - LALAFCO Board Members and Alternates Date: Saturday, July 23, 2022 7:42:26 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Brown Act Non-Agenda Item Comment for LALAFCO Board and Alternates, RB and Torrance Councils and Planning Commissioners:
BCHD released a report after close of business on July 22 2022 regarding their proposed Healthy Living Campus project. The project will be 100% third-party Developer/Operator/Owner and BCHD will only lease land to the D/O/O. 75% of D/O/Os bidding withdrew, citing poor economics of the project and a poor design by BCHD. BCHD has never developed a project and it should be no surprise that they spent $10M of taxpayer funds on a poor and non-functional design. BCHD will only receive about $500,000 annually in rents from 3 acres of land after BCHD leases back space in the building.
The report clearly demonstrates that BCHD is not a viable enterprise whether or not it obtains the required Redondo Beach conditional use permit, planning commission design review and residential design guideline compliance. BCHD's report from investment bankers Cain/KeyBanc shows only a $500,000 net annual payment for encumbering 33% of the site for 50-99 years and is insufficient to meet BCHD's CEO and Board's expenditure appetite.
A $500,000 annual rent does not replace the unnecessary demolition of the 514 Hospital, a building that Youssef Assoc. engineers states has 25 years of continued use without seismic retrofit under all existing best practices and ordinances.
BCHD will be only a real estate manager, as it currently is with other properties.
Nine of the 12 bidders (75%) withdrew, citing the poor economics and poor planning/design of BCHD's proposal.
The Approximate Rent from Any of the 3 Remaining D/O/O's will be ~$1.5M annual to BCHD BCHD Will Have to Pay the D/O/O Rent of about $1M Annually From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk
Cc: Sheila Lamb; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment Non-Agenda Planning Commissioners Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 7:01:13 PM
Attachments: Comments of StopBCHD to LALAFCO regarding BCHD MSR Draft.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Attached are the comments to StopBCHD.com to LALAFCO regarding the BCHD MSR.
Please forward to any missing commissioners on the cc list.
StopBCHD.com will be making further comments to the LALAFCO Board and Board of Supervisors following release of the final document.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, 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.
Comments to LALAFCO Draft BCHD MSR
BCHD’s HLC is in Violation of the Enabling Legislation for Healthcare Districts California Code requires BCHD to provides services for the benefit of residents, not a supermajority of non-residents or the general public at large. BCHD’s development of facilities to serve 80-96% non residents provides residents with only de minimis use and creates “negative benefits.”
Unlike SBHD that Built Owned and Operated SBH for Incidental and Hill-Burton Use of Non-Residents, BCHD is building a Development for the Incidental Use of District Residents
BCHD is deliberately allowing a private Developer/Owner/Operator to build facilities for 80- 96% non-residents of the District, leaving only 4-20% incidental resident use.
BCHD is actively seeking 3rd party Developer/Owner/Operators to develop commercial business for 80-96% beneficial use of non-residents of the District: Limitation on (i) To do any and all things that an individual might do that are necessary for, and to the advantage of, a health care facility and a nurses' training school, or a child care facility for the benefit of employees of the health care facility or residents of the district. (Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 32121) BCHD is operating for the incidental use of residents, not their benefit.
BCHD HLC requires developing facilities for 80-96% non-residents of the District: (j) To establish, maintain, and operate, or provide assistance in the operation of, one or more health facilities or health services, including, but not limited to, outpatient programs, services, and facilities; retirement programs, services, and facilities; chemical dependency programs, services, and facilities; or other health care programs, services, and facilities and activities at any location within or without the district for the benefit of the district and the people served by the district. (Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 32121) BCHD is developing for primary benefit of nonresidents.
BCHD, Its Site and Buildings, have been a Significant Dis-benefit to Surrounding Property Values and District Residents
Properties surrounding BCHD in Redondo Beach are collectively worth $50M less than they otherwise would be according to econometric modeling of home values using home characteristics and distance from the former South Bay Hospital site. The Redondo Beach homes either pre-existed the development of the site entirely, or, they were built prior to the Hospital expansion from 100,000 to 150,000 sqft. The site buildings are currently 312,000 sqft and BCHD is proposing nearly 800,000 sqft. Any benefits provided by BCHD programs (benefits that BCHD does not rigorously or quantitatively evaluate due to mission conflict and lack of abilities) must be netted by the damages incurred by the District residents.
BCHD acknowledges that it damages surrounding neighborhoods, yet, refuses to downsize the buildings or even evaluate their damages.
