N.3- Blue Folder — Redondo Beach City Council, November 15, 2022

BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 15, 2022
• Public written comments
N.3. DISCUSSION AND POSSBILE ACTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED

AGREEMENTS NEEDED TO REVIEW THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT

HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS PROJECT
APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES FOR PEER REVIEW OF THE BEACH

CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS PHASE ONE PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $97,108 AND THE TERM NOVEMBER 15, 2022 THROUGH NOVEMBER 14, 2023 APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH PLACEWORKS, INC. FOR

PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES FOR LAND USE ENTITLEMENT

REVIEW OF THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT HEALTHY LIVING

CAMPUS PHASE ONE PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$119,647 AND THE TERM NOVEMBER 15, 2022 THROUGH NOVEMBER 14, 2023

APPROVE A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BEACH CITIES HEALTH

DISTRICT FOR THE COSTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PEER REVIEW

SERVICES, PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES, AND OUTSIDE LEGAL

COUNSEL NEEDED TO CONSIDER THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT

HEALTHY LIVING CAMPUS PHASE ONE PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $316,755 AND THE TERM NOVEMBER 15, 2022 THROUGH THE

DATE WHEN ALL DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND ANY RELATED APPEALS

INVOLVING THE PROJECT ARE CONCLUDED
CONTACT: BRANDY FORBES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
From: Frank Briganti
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 1:10 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re BCHD , RBC & Private Consultants
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

For Public record & Comment
There must be a vote of NO on this collusion of 3 Parties.

This is BCHD colluding with tax payers funds with the City of redondo Beach officials.

This the actions of BCHD an a private developer to influence RB City officials! Where is the RB city Attorney is he independent or a party to BCHD & a private developer?? ** Who are the BCHD consultants (gross conflict of interest) paid and bought for by BCHD.

Where is the transparency for the residents of Redondo & Torrance? Have the private developer & consultants posted Moody, Dunn Bradstreet reports concerning their business ?
Why has BCHD & private developers not posted Bonds( Financial ,Completion,etc) with Redondo Beach & Mr Webb City Attorney ??** For BCHD Project!!
Where are the BCHD funds coming from? private developers & consultants ( lack of transparency!!!!) who authorized the funding No RIE either fotr this?
Thanks Dr. Frank
Sent from my iPad
From: Barbara Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 1:13 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Mike Witzansky <[email protected]>; Brandy Forbes <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item N-3 Beach Cities Health District
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Council and City Manager, Planning Director,
I am philosophically opposed to gifting public property to private enterprise.

This practice has robbed the people of Redondo Beach of their public lands and assets over the history of the city.

I propose that The City of Redondo Beach establish the land use policy of prohibiting this tradition from continuing any longer, starting with this Beach Cities Health District project.

The people of Redondo Beach have asked BCHD to rethink this project to no avail.

Thank you for your service to the people of Redondo Beach.

Barbara Epstein
230 The Village #305
Redondo Beach, 90277
Sent from my iPad
From: Mary Ewell
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 12:02 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Planning Redondo <[email protected]>; Bill Brand <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Christian Horvath <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council agenda item N-3 for 11/15/2022
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

TO: Redondo Beach City Council:

I am opposed to our City Council passing any PREMATURE, rush-to-judgements agreements with the BCHD re: their proposed HLC consultants.

The agreements detail "regular and frequent communications between consultants, BCHD, Redondo Beach City Attorney and Planning Director. They include language stating potential NO WAIVER to Attorney-client privilege, and joint defense agreement. This already smells foul of cronyism.

Further, you have Laura Emdee walking with Tom Bakaly in my neighborhood, asking my neighbor (who knows both of them by sight from previous encounters) "What would it take for her to be persuaded to take down her sign opposing the BCHD's expansion?” She lives in a corner house fronting Del Amo Blvd that gets all the Redondo High traffic going by her sign. So this is hardly a nonpartisan issue! Laura Emdee personally involved herself in promoting the BCHD 's H.L.C. (Neighbor is in Pasadena taking care of an Aunt; can testify to same).

Laura Emdee would have to recuse herself from voting on this Agenda item N3 and ALL subsequent BCHD issues because she violated her role as an unbiased representative of City Council.

Another questionable condition: " If approved, contracts would be effective now through 11/14/2023, BEFORE the final project is presented and the final conditional use permit is submitted... (Yet)the contract term for reimbursement of funds from BCHD and outside legal counsel is 11/15/2022 through the date when all discretionary actions and any related appeals are concluded".

Was the bid process for consultants publicly announced? Where? When? Why not? Why this rush to judgement, which this agreement explicitly shows, BEFORE A FINAL PROJECT AND CUP APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE R B.PLANNING COMMISSION? The Planning Commission was set up to review all proposals. SKIPPING THIS PROCESS, BY PASSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION is colluding with BCHD to jam their agenda through the system without the oversight of the Planning Commission, a more diverse body of residents who more nearly represent the will of the people/residents.

Why shut out the public (who own the PUBLIC land in question) from information leading up to the CUP hearings? There are inconsistencies with the general plan and design guidelines not addressed to date.

Further, Measure DD states that any change in zoning requires a vote of the residents. In particular, it address "up zoning", which this HLC most certainly is.

BCHD has repeatedly NOT wanted this to go to a vote of the people. Wonder why? It appears that this proposed premature acceptance of their consultants is a collusion with their agenda.

The HLC project, in the view of those who have studied it long and hard, is incompatible with the neighborhood and needs of the people in the Beach Cities, the neighborhood taking the greatest hit to its 5 adjacent schools and surrounding environs.

Out of respect for its Torrance neighborhood(s), NO agreement with BCHD should be entered into without working with THEIR Torrance City Council members FIRST.

