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
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk
Subject: Non-Agenda Public Comment for Council and Planning Commission Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:18:45 AM
Attachments: image.png
BCHD MSR LALAFCO Public Comments - Set 2 9-12-22.pdf
BCHD MSR LALAFCO Public Comments - Set 1 Errors-Omissions 9-10-22.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Attached are the comments provided by StopBCHD.com to LAFCO on behalf of about 100 comment supporters regarding BCHD's municipal service review.
The comments discuss a number of the procedural errors that we see occurring with the proposed private 110-foot tall, 300,000 sqft development that BCHD has 0% ownership in. Further, the assisted living targets 80% non-District residents, the PACE targets 95% non-District residents and "allcove" service area is 91% non-District residents. As the Council and Planning are aware, the District was formed for the benefits of "residents who reside in the District" according the District's filings with the Superior Court. Furthermore, any services or facilities OUTSIDE THE DISTRICT require LAFCO pre-approval, and BCHD skipped the act completely in violation of state law.
The excerpt below is provided from the LA LAFCO:
Thank you.
--
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 of StopBCHD.com and Various Comment Supporters Below Our initial comments of the StopBCHD.com community were transmitted over the weekend to allow a maximum amount of time for the commissioners and staff to process. Our second comment topics include:
1) The Sphere of Influence for BCHD Should be Reduced
2) BCHD is Required to Seek LAFCO Pre-approval for Services Outside of the District 3) LAFCO Wrongly Concluded Residency Requirements are Unlawful for Districts 4) LAFCO Wrongly Concluded that BCHDs Sunrise RCFE Creates an Active Power and Authority for BCHD’s Prosposed HLC RCFE
5) LAFCO Failed to Require BCHD to Gain “allcove” Program Authorization 6) LAFCO Failed to Require BCHD to Gain PACE Program Authorization due to Outside District Services
7) LAFCO Failed to Require BCHD to Gain PACE Program Authorization – Activation of Latent Services
8) LAFCO Failed to Consider that BCHD is an Optional Service that can be Dissolved 9) LAFCO Must Apply the Same Required Review and Approval Standards to Services BCHD Plans for Outside the District Notwithstanding the Location of Service Provision 10) LAFCO Must Assess the Benefits to the “People Served by the District” (residents, community, within, inside) for any Activity of BCHD Without (outside) the District THANK YOU to Los Angeles LAFCO Leadership and Staff
Thank you to the Executive Director and staff at LAFCO for all their hard work on BCHD’s evaluation, as well as all the other special districts in the County. We have the following initial comments below to your staff draft report issued on 9-7-2022 at LALAFCO.org to be presented at the 9-14-22 meeting.
The S phere of Influence for BCHD Should be Reduced
We agree with LAFCO that BCHD’s sphere of influence (SOI) should be reduced to the cities of Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach only. In over 60 years of District operation, not a single annexation has been attempted by the District, and not a single government unit has attempted to join the District. No other Districts have been formed. It is clear from history that non-residents of the District will be freeriders on the services of BCHD while the limited taxpayer base of the District provides their funding and assets for services. We believe BCHDs services should be targeted to District residents (the proposed SOI).
BCHD is Required to Seek LAFCO Pre-approval for Services Outside of the District Residents of the District have long sought to limit BCHDs operations and spending outside the District with no success. It is estimated that District taxpayers lost $2M during Covid based on BCHD nonrecovery of funds for servicing largely outside the District. Board members have publicly stated the District has no constraint to service provision outside the District, can provide outside the District, and we have seen no enforcement has come from LAFCO or other watchdog agencies.
LAFCO Wrongly Concluded Residency Requirements are Unlawful for Districts West Basin Water District, overseen by LAFCO, routinely uses residency requirements for its programs to assure that the District’s benefits go to the District’s residents. Residents are required to show proof of address inside the District for rain barrels and other District programs. Absent that requirement, West Basin would breach its fiduciary responsibility to its customers (residents) by using customer funding to benefit non-District participants. LAFCOs conclusion is in error that Districts cannot implement residency requirements. We believe that BCHD has the ability, and obligation, to target all programs and services at residents of the District. This is consistent with the Resolution of Necessity and Superior Court pleading of the SBHD that implemented the requirements of the voters at the time of District establishment.