BCHD wrongly equates its damages to a local Vons store of a fire station, both of which serve the local neighborhood. In the case of BCHD, the HLC will serve 90-98% non-residents of Redondo Beach, while Redondo Beach receives 100% of the dis-benefits. Further, BCHD denies the decades of neighborhood complaints about noise, traffic, excess nighttime lighting and parking. Parking eventually led to “Resident Only” restrictions for blocks around the compound when South Bay Hospital District refused to deal with the causes of neighborhood disruption.
Clearly this is attempted BCHD PR spin, however BCHD clearly identifies its damages, however it attempts unsuccessfully to “blame the victims.” The record shows that the majority of Beryl Heights neighborhood was built out in the early 1950s prior to the hospital. Further, all of Beryl Heights was built out prior to the expansion of the hospital in 1967 or the construction of the two rental commercial office buildings on the site.
BCHD also refuses to evaluate its damages – a clear sign it is attempting to cover them up.
Any Claims of Program Benefits by BCHD are Unfounded and Must be Discarded.
Per BCHD’s own statements, it is neither required nor capable of evaluating the benefits or net benefits of its health programs. BCHD commonly makes claims of program benefits. However, when probed in California Public Record Act (CPRA),requests the public has found that BCHD claims it has no responsibility or capability to assess the public health benefits of its programs.
From the CPRA response of BCHD: “The Districts [SIC] is currently preparing the FY22-23 Budget for next fiscal year and will also be update applicable performance, benefits and cost metrics. 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.” April 2022
BCHD clearly states under CPRA questioning that computing community benefits for its programs is beyond its “mission” and “abilities.” Therefore, no individual BCHD program, such as PACE, RCFE, “allcove”, LiveWell, etc. can be considered a benefit (more importantly a NET benefit beyond the program’s costs and damages) because BCHD does not have the “abilities” for evaluation. It is ludicrous to assume that a program can provide gross benefits and net damages and be assumed to meet the requirement of being a benefit to district residents.
From District Inception in 1993, BCHD has Failed to Budget or Assess Program Costs From a BCHD CPRA response, BCHD acknowledged from inception through current, it has not budgeted nor conducted cost accounting of its programs. Thus, it has no foundation to assert any program is beneficial.
“2. Provide the 2018-19 budget for each of the 40 programs No documents responsive; the District is working on setting up a system” August 2020 “5. Provide all cost-benefit analysis and ratios of the aforementioned 40 programs. No documents responsive” August 2020
The Results of BCHD’s “Priority Based Budgeting” Process are Invalid and Must Be Discarded.
BCHD’s selected budgeting system of Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) is a popularity contest dominated by the Board, Executives, Staff, Board-approved Committee Members and affiliated volunteers. Less than 10% of PBB Voters are the Unaffiliated Public. Furthermore, it is wholly unethical for BCHD Board, CEO and executives to expect staff to oppose them openly, by name, in public. Below is an example of attendance at a BCHD meeting. Other meetings had even fewer unaffiliated public attempting to voice their concerns as they were clearly outvoted.
Instead of Relying the Public Health Value of Programs, BCHD Conducts Popularity Contests with the Public
BCHD conducts open, non-selective, non-statistically valid surveys of the public to assess health needs. These needs are not subjected to any rigorous analysis to determine if public funding is warranted. BCHD even gives PRIZES for the PR motivated process.
BCHD’s Community Health Committee Conducts Non-scientific, Non-Statistically Valid Surveys as Well and It Cannot Validly Assess Program Benefits
The SOI Appears Non-Applicable to the Health District and Must be Evaluated The BCHD Sphere of Influence appears to be an artifact of hospital service and not of health district service. Hospital service, especially Hill Burton Act service, is a mandatory, emergency public service, while health districts provide elective, non-emergency, preventative services. As a result, BCHD's SOI appears inapplicable and a full analysis needs to be completed, along with widespread public dissemination. Other areas are capable of developing their own special districts if they wish, or requesting annexation. The automatic expansion of the area to contiguous political units is unneeded and unsubstantiated.
Provide the 2008 update and every 5 year update as required by law as attachments or inline text. Optional health districts should not automatically be granted the SOI of a Hill-Burton hospital.
Also provide any applications, memos or other SBHD or BCHD correspondence that is used in SOI determinations as attachment or in-line text.