Respectfully,
Mary Ewell
Redondo Senior resident, child advocate, good neighbor
From: Abbes Khani
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 9:50 AM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Redondo <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to BCHD HLC RCFE
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. >> Honorable City of Redondo Beach Mayor and City Councils. My name is Abbes G Khani. I am a resident of city of Torrance. I am writing in opposition to BCHD’s HLC RCFE. IT seems BCHD is trying to bribe Redondo Beach City municipality authorities with a $350,000.00 study and approval commission at the expense of Torrance and Redondo residents living next to the site of once used to be a Hospital District. I beg you to do your diligence duty and consider HLC project as an ordinary developer development project subject to all city of Redondo Beach municipality zoning and construction codes without any exemptions and exceptions. In April of 2022 I emailed you the following which is more applicable today:
>> BCHD has no statutory authority to negatively impact my life and my possession in any shape or manner. BCHD’s consultant company, Wood, being well aware of Real Estate value decline of the adjacent residential neighborhood, by consent of BCHD’s CEO and Board of Directors, deliberately have not addressed the neighborhood’s Real Estate valuation impact in their DEIR. Approval of any such project needs to address remedial/monitory compensations for adversely impacted neighbors. To illustrate the property value decline, I am disclosing following:
>> I placed my property at 5674 Towers street on market for sale on 11/6/2019. All potential buyers withdrew their interest from buying my property upon learning about outstanding BCHD HLC RCFE. As the result, by consent of my real estate agent, I removed my property from listing hoping the issue will be rectified by city of Redondo Beach responsible authorities. To document detrimental impact of BCHD HLC RCFE, I am providing below a copy of “Addendum No. 1” (prepared by my brokerage firms that time) as evidence of real estate property decline resulting from BCHD HLC RCFE project. I plea to your good conscience not to grant BCHD “Conditional Use Permit” to build it’s massive HLC RCFE. >> With Great Respect,
>> Abbes Khani
From: LINDA Zelik
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:47:29 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Please listen to input from both the Beach City and Torrance residents regarding this preposterous issue being rammed through by BCHD’s board. The public deserves to know about what they are planning, which will greatly impact all our lives!!
There NEEDS to be transparency AND approval of the citizens whom it will greatly impact! Thank you,
Linda and Joe Zelik
West Torrance
Sent from my iPhone
From: Ann Bulson
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 5:02:06 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hello,
I am a concerned resident and homeowner on N. Prospect in Redondo. This project has been a problem from its inception. Please do not move forward with the project.

Thank you,
Ann Bulson
Sent from my iPhone
From: Tim Ozenne
To: CityClerk
Cc: Planning Redondo
Subject: Council Meeting 11/15; Agenda Item N3
Date: Monday, November 14, 2022 6:58:06 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Redondo Council:

It has come to my attention that on November 15 this Council will consider action on three contracts related to the BCHD massive real estate development plan. I urge you to reject any such contracts or at least defer action at this time.

As I understand it, BCHD would reimburse Redondo for costs billed under these contracts. While BCHD itself may expect benefits from Redondo entering these contracts, I expect BCHD simply expects that these contracts will keep the public from knowing what is really going on until the final "deal" is on the table. Why would there be any rush to approve the contracts when BCHD hasn't even submitted its development application?
So that you may better understand the situation, let me tell you that, only a few months ago, I formally asked BCHD to explain its position on related issues, such as whether BCHD--which acquired the Prospect Ave. property via eminent domain in 1957--is or is not subject to California law that demands the property be used only for public purposes. BCHD simply asserted that the property is not subject to the law, but BCHD openly refused to say why! (See CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.210-1245.270.) Before you approve any contracts, make sure you know why BCHD maintains it is not bound by the California law that demands a public use for the property.

Notwithstanding its "award" for "transparency," BCHD does all it can to exclude the public from knowing its plans. As you consider the contracts, please ask why the contracts include terms that are plainly designed to prevent public access to staff and consultant considerations if not to advance BCHD interests at the expense of voters.

Respectfully,
Tim Ozenne
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Excerpt from City of Torrance on BCHD"s Lack of Transparency on HLC Adjacent Project Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 11:16:40 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, Planning Commission
From the Torrance Traffic Commission's Agenda Packet on 11/7/22 from the Torrance Director of Public Works
Besides ignoring public input, BCHD is noted by the Director of PW in Torrance to have ignored Torrance staff. It is unimaginable that an agency with no legal relationship to Torrance and the need for land access would willfully hide its actions and fail to notice Torrance. Absent FORCED COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPARENCY in the proposed BCHD funded processes with the City of Redondo Beach on the Healthy Living Campus FEIR and compliance, BCHD will continue to operate in the shadows, ignoring the surrounding public of both cities.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Is it possible to get the BCHD vote in the general election by CITY? Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 5:46:04 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I see that at least 9771 people voted in MB and at least 4653 voted in HB based on their election returns. What I can't see is how many voters voted in Redondo - nor can I see how the BCHD split up between cities. Is that available? Thx.

From: M. Nava
To: CityClerk
Subject: move the BCHD project INTO THE SUNSHINE for Public Participation Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022 2:26:09 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and Planning Commissioners:

The public learned for the first time on Thursday 11/10/22 that BCHD is going to pay $300,000 or more to reimburse the City of Redondo Beach for consultants. The consultants will review BCHDs private, 107-1/2 foot tall, 275,000 square foot Phase 1 building by PMB, the developer/owner/operator of the facility.

The City Council Agenda Packet does not indicate any public involvement in the process. In fact there are all sort of omnious terms of agreement between BCHD and the City, such as “joint defense agreement” and “work product privilege” and others that are aimed at stopping the public’s ability to gain information during the $300K+ process.

Until such time as the City has a public participation plan in place for the duration of this consultant activity, the agreements between the City and all parties should remain unsigned.

At a minimum, the public needs full access to all work product, review and comment rights on all materials provided by BCHD to the City or its consultants, and review and comment rights of the final work products before they are published. Any other action continues to blindside the public, especially surrounding property owners.

Tuesday night is NOT the time to execute these agreements. Notwithstanding the claim that “time is of the essence” clause in the agreement, time is NOT of the ESSENCE.

BCHD is proposing a 95-year lease to a private company that services 80% non-residents of the District and BCHD is signing 20-year rental agreements for 91% District non-residents in the allcove mental health program and 95% District non-residents in PACE.

When reviewing Redondo Beach non-residents, the numbers are worse yet. 91% of the assisted living residents will be non-residents of Redondo, 95% of the allcove participants and 98% of the PACE enrollees. In short, there is no hurry for Redondo Beach residents to suffer 100% of the District damages of this project for only 2% to 9% of the benefits. There is no way this project can have any NET BENEFITS to Redondo Beach residents. Adjacent Torrance residents will also be damaged, and Torrance is not even a jurisdiction in BCHD.

We urge the Council to open the first meeting in December to public comment and discussion instead of signing this ill conceived agreements and silencing public input even further than BCHD has. It should take as long as it takes to keep Redondo Beach residents and surrounding Torrance residents safe and whole during this process.

Thank you.

Marcio Nava
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - Mayor and City Council regarding BCHD RBMC Compliance Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022 9:35:00 PM
Attachments: Analysis of BCHD Non-conformance with RBMC Aug 2022 90perjpeg.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Given that BCHD is on the Redondo Beach Council agenda for a $300,000+ expenditure and there is no public input or review of the proposal or even the current project design - the attached is the StopBCHD.com assessment of BCHD NON-COMPLIANCE with RBMC for its Pre-CUP 107' 6" tall, 300,000 sqft Phase 1 building.

Assuming that Torrance wishes to enforce the spirit of the Hillside Overlay, Torrance should oppose the BCHD project as a violation and provide NO COOPERATION with BCHD by denying every discretionary permit to protect the rights of the Torrance Residents.

StopBCHD.com
--
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.