LAFCO Wrongly Concluded that BCHDs Sunrise RCFE Creates an Active Power and Authority for BCHD’s Prosposed HLC RCFE
LAFCO asserts that BCHDs ownership of Sunrise “activated” its RCFE power for BCHDs proposed HLC RCFE. That is not accurate. Per BCHD’s documentation, that new HLC RCFE is a service intended to be provided to 80% tenants outside the proposed SOI (current District) boundary. As such, these outside of District services for the proposed RCFE require an application and explicit LAFCO approval. At a minimum, BCHD must demonstrate that District residents benefit from only having 20% use of the facility with 100% of the damages. We believe that BCHD does not have a blanket active RCFE power, that LAFCO must require an application from BCHD, and that BCHD cannot demonstrate net benefits to District residents from a mere 20% use of the RCFE for District residents.
LAFCO Failed to Require BCHD to Gain “allcove” Program Authorization LAFCO apparently assumes that “allcove” with its 91% outside the District service area is an activated power. Even if each and every facet of “allcove” is already in use by BCHD, BCHDs explicit programming for 91% outside the District requires an application and approval from LAFCO. Since BCHD states they have already inked contracts with “allcove” a malfeasance investigation seems appropriate to determine why BCHD bypassed State law. We believe that LAFCO must require a public application and comment process for BCHDs “allcove” 91% outside program and should suspend it as unauthorized in the meantime.
LAFCO Failed to Require BCHD to Gain PACE Program Authorization-Outside District LAFCOs analysis of BCHDs PACE suffers from two fatal errors. First, the PACE program is 95% targeted at services outside the District. Second, BCHD falsely claims tenants that are not tenants and falsely claims service provision of those tenants as its own. Point 1 - Only 1 in 1,000 seniors uses PACE (per National PACE Association), and therefore a 400 enrollee center as proposed by BCHD will require a target market of 400,000 seniors. That is over 3-times the size of all residents of the District.
That is also over 20-times the number of seniors in the District. We believe that LAFCO must require a public application and comment process for BCHDs PACE 95% outside program and should suspend it as unauthorized in the meantime.
LAFCO Failed to Require BCHD to Gain PACE Program Authorization-Latent Services LAFCOs analysis of BCHDs PACE suffers from two fatal errors. First, the PACE program is 95% targeted at services outside the District. Second, BCHD falsely claims tenants that are not tenants and falsely claims service provision of those tenants as its own. Point 2 – According to building management company Dunn’s representative, BCHD has no leasing or tenant relationship with the businesses in 510 or 520 Commercial Office Buildings (COBs).
BCHD claims in its presentations to LAFCO that it does have an affirmative tenant relationship in 510 and 520 COBs. Further, BCHD asserts under 32121 (r) that it “ESTABLISHED, MAINTAINS, OPERATES, PARTICIPATES IN, or MANAGES” those businesses in 510 and 520 COB in order to claim that BCHD provides the services of those non-tenant companies. There is no reasonable definition that would allow BCHD to claim to provide radiology services via a privately owned company in the 510 COB that BCHD has no direct business relationship with. BCHD has been requested via CPRA Request to provide the leases and contracts to LAFCO, however, due to BCHDs decision to slow roll damaging material releases via PRRs, the are unlikely to be provided by the LAFCO meeting on 9/14/22.
Further, a brief survey of direct tenants of BCHD in the 514 N Prospect building indicates that they have only a renter relationship and they deny any 32121 (r) participation by BCHD. As such, they clearly state that BCHD has no action in the provision of their services. BCHD is falsely claiming to offer the services in PACE and as such, LAFCO wrongly determined that BCHD’s PACE will be an active power. We believe that LAFCO must require a public application and comment process for BCHDs PACE 95% outside the district, latent power program and should suspend it as unauthorized in the meantime.