Cal. Gov. Code § 56425
(g) On or before January 1, 2008, and every five years thereafter, the commission shall, as necessary, review and update each sphere of influence.
(h) In determining a sphere of influence, the commission may assess the feasibility of governmental reorganization of particular agencies and recommend reorganization of those agencies when reorganization is found to be feasible and if reorganization will further the goals of orderly development and efficient and affordable service delivery. T he commission shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure wide public dissemination of the recommendations. (i) When adopting, amending, or updating a sphere of influence for a special district, the commission shall establish the nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts. (emphasis added) The District was Formed for the Benefit of It’s Residents – BCHD is Ignoring that Legal Action by Its Board
A Supermajority of BCHD Services During Covid Were for Non-Residents/Non-Taxpayers of the District
Although BCHD failed to track Covid testing by city, by zip code, or by residency, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health did conduct such accounting. In a California Public Records Act (CPRA) response, BCHD disclosed that LACDPH records showed that 84% Covid tests administered by BCHD were for non-resident/non-taxpayers of the District. BCHD conducted over 150,000 tests and BCHD exposed taxpayers to significant potential losses of taxpayer funding and assets. It appears that BCHD cost recovery is still over $2M short of supermajority non-resident costs incurred for Covid, and that taxpayers have lost $2M in services due to BCHDs CEO and Board’s poor judgment.
A Superm ajority of BCHD Services with the Healthy Living Campus will be for n ontaxpayer/non-residents using publicly owned and zoned land.
According to BCHD press releases, marketing studies and trade association data, BCHD plans to have 80% non-resident tenants in the RCFE, 91% non-residents served in the “allcove” program and 96% non-resident enrollees in the PACE program. Notwithstanding the roughly $2M in lease fees that BCHD will receive, 100% of the damages from these three programs will accrue in 90277 Redondo Beach and all of the District residents will only reap approximately 10% gross
benefit and after adjusting for damages and costs, District residents will clearly have negative net benefits (aka losses) from BCHD’s activity.
Summary of BCHDs Supermajority of Services Outside the Residents of the Beach Cities Redondo Beach Will Bear 100% of the Non-resident/Non-taxpayer Dis-benefits with Only 8% of the Benefits. Redondo Beach Has and Will Suffer NET DAMAGES from BCHD Programs
BCHD is Utilizing Non-Activated Powers
The powers that BCHD appears to be declaring to be in use in the narrative are different than those of a hospital and associated buildings that were voter and Court approved at initiation of SBHD. Furthermore, BCHD has submitted no applications to LALAFCO to activate any of these powers. BCHD should NOT be rewarded for failing to comply with the law by grandfathering these powers. Instead, LALAFCO should enforce the law, and require BCHD to provide formal applications with net benefits analyses to demonstrate that these services should not be provided by the public sector and require taxpayer subsidy. For example, health clubs, childcare, and real estate rental are dominated by free market activity, as is assisted living, PACE, and mental health care.
As stated in South San Joaquin v. the Superior Court
162 Cal.App.4th 146 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)
In Irrigation Dist., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th 146, this Court held that Irrigation could not circumvent the requirement to obtain approval from Formation before expanding its service to provide retail electric service.
In June [2008], Assembly Bill No. 948 was amended in the Senate. This amendment added Article 1.5, entitled "New or Different Services" and deleted Article 3.5. An analysis by the
Senate Local Government Committee explained current law allowed LAFCO's to adopt regulations to control services of special districts. "Assembly Bill 948 repeals the current provisions relating to LAFCOs' regulations controlling special districts' latent powers. Instead, [Assembly Bill No.] 948 creates a new set of procedures that allow a special district to apply to a LAFCO for permission to exercise new or different functions or services." (Sen. Com. on Local Gov., Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 948 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 13, 2001, p. 2.)
Based on Public Record Act requests, neither BCHD nor its predecessor has complied with the law in effect at the time. Bluezones is clearly post-AB 948 and required an application, as did LiveWell in general and LiveWell Kids which are both post 2008 as well.
All of BCHD's current services must be reviewed and compared to their requests for activation.
If no requests exist, BCHD is in violation of the law and all services require demonstration of net value to District residents.
BCHD and LALAFCO Misrepresent Material Facts of the Proposed HLC FALSE: “is in need of a costly and significant seismic upgrade” and “is in need of a costly sesimic upgrade”
BCHD’s consultant, Youssef & Associates presented the following to a committee of BCHD where his firm’s official position is that no RBMC requires retrofit, best practice does not require retrofit, and best practice allows up to 25 years to complete retrofit, if required. BCHD’s CEO Bakaly told member Mark Nelson in a public meeting that the Board “wanted” to replace the building, notwithstanding that there was no requirement to do so.