Summary of Analysis of CUP, PCDR and RB RDG
Compliance of BCHD Proposed Commercial
Developer/Owner/Operator Project
August 2022
StopBCHD.com
[email protected]
2 Summary
Based on modeling and evaluation of the individual factors and features of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR) and Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs):
1) The project is not consistent or compatible with neighborhood character. 2) The project does not protect property values.
3) The majority of the project’s features/factors do not comply with RBMC. 4) The project’s data is insufficient.
5) The project is specifically developed to service a supermajority of nonresidents of the District (80-96% non-residents) and of Redondo Beach (92-98% non-residents).
6) The project as proposed fails to meet the requirements for a CUP, a PCDR, and is inconsistent with the intent of the RDGs.
3 Legal Compliance Obligations of BCHD and the City
The City has several municipal codes and guidelines intended to ensure compatibility, protect property values, stop adverse effects on surrounding property, and ensure neighborhood character consistency. They are all highlighted in the reports.

Based on substantial documentation and analysis of the RBMC and Guidelines, BCHDs plans, the surrounding neighborhoods, and Redondo Beach historical building approvals – BCHD failed to comply with the requirements set forth. Public comment from 2019 to current to BCHD has clearly indicated BCHDs failure in hundreds if not thousands of public comments and thousands of pages in the BCHD formal record.

In its comments to BCHD’s pre-CUP, the City has failed to protect the residents and enforce the provisions of the RBMC. The City made no comments regarding size, height, compatibility, consistency, or any other clear violation of RBMC by the plan in the preCUP. If there are non-public “deals” being made between the City and BCHD, they MUST be disclosed. Two public agencies have NO REASON to withhold their interactions from the voters, especially when Redondo Beach bears 100% of the damages and is roughly 75% of the population of the District.

The City’s obligation is to enforce the RBMC for the protection of Redondo Beach residents.

The following report contains exhaustive analysis of the project and provides a foundation for the City to either get this project into compliance or to deny it. 4 RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
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.

From an operational perspective, the CUP compliance is evaluated factor or feature at-a-time to determine if each condition is met.
5 RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR) (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.

In addition to the text of 10-2.2502, the PCDR also requires:
(b)(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
From an operational perspective, the PCDR compliance is evaluated factor or feature at-a-time to determine if each condition is met. 6 Redondo Beach Residential Design Guidelines (RB RDG)
Objective. An important objective of the City of Redondo Beach Strategic Plan is to improve the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. These design guidelines [RDG] are intended to help accomplish this objective by ensuring that new homes or additions to existing homes are of high architectural quality; are compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development; and preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.

Design Guideline. New multi-family residential development should respect the development in the immediate area through the use of similar setbacks, complimentary building arrangements, buffer yards and avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions.

From an operational perspective, the RDG compliance is evaluated factor or feature at-a-time to determine if each condition is met. The PCDR specifically states that the “intent” of the RDG must be met. 7 Methodology
For the purposes of this analysis, the factors and features extracted from the CUP, PCDR and RB RDG narratives were organized into 1) Character and 2) Protection of Property Values. Any leftover factors and features were evaluated in 3) CUP/PCDR/RDG Miscellaneous report.

To the extent possible given the poor quality of the source information from BCHD, the Phases (Phase 1 and 2) of the project were evaluated separately. In many cases, there was insufficient information to assess the Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 compliance.

Last, BCHD’s benefits assertions were evaluated and provided to demonstrate that BCHDs project very likely has NO NET BENEFITS to the Residents of Redondo Beach given that it is designed to serve a supermajority of non-residents of both Redondo Beach and the District. 8 Summary Analysis of CUP, PCDR and RB RDG Factors
9 CHARACTER FACTORS
The factors listed below are in the attached “Character” sections of the report
RB RDG – Redondo Beach Residential Design Guidelines
RBMC – Redondo Beach Municipal Code
Both RBMC and the RDG are
required compliance in the Planning
Commission Design Review process
(RB PCDR). The listed Character
Factors are extracted from the
Redondo Beach government sources
as listed, and are evaluated on the
following slides, demonstrating that
the proposed BCHD Phase 1, 108’-8”,
300,000 sqft building fails compliance.

Further, Phase 2 also fails with a total
of 800,000 sqft, about 30% larger than
all Beryl Heights homes added
together.
10 MISCELLANEOUS FACTORS
The factors below were not analyzed in the Character section and are included in the “Miscellaneous Features/Factors” section of the report
Additional effects and features for analysis, evaluation and modification orders pursuant to the PCDR are listed below. They are extracted from the 10-2.2506 and “other features required by this chapter” [Chapter 2] as required in the PCDR (8)(k) language.

To the extent that BCHD documents
are available for analysis,
comments on the features in the
table are provided in the “CUP
Miscellaneous” document. They are
equally applicable to the CUP and
the PCDR, as both incorporate
Chapter 2 of the RBMC Title 10.

Feature/Effect Source
Open spaces and buffers 10-2.2506(b)
Fences and walls 10-2.2506(b)
Streets, service roads, alleys 10-2.2506(b)
Ingress, egress, circulation 10-2.2506(b)
Signage 10-2.2506(b)
Landscaping 10-2.2506(b)
Noise, vibration, odor, and like 10-2.2506(b)
Off street loading 10-2.2506(b)
Maximum development time 10-2.2506(b)
Hours of operation 10-2.2506(b)
Respect for natural terrain 10-2.2502(b)
Utilities 10-2.2502(b)
Private open space 10-2.2502(b)
Security 10-2.2502(b)
Crime deterrence 10-2.2502(b)
General design concerns 10-2.2502(b)
Other conditions as needed 10-2.2502(b)
Protection of property values 10-2.2502(a)
11 PROPERTY VALUES
Modeling results are included in the “Property Values” section Modeling Results Demonstrate that Within a one-half Mile Radius, Property Values Increase with Distance from BCHD Controlling for Major Characteristics 12 BENEFITS CLAIMS
BCHD’s failure to disclose that only 2.4% to 8% of the planned development will serve Redondo Beach residents coupled with BCHD disregard for neighborhood damages is presented in the “Benefits Claims” section
13 Minimum Required Conditions for Further Project Review by the City Based on modeling and evaluation of the individual factors and features considered in the Conditional Use Permit, Planning Commission Design Review and Residential Design Guidelines the project is demonstrated to adversely affect surrounding uses and properties; be incompatible with neighborhood character; not protect property values; and inconsistent with the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines.

Neighborhood Consistency - Example of compliance for assisted living in same P-CF Zoning by Kensington at Knob Hill and PCH. This is also a Developer/Owner/Operator proect with a lease on publicly owned and zoned land of RBUSD, with 0% RBUSD ownership. 14 Minimum Required Conditions for Further Project Review by the CIty (cont’d)
Height Reduction – At 108’-8” above Beryl St., BCHDs proposal is tied as the 2nd tallest building in the city (built 1973) during the era of “ReCondo” Beach. The last building built in the city above 52-ft (the height of 99+% of the current BCHD buildings’ sqft) is the former Crowne Plaza in 1987 at 61-ft above the adjacent street. It is clearly commercial design, as is BCHD’s proposal and is 35 years old.