LAFCO Failed to Consider that BCHD is an Optional Service that can be Dissolved Only 130,000 of 10M (0.1%) LA County residents are served by the one non-hospital District (BCHD).
It is clear that non-hospital Districts are not essential or the public would be clamoring to form more Districts. That does not occur. Evidence suggests the only reason Health Districts exist is as rubble from the failure of the “essential” Hospital Districts.
In the case of BCHD, the voter-approved and funded public South Bay Hospital failed in 1984. The building was rented to a private hospital provider until 1998 during which time the District was a passive landlord. BCHD is now primarily a passive, non-operating investor and real estate manager in direct competition with the private market. A valid and unconsidered option by both BCHD and LAFCO is the dissolution of the District or downsizing of its revenues and services. We believe the report must be reviewed and dissolution of the District considered as an option at each point where LAFCO considers future states of the world for BCHD and its finances.
LAFCO Must Assess the Benefits to the “People Served by the District” for any Activity of BCHD Without (Outside) the District
As written by LAFCO in the draft report, 32121 (j) states that any programs and services within or without the District must benefit the people served by the District. Further, LAFCO notes that if the services provided are outside the District, then the District requires LAFCO approval.
As of yet, LAFCO has received no application, nor any analysis of benefits for BCHD’s HLC programs, including RCFE, PACE and “allcove”. Each program is dominated by out of District services. RCFE tenancy is planned to be 80% without, “allcove” by contract territory is 91% without, and PACE by trade association data is 95% without the District.
Clearly, LAFCO was required to approve those programs PRIOR to implementation according to LAFCOs own draft report. CHS 32121 uses the phrases “benefit of residents of communities served by the district” and “benefit of the communities served” and “benefit of ... residents of the district” without any obvious distinction, leading to the conclusion that not only CAN the District limit services to its residents, that it must determine any service provided to non-residents must also provide net benefits to residents. From this plain English reading, the District must restrict service provision to non-residents (without, outside, non-community served) unless it is demonstrated the provision of those services provides net benefits to residents (within, inside, community).
We believe LAFCO must require applications for HLC RCFE, PACE and “allcove” and that LAFCO must assure that the programs/services with only 5-20% direct resident (within, inside, community) benefit remain beneficial to residents after suffering the costs, damages, and management distraction of 80-95% without (outside, non-resident) implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these initial comments on the BCHD MSR to LAFCO. We look forward to LAFCO’s full consideration of what we believe to be largely plain English readings of LAFCO’s draft report and the Heath & Safety Code of California.
Mark Nelson
for StopBCHD.com
Additional Parties
From: Mary Ewell
To: CityClerk
Cc: Nils Nehrenheim; Bill Brand; [email protected]; [email protected]; Christian Horvath; Todd Loewenstein; Laura Emdee; Zein Obagi; [email protected] Subject: Opposition to BCHD proposed "Healthy" Living Campus for City Council and Planning commission members Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 9:25:36 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I want to go on record to object to BCHD's proposed building a private/for profit assisted living "campus" on designated Public land, P-CF-set aside for PUBLIC/Community use for a hospital, school, fire/police station the for these many reasons:
1: A needs assessment to justify the proposed building was not undertaken within the community, only projected market analysis based on the # of seniors, and 2:the cost of purchasing an assisted living unit far surpass the median income of the combined Beach Cities; BCHD themselves predict that 80% of its residents will be from outside the Beach Cities, therefore NOT SERVING the residents. In truth, this is a country club proposal. The proposed "Healthy" Living Campus (HLC) will be owned and operated by an entity/investor group. It is crystal clear that profit is driving this attempted TAKEOVER OF LAND DESIGNATED FOR P-CF (PUBLIC COMMUNITY FACILITIES: school, hospital, recreation, fire or police station, for the Good of THE COMMUNITY).
3.The above statement reflects that BCHD will be addressing only those from "generational wealth" able to pay $13,000.+ per month, so closed to minority black and brown races, unless of celebrity status. It is outright discriminatory/preferential housing, thinly veiled. These inequities show up throughout the planning process, going back to the first scooping
meetings, notice of which were sent to Beach City residents, NOT the Torrance residents that would likely be the most impacted by this overreach.