FALSE: “417-unit residential care facility”
The facility is 220-units
Work Product of Youssef Assoc. for BCHD Reveal No Current Best Practice Need for Seismic Retrofit on 514 N Prospect Ave Building – Any Work is VOLUNTARY LALAFCO Appears in Non-compliance with Cal. Gov. Code § 56425 It appears that LALAFCO has not identified active powers nor updated SOI as required. There is no reason that the voters, taxpayers and residents of the District should suffer from LALAFCOs
apparently failure that allowed expansion of BCHD in violation of State Law. Services must be evaluated de novo.
BCHD and LALAFCO Failed to Evaluate District Dissolution as an Option There are NOT only two choices, retrofit or demolish. BCHDs own contract engineering firm, Youssef Assoc. presented that there is no requirement for any seismic work and that the building has a 25 year remaining seismic life under best practices. BCHD intentionally misstates the record and LALAFCO is now fully aware of that misstatement.
Further, BCHD is primarily a real estate manager of taxpayer owned property and a passive investor in financial instruments. It operates its Health and Fitness at a significant loss, subsidizing residents of other cities who are non-taxpayers. The charts below demonstrate how BCHD revenues are in SUPERMAJORITY from passive investments and real estate management revenues. BCHD revenues from any direct involvement in health activities are de mininis.
According to Cain Bros., BCHD’s $2M contracted investment banker, BCHD’s leasing of land for development of the 110-foot tall, 300,000 sqft RCFE will net BCHD approximately $2.5M per year of approximately $80M per year of revenue to the commercial third party Developer/Owner/Operator. Materially, all services will be provided at market rates by commercial firms, and therefore, BCHD is unneeded in the process.
BCHD currently has no license for RCFE or PACE and plays no public health role in Sunrise Hermosa Beach. BCHD is a passive investor, paying over $2M annually to its top ten executives – an amount equal to 50% of property tax revenues. In the event of dissolution, all commercial entities continue operating and the property taxes could be reassigned to local needs, thereby removing BCHD’s 60% overall employee overhead.
BCHD’s Commercial Development is Contested by Residents
The excerpt speaks for itself and fully explains why local quality of life groups focus on the Cities and provide no additional discussion with BCHD.
LALAFCO’s Determination is Incorrect and Unsupported
The statement is FALSE. BCHD has 25 years of continued use in the 514 Building as demonstrated with factual evidence by BCHDs structural engineering firm. There is no urgent seismic issue as BCHD falsely claims. Furthermore, BCHD can be dissolved or downsized.
There is NO REQUIREMENT to continue operations at the current level. As BCHD has replied in Public Records Acts, it asserts that it does not have the ability to conduct Benefit-to-Cost analysis and does not know if it is overall a public health benefit or liability as such. LALAFCO cannot make a determination without review of the facts, and BCHD has provided only biased information to LALAFCO.
BCHDs Assertion of being Compelled to Retrofit or Demolish is False This statement is FALSE. BCHD can operate the 514 building for 25 more years based on all applicable codes and standards. BCHD chooses to make the false declaration that it must revert.
BCHD could also terminate or downsize. It provides no emergency services and the majority of its revenues are from commercial operation.
The Following Is Advertising of BCHD “Wins” in Paid Trade Associations Unless LALAFCO has audited the practices of CSDA, this statement is BCHD advertising and benefits received by BCHD in return for its membership dues. This must be removed.
ACHD is a Self-declared Advocacy Organization
As a paid trade association and advocate for its paid members, ACHD awards and recommendations are biased, tainted, and must be excluded from the MSR. Per their website, they have an Advocacy Team and provide advocacy services. On behalf of its members including BCHD, ACHD has opposed legislation supporting worker pay, accountability, and other measures that directly benefit consumers and those in health crisis in order to shield districts from accountability.
All BCHD Promotion by LALAFCO of Paid Trade Association Awards Must be Removed from the MSR
Unless LALAFCO has substantive knowledge of the processes, evaluations, and quality of the paid trade association awards, LALAFCO must remove said references from the MSR. Any awards from paid trade associations cannot be relied upon absent independent analysis of the association and processes that LALAFCO has not likely completed.