Size Reduction – At 792,520 sqft, the proposed development is larger than all Beryl Heights residences combined. It is approximately 8X larger than the 1960 Hospital and 2.5X larger than the current totality of BCHD buildings’ square feet.

Buffer/Setback/Center of Site – From 2019 to current, BCHD has increased the height of its proposal from 60-feet to 76-feet to 103-feet (133.5-feet above Beryl St) to 83-feet (108.7-feet above Beryl St). BCHD has also removed 160,000 sqft of underground parking and replaced it with an 8-10 story ramp at Prospect and Diamond streets. BCHD has an obligation from RDG for the “avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions.” BCHD has increased its scale and obstruction from project version to version.

Architectural Consistency/Compatibility – RDGs have specific character discussions of Beryl Heights.

Other neighborhood character can be evaluated via this report or direct photographic surveys. BCHD needs to review Kensington and the City’s approval of its style, integration, intensity, density, color, etc. BCHD current commercial building is inconsistent and incompatible and fails RBMC compliance.

Protection of Property Values – Not only does BCHD not protect property values, it failed to even conduct a damages analysis of property values. Only 2-8% of the use and benefits of Phase 1 accrue to Redondo Beach residents, and that CANNOT OUTWEIGH the 100% of damages from construction and operation of the facility in Redondo Beach.

Analysis of BCHD’s Phase 1 HLC Commercial
Developer/Owner/Operator Project
RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permit
Compliance: “CUP”
16 Many of the Relevant Factors to CUP Issuance Analysis and Modifications are Presented in the “Character” Reports
There is a very significant overlap between the components of Character and the Chapter 2 features listed for incorporation into evaluation and adjustment in 10-2.2506 CUP (b)(1). Below are the components of Character specifically extracted from various RBMC and RB RDG sources.

The components of Character are in
the table. Issuance of a CUP that
protects to the level of “no adverse
effects” on surrounding uses and
properties will need to analyze,
evaluate, and make specific
modifications to most, if not all of
the BCHD Phase 1 proposal for its
Commercial
Developer/Owner/Operator project
that leases approximately 3.2 acres
of P-CF land. BCHD will not be the
developer, owner or operator.
17 Review of Other Effects and Features Provided are Provided in the Phase 1 “Miscellaneous Feature/Factor” Report
Additional effects and features for analysis, evaluation and modification orders pursuant to the CUP are listed below. They are extracted from the 10-2.2506 and “other features required by this chapter [Chapter 2]”.

To the extent that documents are
available for analysis, comments on
the features in the table are
provided in the “CUP
Miscellaneous” document.

Feature/Effect Source
Open spaces and buffers 10-2.2506(b)
Fences and walls 10-2.2506(b)
Streets, service roads, alleys 10-2.2506(b)
Ingress, egress, circulation 10-2.2506(b)
Signage 10-2.2506(b)
Landscaping 10-2.2506(b)
Noise, vibration, odor, and like 10-2.2506(b)
Off street loading 10-2.2506(b)
Maximum development time 10-2.2506(b)
Hours of operation 10-2.2506(b)
Respect for natural terrain 10-2.2502(b)
Utilities 10-2.2502(b)
Private open space 10-2.2502(b)
Security 10-2.2502(b)
Crime deterrence 10-2.2502(b)
General design concerns 10-2.2502(b)
Other conditions as needed 10-2.2502(b)
Protection of property values 10-2.2502(a)
Analysis of BCHD’s Phase 1 HLC Commercial
Developer/Owner/Operator Project
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design
Review: PCDR
19 RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR) (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.

In addition to the text of 10-2.2502, the PCDR also requires:
(b)(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
20 Many of the Relevant Factors to PCDR Issuance Analysis and Modifications are Presented in the “Character” Document There is a very significant overlap between the components of Character, Chapter 2 features, and the PCDR requirements. The CUP and PCDR are also litigated concurrently. Below are the components of Character specifically extracted from various RBMC and RB RDG sources. 21 Review of Other Effects and Features Provided are Provided in the Phase 1 “Miscellaneous Features/Factors” Report
Additional effects and features for analysis, evaluation and modification orders pursuant to the PCDR are listed below. They are extracted from the 10-2.2506 and “other features required by this chapter” [Chapter 2] as required in the PCDR (8)(k) language.

CHARACTER FACTORS
Based on Redondo Beach Municipal Code and Residential
Design Guidelines Applicable to the Planning Commission Design Review and Conditional Use Permitting
RB RDG – Redondo Beach Residential Design Guidelines
RBMC – Redondo Beach Municipal Code
Both RBMC and the RDG are
required compliance in the Planning
Commission Design Review process
(RB PCDR). The listed Character
Factors are extracted from the
Redondo Beach government sources
as listed, and are evaluated on the
following slides, demonstrating that
the proposed BCHD Phase 1, 108’-8”,
300,000 sqft building fails compliance.

Further, Phase 2 also fails with a total
of 800,000 sqft, about 30% larger than
all Beryl Heights homes added
together.

CHARACTER FACTOR
“All new multi-family developments should be
compatible with the character of the neighborhood”
It would be nonsensical to consider the P-CF parcel alone the “neighborhood” of the proposed 800,000 sqft development. Thus, the “neighborhood” is defined as:

Beryl Heights
Redondo Beach
(has specific RDGs)
North of Beryl
Redondo Beach
(if not included
in Beryl Heights,
uses general RB
RDGs)
Pacific South Bay
Torrance
(Character governed
by Hillside Overlay)

CHARACTER FACTOR
“All new multi-family developments should be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” (cont’d)
BCHD has publicly stated that the existing compound predated the surrounding residential. That is objectively false. The majority of Beryl Heights (except Prospect and north of Beryl) pre-existed the failed Hospital by a decade. The rest of Beryl Heights pre-existed Hospital Phase 2 and both Commercial Office Buildings. Beryl Heights and Torrance pre-existed both Commercial Office Buildings.

Beryl Heights
Redondo Beach
1949 – Completed west of Maria,
1951 – Completed west of Paulina,
1965 – Complete
Pacific South Bay
Torrance
1969 - Complete
1960
1967
1971
1991
North of Beryl
1963 - Complete
CHARACTER FACTOR “Architecture”
BCHD 2022 Miami Beach 1955
BCHD’s contracted architects made no effort to
be consistent with the existing neighborhood
character of either Redondo Beach or Torrance.

Instead, the architecture is clearly and
exclusively commercial, very similar to 1955
Miami Beach commercial hotel and condo area.

Architecture character in Beryl Heights is well
described in the specific RDGs approved by the
Council. The BCHD roughly 110-foot above
Beryl & Flagler is inconsistent with the
Torrance Hillside Overlay by virtue of its
privacy impacts.

Further, Beryl Heights RDGs reasonably
describe the north of Beryl St multifamily area
also.