4.Others have cited the proposed height and expanse of the structure, which is a sharp contrast to the existing South Bay Hospital structure that has a significant set back AND UNDERGROUND PARKING that allows for a smooth flow of incoming/outgoing traffic. Instead, the HLC proposal adds no setback/buffer to the neighboring environs, far exceeds the height conducive to the surrounding neighborhoods, PLANS TO ADD A HIGH STRUCTURE PARKING BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE
THAT, AGAIN, COMPLETELY OVERSHADOWS NEIGHBORHOODS BELOW, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDINGS, A TORRANCE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. This is egregious disregard for the local residents, 1200 residents who signed a petition against the massive size of the BCHD proposed project.
5. The exit plan for all who leave the HLC (3 around the clock shifts included) will empty into the Flagler Lane/alley behind the HLC, infiltrating these Torrance neighborhoods which are at your mercy.
6. The BCHD Board has become an oligarchy, taking on the privilege of being a "Health District", without proving the legitimacy of this designation, the arrangement having been arrived at by a few leaders, with good intentions, to be sure, now taking that Health District designation beyond the intended purpose by approving their own hired inspectors to draw up an EIR that THEY THEMSELVES approved. It is a blatant contradiction of the democratic common good.
7. The impact that this 5 year+, ongoing building process would extract from the community has not been seriously considered. Prospect Ave has become a commuter corridor that is already over strapped with cars, but the young pedestrians going to one of 5 adjacent SCHOOLS (2 elementary, one down wind of the site in Torrance, a middle school, 2 high schools, all attended by minors in this area) has not been factored in and they are at risk. Their needs, as the needs of the local community, are being disregarded/ minimized at best. They will remain vulnerable if this proposal is not stopped
8. For these, and other factors that are being submitted to you, I ASK YOU TO DENY the BCHD ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS that would give them "free reign" to alter the zoning that is P-CF- for PUBLIC Community Facilities only.
Mary R.Ewell, M.F.T,
Redondo Beach Senior citizen/ good neighbor
From: Jill Klausen
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment to Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, GPAC Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 11:26:06 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I am absolutely appalled that a special carve-out that is intended to benefit BCHD's construction of an oversized, inconsistent, incompatible, for-private-profit compound in the middle of residential and public property has been inserted at LU20 Policy LU 4.7.
This is both unacceptable and optically the fruit of graft in the amount of $300,000 paid to Chair Biro, who is now acting as a consultant to BCHD instead of looking out for the interests of the community at large.
This policy is UNACCEPTABLE and denies the rights of surrounding neighborhoods to be free from property value damages, privacy invasion, noise in excess of federal limits, and a host of other health and propert-use damages. IT MUST BE REMOVED, and I am calling on you to do so.
Jill Klausen
Redondo Beach resident and homeowner since 1994 and 2004 respectively.
From: Geoff Gilbert
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment to Council, Planning Copmmission, City Attorney, GPAC Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 6:48:47 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Redondo Beach City Clerk;
subject
Public Comment to Council, Planning Commission, City Attorney, GPAC message
The special carve out at LU20 Policy LU 4.7 is apparently intended to support BCHD's construction of an oversized, inconsistent and incompatible FAR 2.0, 110-foot tall, 792,520 sqft compound in the midst of residential 30-foot and commercial 30-foot limits is both unacceptable and optically the fruit of a $300,000 BCHD consultant's participation in GPAC (Chair Biro, consultant to BCHD). As the City is well aware, Chair Biro's removal from GPAC has been called for since he and his firm became high paid consultants and advocates on behalf of BCHD. This policy is UNACCEPTABLE and denies the rights of surrounding neighborhoods to be free from property value damages, privacy invasion, noise in excess of Federal limits, and a host of other health and property use damages. IT MUST BE REMOVED.