CSMFO Awards are a Beauty Contest Judged by Other Members with Such Absurb Guidelines as “Does the Document Contain a Table of Contents and Are the Pages Numbered”
Unless LALAFCO has direct knowledge of the processes and quality of the awards, ALL AWARDS not from State or Federal agencies must be removed from MSR. Paid trade associations and membership association awards are prizes for paid members, graded by paid members, and excluding all non-member organizations and government bodies.
LALAFCO Contradicts Its Findings and Must Strike the First Sentence Below If LALAFCO asserts it cannot ascertain the accuracy of the facts of the statement in the second paragraph, then it has no reason to believe that BCHD has been diligent vs strategically denying and withholding information. The statement must be removed.
PACE Does NOT Provide Net Benefits to Residents or Employees 96% of BCHD’s proposed PACE will service non-resident/non-taxpayers according to National PACE Assoc statistics. Therefore, 100% of the damages will with certainty exceed the 4% of residents in the District that will use PACE. The statement by BCHD is unsupported and FALSE and must be removed due to the 25-to-1 damages to benefits.
PACE and RCFE are Full Market Cost Programs and BCHD Involvement Provides No Benefit to District Residents – In Fact, BCHD’s $2M Executive Payroll is an Excessive Overhead that Would Not Ordinarily Impact PACE or RCFE Costs.
Both PACE and RCFE fail the definition since both are full market rate programs and participants face increased costs from BCHD’s overheads. In any event, BCHD provides no material assistance beyond that of the free market for PACE or RCFE. “Allcove” Fails the Definition As BCHD Published that 91% of the Target Market are Non-Resident/Non-Taxpayers of the District and It Will NOT Provide Net Benefits Allcove is clearly a latent service that requires a cost-effectiveness and benefit case to operate.
BCHD services only 9% residents with the program, and as such, it has no NET benefit and in fact a NET COST to the District residents. As with all BCHD programs, BCHD asserts that public health benefit assessment is beyond the “Mission” and “Abilities” of BCHD and its staff (per CPRA response) so any assertion by BCHD that a program is beneficial to District residents cannot be supported by BCHD data or analysis.
BCHD’s Claims in 32121 j) Are Supermajority False
BCHD Falsely Claims that it established, maintains, operates, or provides assistance in the operation of 1) business that pay fair market rent in the BCHD 514 N Prospect Bldg, and 2) busnesses in the 3rd party owned and operated 510 and 520 N Prospect Commercial Office Buildings. This is a false representation by BCHD to inflate its services and must be thoroughly vetted at the business by business level for BCHD ownership or other material operational assistance. Furthermore, BCHD’s ownership of the underlying land provides no claim to a tenancy in the Commercial Office Buildings, as they are owned and operated by 3rd parties.
Both sampled tenants and the building rental manager confirm that the Commercial Office Buildings have no BCHD relationship with tenants.
In addition, BCHD list prospective, non-operating services, such as “allcove” for 91% nonresidents, RCFE for 80% non-residents, and PACE for 96% non-residents as active services.
That is flatly false.
CONCLUSIONS
BCHD operated during Covid for the benefit of a SUPERMAJORITY of non-residents of the District.
BCHD plans to allow a 3rd party Developer/Owner/Operator to develop for a SUPERMAJORITY of non-residents of the District.
BCHDs proposed RCFE is for 80% non-residents.
BCHDs proposed PACE is sized for 96% non-residents.
BCHDs proposed “allcove” youth mental health services has a 91% non-resident service area.
BCHD has negative quality of life and financial property value impacts on surrounding neighborhoods
BCHD proposes to nearly triple the campus size from an original 100,000 sqft to the current 312,000 sqft to 793,000 sqft.
BCHD proposes to build at 110-feet above surrounding property that is zoned for 30-feet.
BCHDs expansion actions will further damage surrounding neighborhoods.
BCHD acknowledges it has damaged surrounding neighborhoods.
BCHD has made no effort to evaluate the value of its damages.
BCHD strategic planning half-day meetings are 90%+ board, executives, staff, consultants, contractors, committee members and affiliated volunteers and less than 10% public. As such, BCHD strategic plan and priority based budgets are insider documents without meaningful public participation.
BCHD damages to the community from 80-96% non-resident services swamp the benefits of 4- 20% resident services.
BCHD’s unvetted “awards” from paid trade associations with colleagues as evaluators must be discarded.
BCHD’s is a passive investor and real estate manager and should be dissolved.