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Architecture” (cont’d)
Neighborhood architecture,
including for MFDs, is generally
consistent as described in the
Beryl Heights specific RDGs
with sloping roofs and human
scale features. BCHD’s proposal
is clearly commercial.

BCHD Proposed Architecture
Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Architecture Beryl St MFD Diamond St SFD
Prospect Ave SFD Tomlee Ave SFD

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Bulk”
Bulk is defined in RBMC as the total
interior cubic volume of a structure.

BCHD has significantly more bulk
than other neighborhood structures
and is conservatively 60 to 150 times
the bulk of surrounding structures.

BCHD Courtyard View Bulk 3.2M cuft, Beryl St View Bulk 4.4M cuft Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Bulk
Beryl St MFD 47,000 cuft Diamond St SFD 19,000 cuft
Prospect Ave SFD 18,000 cuft Tomlee Ave SFD 22,000 cuft

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Form”
Form is not defined in RB
government sources, however it
requires consideration with respect
to surrounding property in RDGs.

Some of the common elements of
form are shape, size, and position.

BCHD proposal is 60 to 150X larger
and elevated at site’s edge. It’s
generally rectangular solid is similar
form, however, its size and position
are not consistent/compatible
Shape: Curvilinear rectangular solid
Size: 300,000 sqft,
Position: Elevated site, perimeter build of 1 ac footprint on 10 ac site :

Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Form
Shape: Rectangular solid
Size: 4,700 sqft
Position: Street level, setback
Shape: Cube + triangle
Size: 1,800 sqft
Position: Street level, setback
Shape: Rectangle + triangle
Size: 2,200 sqft
Position: Street level, setback
Shape: Cube + triangle
Size: 2,000 sqft
Position: Street level, setback

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height”
https://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings/city/113158/redondo-beach-ca-usa BCHD Would be the 3rd Tallest Redondo
Beach Building Ever Built
and the Tallest Building Since 1973
At BCHD’s stated height of 108’-8” in the BCHD
Pre-CUP application documents, BCHD’s plan is
only 5” shy of being the 2nd tallest building ever
built in Redondo Beach. However, even as the 3rd
tallest building, BCHD is proposing the tallest
building built in Redondo Beach since the
“ReCondo Beach” era of the 1970s.

Clearly if Redondo Beach has not approved a
nearly 110-foot tall building since 1973, BCHD is
inconsistent with nearly 50 years of Redondo
Beach development practices.

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height” (cont’d)
Based on BCHD’s Pre-CUP
declared height, it is over 300% as
tall at the maximum 30-foot height
limit in surrounding property. It is
over 400% taller than the actual
maximum heights of typical SFD
and MFD.

The maximum height in any
surrounding neighborhood
buildings is 38-feet at Beryl and
Flagler (w/o HVAC) and 44-feet (w/
HVAC of 200 sqft on the roof)
BCHD Pre-CUP declared height 108’-8”
Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Height
Beryl St MFD 22-feet Diamond St SFD 25-feet
Prospect Ave SFD 23-feet Tomlee Ave SFD 22-feet
CHARACTER FACTOR “Height” (cont’d)
BCHD’s proposed Phase 1 building is
visually over 300% the height of 99% of the
existing BCHD buildings.

BCHD’s proposed Phase 1 building is
visually over twice the height of the 0.3%,
968 sqft “BCHD Penthouse” that sits atop
the failed Hospital, nearly centered on the
site to minimize its visual size.

Phase 1: BCHD proposes a single 300,000
sqft, approximately 110-foot tall building
on the north and east perimeter along
Beryl and Flagler streets
Phase 2: BCHD proposes other buildings
on the west and south perimeter for a total
size of 800,000 sqft
Height Change Prosposed As-Is

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height” (cont’d)
As-Is Proposed Overlay
“BCHD Penthouse”
(968 sqft, 76-feet tall)
BCHD Proposed Phase 1
(300,000 sqft, 108.7-feet
tall)
BCHD Maximized Visual
Height by Increasing
Absolute Height and
Relocating Tallest 300,000
sqft to Site’s Edge Over 99% of sqft is
52-feet or lower
Phase 1: BCHD increased the floorspace at maximum height from less than 1,000 sqft of buildings to approximately 300,000 sqft – a 300X increase.

BCHD also relocated the maximum height from the visually minimized center of campus to the visually maximized perimeter at site’s edge.

Phase 2: (shown in blue) BCHD also relocated maximum heights to south and west homes from current “BCHD Penthouse” visually minimizing center location.

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height” (cont’d)
The BCHD Proposed commercial development is over
150-feet taller than some surrounding neighborhoods.

BCHD 108.7’ above Beryl
BCHD 154.7’ above Redbeam
BCHD 123.7’ above Tomlee (N)
BCHD 148.7’ above Tomlee (S)
BCHD 111.7’ above Diamond
BCHD 85.7’ above Prospect

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height” (cont’d)
BCHD has been repeatedly misrepresenting the material height of the existing buildings. BCHD asserts its 108.7-foot tall plan is little taller than the existing 76-foot “Penthouse”. BCHD fails to note the “Penthouse” is only 968-sqft or 0.3% of the existing buildings. The rest of the 99.7% (over 311,000 sqft) is 52-feet or LOWER.

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height” (cont’d)
Visual comparison of BCHD proposed vs. existing building heights. Over 99% of the existing hospital is visually shorter than 2nd floor of the proposed, site perimeter compound
BCHD Proposal
108.7-feet above Beryl St
83-feet above the interior courtyard
Hospital

0.3% @ 76-feet above the interior courtyard

99.7% @ 52-feet or LOWER
Less than 52’ – 311,000 sqft
76’ – 968 sqft

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height” (cont’d)
Comparisons of BCHD proposed project to existing homes and other projects, including the voter denied CenterCal Mall-by-the-Sea project.

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Landscape”
Insufficient information available from BCHD

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Mass”
Mass is a subset of Form (see prior
discussion) and is defined by RBMC
as “three dimensional forms, the
simplest of which are cubes,
boxes (or "rectangular solids"),
cylinders, pyramids and cones.

Buildings are rarely one of these
simple forms, but generally are
composites of varying types of
assets. This composition is
generally described as the
"massing" of forms in a building.”
The massing of the BCHD
commercial design is dominated by
cube solids.

Curvilinear rectangular solid at approximately 4X the height of the surrounding properties
Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Mass
Generally retangular solid
Cube + triangle Rectangular solid + triangle
Cube + triangle

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Material”
The Redondo Beach RDGs state “high quality materials that are compatible with the existing neighborhood.” At this time, BCHD asserts it has no design, and this is conceptual only per the self-certified BCHD EIR.

Commercial materials, concrete and glass
Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Materials Residential materials, wood siding and stucco with
some brick/stone accent
The conceptual design appears 80% glass and 20%
concrete.

The surrounding existing neighborhoods use average
amounts of glass (10-20%) and wood siding or stucco as the dominant materials. The Council approved Kensington is a prime example of use of a southwestern stucco for
compatibility with existing neighborhood development.