As a Redondo Beach resident and someone who has followed the BCHD HLC machin last five years, I strongly urge the City of Redondo Beach to deny any fast tracking for of this project, and instead bring it to the RB Residents to decide what to do with the pu originally set aside for the Beach Cities Hospital. BCHD has shown itself to be a very p neighbor, risking our health and well being for it's own gain, something we see from big that has little or no genuine concern for the community.
Sincerely,
Geoff Gilbert
1406 Diamond St.
Redondo Beach
Niki Negrete-Mitchell D3
METRO PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE MTG
I had a chance to listen to their meeting, plus their Olympics meeting, here is a summary of useful points for us as follows:
They discussed the Santa Ana Line DEIR and 405 Frwy, very interesting parallels with us, in fact it can sound a lot like they’re talking about the Greenline. I have to say it was refreshing to hear and you’ll see why.
Big emphasis on their concern about resolving ALL shareholder comments. They are VERY concerned about potential added costs being unmanageable on the back end. They mention they CANNOT APPROACH FEDS for more funding if cities, sharehlders, etc. are not all in alignment with their approvals. (they are seeking APPROVAL on their project from affected shareholders, they cannot go forward without)
They refer to FATAL FLAWS = RISK CONTINGENCIES, they acknowledge their fine line with potential disaster;
• UTILITY CONFLICTS (gas lines),
• SOILS/STABILITY ISSUES (they need to ensure what they build can be supported), • FREIGHT RELOCATION, Freight move must be complete before they start LTR build. They CANNOT interrupt service while moving freight tracks. No moving forward w/out approval from Union Pacific.
They need to "affirm assumptions made in DEIR" through "exploration of unforeseen conditions" (sound familiar?).
There was mention of their "EQUITY POLICY”, they reference "Multimodal" which takes us back to the Multimodal Objectives report I worked on covering equity disparities.
Another thing they commented on was "DISCONNECTED COMMUNITIES" and the description of that concept is EXACTLY what would happen to Ruxton/Condon, but mostly a LOT in Lawndale, in a devastating way, it would separate that community and take away their green space.
They say their main objectives overall are SAFETY and ECONOMIC VITALITY. (Precisely our emphasis for the Hawthorne elevated option)
**We MUST stand our ground. NEVER AGREE TO ANYTHING ON ROW, trenched, not trenched, retaining walls, new windows, air conditioners… NOTHING. We don’t need to accept anything. Let’s not be gaslit into acceptance of what’s bad for us.** Thank you for your continued support!
From: FrankBriganti <
Sent: Thursday, September15, 20225:00PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Whattheydon'ttellyou
CAUTION: Emailisfromanexternalsource; Stop, Look, andThinkbeforeopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Info. Publicrecord
For Citymanager, Council + ALLCITYDEPTSreviewingBCHDmassiveProject! Thanksfrankb
SentfrommyiPad
Beginforwardedmessage:
From: "Res. AgainstOverdevelopment" <
Date: September15, 2022at3:28:21PMPDT
To: FrankBriganti <
Subject: Whattheydon'ttellyou
Reply-To:
Beach Cities Health District, a public district paid for by taxpayers of the three beach cities, plans a massiveprivate development on publ Can'tseethismessage? Viewinabrowser
Whattheydon't
tellyou
1 BeachCitiesHealthDistrict, apublicdistrictpaidforbytaxpayers ofthethreebeachcities, plansamassiveprivatedevelopmenton publicland.
Yet, ifyoulistentotheirPRcampaign, youwon'thearmuch
aboutthenearly300,000sq. ft., city-block-longstructurethey propose.
2 Youwouldnotsuspectthat90% ofitsmasswouldbehighpriced, privatelyownedseniorassistedliving...notpublichealth services.
Theydon'ttellyouthat100% ofthestructurewillNOTbeowned
bythedistrict.
Who'sbeingtransparent?
BCHD'smega-project:
don'tbuywhatthey'reselling
BringBCHDbacktohealth
LearnMore
Shareonsocial
GotoTRAOFacebook
You'vereceivedthisemailbecauseyouareasubscriberofthissite.
Ifyoufeelyoureceiveditbymistakeorwishtounsubscribe, pleaseclickhere. 3