BCHD’s misstates the seismic findings. BCHD is in compliance with seismic best practices and the 514 building has 25-year seismic life under best practices according to BCHD’s engineering consultant (document included as evidence).
BCHD has no obligation or need to demolish the 514 building.
BCHD’s Claims in 32121 j) Are Supermajority False and BCHD did not establish, operate, etc. the private businesses that are tenants.
BCHD claims in 32121 i) are false as PACE and other programs do not exist.
BCHD claims in 32121 c) are false as BCHD has no lessor relationship with any business or service in the 510 and 520 N Prospect Commercial Office Buildings yet falsely claims a direct relationship. BCHD has only a lessor relationship with the building owners of 510 and 520 COB.
BCHD claims in 32121 m) are unvetted and must be rejected.
BCHD claims in 32121 o) are unvetted and require provision of JV, partnership or corporation documents.
BCHD claims in 32121 r) are unvetted and contain false claims, such as PACE which does not exist at BCHD. BCHD must provide documents demonstrating its beneficial relationship with tenants beyond being a lessor as well. Merely leasing property does not establish any beneficial relationship. UCLA has other clinics in the Beach Cities leased from other vendors of real estate.
BCHD’s existing RCFE CUP is void if the RCFE is located anywhere but in the 514 building.
BCHD’s campus and 514 building zoning of P-CF does not allow PACE or adult daycare as a conditional use.
BCHD’s C-2 zoned lot is the only location on the site with a conditional use for adult daycare subject to approval.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment on BCHD Project to BCHD BoD Meeting 7/25/22 Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:39:13 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Non-Agenda Comment to City Council and Planning Commission The following comments were made to the Board of BCHD and reflect citizen concerns about BCHD failed project planning to this point.
BCHD BoD 7-25-22 Ecomment VII.3) Properties Committee:
Nine of 12 BCHD potential Developer/Owner/Operators withdrew (75%) due to stated concerns about poor BCHD project economics and poor BCHD project design according to Cain Bros presentation. All three "finalists" have some form of alternative project proposed.
It is s clear that BCHD and its designers and consulted have bungled the project until now and that the selected vendor will need to clean up BCHDs trail of errors. I oppose all recommendations of the non-objective committee that includes BCHD's project consultant Biro who has a conflict due to BCHD payment contract to his firm. I object to BCHD continuing to the CUP/PCDR/DRG phase due to its already demonstrated incompetence. The Developer/Owner/Operator needs to move ahead in an attempt to provide the fiduciary protection that BCHD refuses to implement.
BCHD BoD 7-25-22 Ecomment VII.3.A) INFORMATIONAL UPDATE REGARDING PHASE I OF HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS AT 514 PROSPECT AVENUE, REDONDO
BEACH AND SELECTION PROCESS FOR DEVELOPER/LESSEE/OPERATOR AND
DESIGN-BUILD FIRM
Assuming Cain Bros handpicked the 12 potential Developer/Owner/Operators based on our taxpayer payment to them, and that 75% fell out, either they were sham bidders of the project is an abject failure under BCHD's so-called leadership and its $16M army of consultants. 75% of potential D/O/Os withdrew due to stated poor economics and poor design. On average, the remaining three offer lease payments to BCHD of $1.5M annual and a chargeback of $1.1M for BCHD use of the facility for 91% non-resident allcove, 96% non-resident PACE and BCHD staff offices. Further, the RCFE is for 80% non-residents. It is clear this facility is for non-residents and in violation of both the formation of South Bay Hospital District and SBHD's court filings to develop a facility for the benefit of residents of the District. $400,000 net for 3 acres of P-CF public owned and zoned land is a dereliction by BCHD.
BCHD BoD 7/25/22 eComment Item VII.3.B) HLC Land Survey Contract BCHD should cease all expenditures on the Wealthy Living Campus project until such time as a competent economic and design team is on board.
BCHD BoD 7/25/22 eComment Item VII.3.C) Design Budget Increase BCHD should cease all expenditures on the Wealthy Living Campus project until such time as a competent economic and design team is on board. Further, since 75% of Developer/Owner/Operator candidates' primary reason for abandoning the project was poor economics and design, BCHD should examine litigation against the design firm as part of BCHDs fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers.
BCHD BoD 7/25/22 eComment Item XA) Allcove
BCHD should cease all expenditures on the allcove project until such time as BCHD has a long term cost recovery mechanism in place. According to BCHD's Press Releases, 91% of the allcove target residents are non-residents of the district.