The Kensington - Residential materials,
stucco with pitched tile roofs
The Kensington Materials

CHARACTER FACTOR
“New multi-family residential development should respect the development in the immediate area through the use of similar setbacks, complimentary building arrangements, buffer yards and avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions.”
SETBACKS: BCHD has moved the setback of
the HLC to roughly the edge of the 30-foot high
elevated site.

OVERWHELMING SCALE: BCHD plans 400-
600% taller, 60X to 150X more bulk, and a
dominate elevated siting compared to
surrounding properties in the immediate area.

VISUAL OBSTRUCTION: BCHD’s Phase 1 HLC
project blocks and additional 1077% of view
compared the current failed Hospital building.

BCHD declared height 108’-8”
Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Immediate Neighborhoods Beryl St MFD 22-feet Diamond St SFD 25-feet
Prospect Ave SFD 23-feet Tomlee Ave SFD 22-feet

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Roofline”
BCHD’s proposed flat roofline is largely different and inconsistent with most surrounding property. Surrounding property in both Torrance and Redondo Beach is largely consistent with the specific Beryl Heights RDGs and contains relatively low, but pitched roofs.

Flat Roof, dominated by retangular geometry
Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Rooflines Generally pitched roofs
The conceptual design appears 80% glass and 20%
concrete.

The Kensington – pitched roofs
The Kensington

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Scale”
RB RDGs define scale as “the general feeling of mass and size of the building as related to that of other buildings.“ “Feeling” is an inherently subjective measure. Objective measures include mass and size. 300,000 sqft, 108.7-feet tall
Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Scale
Under 5,000 sqft, under 25-feet tall
Mass & Bulk: BCHD’s proposed Phase 1 is 60-150 times that of the surrounding buildings.

Height: BCHD’s proposal is 400% the height of surrounding buildings and visually twice the height of the current BCHD maximum (0.3% of sqft) and visually 300% the 52-foot height below which 99% of BCHD current buildings exist.

Size: Phase 1 + Phase 2 are 792,000 sqft, which is larger than all Beryl Heights homes added together.

The Kensington – common scale with
residential on left of photo
The Kensington

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Setbacks”
The failed Hospital building was carefully located in the center to the site to minimize its visual mass, scale, bulk, height and other destructive factors to the local neighborhood. That necessitated a deep buffer zone/setback.

By the early 1950s, all of Beryl Heights was built out except for Prospect Ave and north of Beryl St.

They pre-existed the District.

By 1965, all of Beryl Heights was built out and pre-existed all subsequent District development, from south tower to 520 commercial office rental.

BCHD’s proposal to build 300,000 sqft of Phase 1 on the north and east perimeter and finish the 800,000 sqft Phase 1 + 2 development with buildings on the south and west perimeters fails to provide buffer and setback and thereby dominates neighborhood character.

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Size”
BCHD’s Phase 1 proposal is 300,000 sqft. BCHD’s Phase 1 + 2 proposal is 800,000 sqft.

According to private licensed data from a company also used by BCHD, the average SFD in 90277 is 1712 sqft.

BCHD’s 800,000 sqft proposed development is 467-times the size of the average surrounding property.

BCHD’s 300,000 sqft Phase 1 is 175-times the size of the average surrounding property.

Using City data, Beryl Heights (all homes combined) is estimated at only 634,000 sqft, or smaller than BCHD’s 800,000 sqft development proposal.

BCHD 300,000 sqft, 108.7-feet tall
Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Property Sizes The Kensington – 87,000 sqft, 94 units, 120
residents
The Kensington
Size: 4,700 sqft
Size: 1,800 sqft Size: 2,200 sqft
Size: 2,000 sqft

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Visual Obstructions”
The failed Hospital building was carefully located in the center to the site to minimize its visual obstruction to existing homes and planned residential uses. That necessitated a deep buffer zone/setback.

By the early 1950s, all of Beryl Heights was built out except for Prospect Ave and north of Beryl St. They preexisted the District.

By 1965, all of Beryl Heights was built out and pre-existed all subsequent District development, from south tower to 520 commercial office rental.

VISUAL OBSTRUCTION: BCHD’s Phase 1 HLC project blocks and additional 1077% of view compared the current failed Hospital building.

BCHD’s Phase 2 is currently unknown, however, the 8-10 story parking ramp is directly above Diamond St and Tomlee area properties, while pavilion will block the entire landscape across Prospect Ave from Beryl Heights.

It is unclear what the BCHD power generator and fossil fuel storage impacts will be to local property.

Added visual obstruction

CHARACTER FACTOR
“Volume”
Volume is not defined in RBMC or
other RB documents.

The mathematical definition of
volume is L x W x H, the same as the
bulk definition in RB.

BCHD Phase 1 has significantly
more volume than other
neighborhood structures and is
conservatively 60 to 150 times the
volume of surrounding structures.

BCHD Phase 1 and 2 will have more
sqft and taller, commercial floor
height, therefore, BCHD’s full build
out will have 20-40% more volume
than all Beryl Heights homes
together.

BCHD Courtyard View Volume 3.2M cuft, Beryl St View Bulk 4.4M cuft Typical Redondo Beach and Torrance Neighborhood Volumes Beryl St MFD 47,000 cuft Diamond St SFD 19,000 cuft
Prospect Ave SFD 18,000 cuft Tomlee Ave SFD 22,000 cuft Analysis of BCHD’s Phase 2 HLC Project’s Noncompliance with Redondo Beach Municipal Code and Residential Design Guidelines:
“Phase 2 Character”
49 BCHD Bait & Switch: Moving Neighborhood
Damages to Phase 2
Both RBMC and the RDG are required compliance in the Planning Commission Design Review process (RB PCDR). The listed Character Factors are extracted from the Redondo Beach government sources as listed, and are evaluated on the following slides, demonstrating that the proposed BCHD Phase 1, 108’-8”, 300,000 sqft building fails compliance. Further, Phase 2 also fails with a total of 800,000 sqft, about 30% larger than all Beryl Heights homes added together. 50 BCHD Bait & Switch: Moving Neighborhood
Damages to Phase 2 (cont’d)
In an apparent attempt to hide its
damages to neighborhoods on the
south and west of the site, BCHD
bifurcated its plan between 2019
and 2020.
-BCHD increased the amount of
surface building square feet by
moving 160,000 sqft of
underground parking to an 8-10
story ramp on the south side of
campus.
-Any decisions regarding Phase 1
MUST CONSIDER the impacts of
the parking ramp, since BCHD has
now forgone the option of
underground parking in Phase 1.
51 BCHD Bait & Switch: Moving Neighborhood
Damages to Phase 2 (cont’d)
When BCHD removed Phase 2 from its active planning, it denied the Residents surrounding the project any opportunity to visualize the damages of:
-an 8-10 story parking ramp at Prospect and Diamond on an elevated site -a 4-story, up to 83-foot building spanning the distance from what is now the 510 N Prospect Commercial Office Building (COB) to the 520 N Prospect COB
-BCHD’s proposed Phase 2 will project 24/7/365 noise, headlights, slamming doors, talking, and emissions into neighborhoods and at the same time will further devastate privacy with its elevated position Because information on Phase 2 is scarce, modeling was completed with Google Earth Pro using best available information and the analysis of the damages by BCHD are illustrative.
52 BCHD Phase 2: What Little Has Been Disclosed
BCHD has minimized the release of Phase 2 data and drawings. Here is the general overview.

Beryl Heights
Torrance
Pacific South Bay
North of Beryl St.
4-Story Pavilion
8-10 Story Parking Ramp
53 BCHD Phase 2: Modeled Views
Phase 2 will have substantial elevation and privacy impacts for Torrance residents due to the 8-10 story ramp and the elevated site.

Beryl Heights Torrance
Pacific South Bay
North of Beryl St.
4-Story Pavilion (66-ft, 90,250 sqft)
8-10 Story Parking Ramp
(66-ft, 292,500 sqft)
Phase 1 + 2 = 792,520 sqft
54 BCHD Phase 2: Modeled Views (cont’d)
Phase 2 wil have substantial elevation and privacy impacts for Beryl Heights residents due to the 8-10 story ramp and the pavilion.

Beryl Heights
Torrance
Pacific South Bay
North of Beryl St.
4-Story Pavilion (66-ft, 90,250 sqft)
8-10 Story Parking Ramp
(66-ft, 292,500 sqft)
Phase 1 + 2 = 792,520 sqft
55 BCHD Phase 1: Modeled Views
For completeness, this is the view of the RCFE (108’-8”, 300,000 sqft) from north of Beryl St.

Beryl Heights
Torrance
Pacific South Bay
North of Beryl St.

RCFE (108.7-ft, 300,000 sqft)
4-Story Pavilion (66-ft, 90,250 sqft)
8-10 Story Parking Ramp
(66-ft, 292,500 sqft)
Phase 1 + 2 = 792,520 sqft
56 BCHD Phase 1: Modeled Views (Cont’d)
For completeness, this is the view of the proposed Phase 1 + 2 from Torrance Pacific South Bay
Beryl Heights
Torrance
Pacific South Bay
North of Beryl St.

RCFE (108.7-ft, 300,000 sqft)
4-Story Pavilion (66-ft, 90,250 sqft)
8-10 Story Parking Ramp
(66-ft, 292,500 sqft)
Phase 1 + 2 = 792,520 sqft
57 CHARACTER FACTORS
Based on Redondo Beach Municipal Code and Residential
Design Guidelines Applicable to the Planning Commission Design Review and Conditional Use Permitting
RB RDG – Redondo Beach Residential Design Guidelines
RBMC – Redondo Beach Municipal Code
Both RBMC and the RDG are
required compliance in the Planning
Commission Design Review process
(RB PCDR). The listed Character
Factors are extracted from the
Redondo Beach government sources
as listed, and are evaluated on the
following slides, demonstrating that
the proposed BCHD Phase 1, 108’-8”,
300,000 sqft building fails compliance.

Further, Phase 2 also fails with a total
of 800,000 sqft, about 30% larger than
all Beryl Heights homes added
together.
58 CHARACTER FACTOR SUMMARY
Since much less is known about Phase 2, however, Phase 1 will require the invasive parking structure in Phase 2 and therefore a review of Phase 2 is required to avoid piecemealing prior to Phase 1 permitting. 4-Story Pavilion
Height – 66-ft
Size – 90,250 sqft
Bulk – 1.4M cuft
8-10 Story Parking Ramp
Height – 66-feet
Size – 292,500 sqft
Bulk – 2.3M cuft
Beryl Heights Neighborhood
Max Height – 30-ft
Avg Height – under 24-ft
Avg Size – 1,712 sqft
Avg Bulk – under 20,000 cuft
Total Size – 634,000 sqft
59 CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height”
https://www.emporis.com/statistics/tallest-buildings/city/113158/redondo-beach-ca-usa At 66-feet tall, BCHD parking structure
and pavilion would become the 12th and
13th tallest buildings in the City and the
tallest built since 1980 (over 40 years)
60 CHARACTER FACTOR
“Height” (cont’d)
As-Is Proposed Phase 1 & 2
“BCHD Penthouse”
(968 sqft, 76-feet tall)
BCHD Proposed Phase 2
Over 99% of sqft is (400,000 sqft, 66-feet)
52-feet or lower
Phase 1: BCHD increased the floorspace at maximum height from less than 1,000 sqft of buildings to approximately 300,000 sqft – a 300X increase.

BCHD also relocated the maximum height from the visually minimized center of campus to the visually maximized perimeter at site’s edge.

Phase 2: (shown in blue) BCHD also relocated maximum heights to south and west homes from current “BCHD Penthouse” visually minimizing center location. 61 CHARACTER FACTOR
“Setbacks”
The failed Hospital building was carefully located in the center to the site to minimize its visual mass, scale, bulk, height and other destructive factors to the local neighborhood. That necessitated a deep buffer zone/setback.

By the early 1950s, all of Beryl Heights was built out except for Prospect Ave and north of Beryl St.

They pre-existed the District.

By 1965, all of Beryl Heights was built out and pre-existed all subsequent District development, from south tower to 520 commercial office rental.

BCHD’s proposal to build 400,000 sqft of Phase 2 on the south and wast perimeter fails to provide buffer and setback and thereby dominates neighborhood character.

Analysis of BCHD’s Phase 1 HLC Commercial
Developer/Owner/Operator Project
RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permit
Compliance:
“Miscellaneous Features/Factors”
63 Many of the Relevant Factors to CUP Issuance Analysis and Modifications are Presented in the “Character” Document There is a very significant overlap between the components of Character and the Chapter 2 features listed for incorporation into evaluation and adjustment in 10-2.2506 CUP (b)(1). Below are the components of Character specifically extracted from various RBMC and RB RDG sources.

The components of Character in the
table. Issuance of a CUP that
protects no adverse effects on
surrounding uses and properties will
need to analyze, evaluate, and
make specific modifications to most,
if not all of the BCHD Phase 1
proposal for its Commercial
Developer/Owner/Operator that it
plans to lease approximately 3.2
acres of P-CF to. BCHD will not be
the developer, owner or operator.
64 Review of Other Effects, Features, and Factors are Provided in this Phase 1 “Miscellaneous Features/Factors” Report
Additional effects and features for analysis, evaluation and modification orders pursuant to the CUP are listed below. They are extracted from the 10-2.2506 and “other features required by this chapter [Chapter 2]”.

To the extent that documents are
available for analysis, comments on
the features in the table are
provided in the “CUP
Miscellaneous” document.

The buffer would consist of surface parking and vegetation as shown in the May 2017 BCHD slide below.

BCHD’s Phase 1 plan provides no buffer and places a 108’-8” building along the north and east perimeter and a 2-4MW generator, up to 75,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and various other toxic and danger equipment along Diamond St under 100-feet from properties.

Core
Parking
Vegetation
66 Open Space and Buffer
The proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 plans without buffer from their 100- foot height advantage of balconies, parking floors, and rooftop gathering areas.

No buffer (Phase 1)
108’-8”
300,000 sqft
No buffer (Phase 1)
16,000 V transformer
4,000 V transformer
4,000 V switching
Up to 4,000 kW diesel generator (locomotive sized)
Up to 75,000 gallons diesel fuel in above ground tanks
67 Open Space and Buffer
The proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 plans without buffer from their 100- foot height advantage of balconies, parking floors, and rooftop gathering areas.

No buffer (Phase 2)
8-10 story parking ramp
300,000 sqft
68 Open Space and Buffer
To provide adequate buffer space from adverse effects, tall construction must be limited to the center of the site, as the tallest Hospital point was.

There is a significant elevation difference between the site and surrounding properties.
69 Fences and Walls
Insufficient BCHD Plan Information
70 Streets, Service Roads, Alleys
Service Roads – the third-party commercial Developer/Owner/Operator will have a 65-99 year lease that will require materials, emergency transport, remodeling, people moving, etc. The plan is inadequate.

Fuel Oil Transport – if BCHD has its expected maximum of 75,000 gallons of fuel to power its 4MW backup generators, approximately 20 tanker trucks will be required every 6 months to pump the tanks dry and refill with fresh fuel. The plan is inadequate.
71 Ingress, Egress, Circulation
Construction – the plan is inadequate to fully understand how 10,000+ truckloads will ingress and egress without major disruption to surrounding uses.

Parking Structure – the 800 vehicle, 8-10 story parking ramp at Prospect and Diamond will both ingress and egress onto Prospect. As a 24/7365 structure, the access, noise, headlights, emissions, particulates, etc. are ill defined in the plan.
72 Signage
Lighted signage must be fully prohibited. For decades the neighborhoods have attempted to extinguish the brightly lit signs that cause excessive nighttime lighting and the associated health damages.
73 Landscaping
Insufficient BCHD final plan information
74 Noise, Vibration, Odor
Noise, Vibration: Power plant – BCHD plans 2-4MW of diesel generation that is currently in the center of the campus to be moved to Diamond street. It will require monthly testing and will be run as needed. The power plants are loud and vibrate the ground. They are roughly the size of diesel locomotives.

Odor: Diesel fuel. BCHD’s up to 75,000 gallons of diesel will be fill, sucked dry before fuel spoilage, and refilled on a bi-annual basis. In addition, tank venting will also create odors in the adjoining uses and neighborhoods.
75 Noise, Vibration, Odor
Employees, patients, visitors, supplies, etc. all require off street loading.

The current plan insufficient, especially for construction 76 Maximum Development Time
BCHD has asserted that Phase 1 will be less than 2-1/2 years development time. That must become a permit limitation to protect the neighborhoods in case BCHD has made false claims about timing. 77 Hours of Operation
BCHD is claiming that it can operate amplified sound outdoors until 10PM.

BCHD is in the midst of all residential neighborhoods and must curtail outdoor amplified noise by 7PM to avoid adverse impacts from its concrete cliffs and canyons on the campus.
78 Respect for Natural Terrain: SBH “Centered”
South Bay Hospital was built nearly in the center of the 30-foot tall elevated site. At the time the hospital was built, all of Beryl Heights was built out except for Prospect and north of Beryl.

0.3% (968sf) 76-foot
Penthouse nearly centered to
respect elevated terrain
99%+ (311,000 sf) 52-foot
maximum rest of buildings
79 Respect for Natural Terrain: SBH “Centered”
80 Respect for Natural Terrain: SBH “Max Height Minimized” Below is an example of how SBHD minimized the use of excessive height and kept the vast majority of the elevated campus out of sight by building in the center of the site, compared to BCHD’s plan to dominate the skyline and impact surrounding property values and uses.
81 Respect for Natural Terrain: BCHD “Maximized Effects” BCHD is maximizing its impact by failing to respect the elevated site and building on the perimeter
108’8” above Beryl & Flagler Sts
111.7-ft above Diamond
148.7-ft above Tomlee
82 Utilities
BCHD is increasing its backup powerplant and fuel storage by 400% and relocating from the parking lot to less than 100-feet from residential adjacent to Diamond St.
83 Utilities
BCHD low lying location will concentrate exhaust to the Flagler Alley bike path, school child walking path, and toward Towers elementary 84 Utilities
BCHD fuel delivery, pumping and storage along with particulate exhaust from 4MW powerplant is adjacent to homes on Diamond St. 85 Private Open Space
Not applicable
86 Security
Insufficient information
87 Crime Deterence
Insufficient information
88 General Design Concerns
To be determined
89 Other Conditions
To be determined
90 Protection of Property Values (discussed in detail in “Property Values” document) Econometric home value models demonstrate the nearer Redondo Beach single family property is to BCHD, the lower its value is, based on its primary characteristics. When distance from BCHD is removed, home values increase by over $50,000 per home in the ½-mile surrounding BCHD. Further, property value damage is higher, the closer to BCHD. BCHD is currently 312,000 sf with only 968 sf maximum height of 76-feet and a 99% height of 52-feet or lower. BCHD is proposing 83-feet tall (courtyard, 108.7-ft street) with 800,000 sf of primarily damage maximizing perimeter build. In Phase 1 alone, BCHD plans for nearly 300,000 sf (doubling the size of the buildings on the site) at 83-feet courtyard height/108.7-ft above Beryl and Flagler streets. 91 Analysis of BCHD’s Phase 1 and 2 HLC Project’s
Non-compliance with Redondo Beach Municipal
Code for Protection of: “Property Values”
92 PROPERTY VALUES
Based on Redondo Beach Municipal Code Applicable to the Planning Commission Design Review
RDG – Redondo Beach Residential Design Guidelines
RBMC – Redondo Beach Municipal Code
RB Planning did not appear to counsel BCHD on RBMC compliance.

According to RBMC10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR), an express purpose of the section is “to protect property values.” The section continues that the intent is actioned through “[t]he provisions of this section.” Absent the objective and “to the letter” implementation of the section, it is unclear that property values will be protected. Based on the comments of the Planning Department to BCHD’s February 2022 Pre-CUP filing, it appears that the Planning Department has no intent of enforcing the RBMC* and that the Planning Commission will be required to protect the surrounding Redondo Beach and Torrance residents from damage to quality-of-life and associated property values.
*A review of the comments returned to BCHD show no concerns regarding project height, mass, bulk, volume, respect for the site terrain, character, style similartiy to surrounding property, and other controlled components of the PCDR and RDG that are required “to protect property values.” 93 PROPERTY VALUES
Surrounding Built Environment
BCHD has publicly stated that the existing compound predated the surrounding residential. That is objectively false. The majority of Beryl Heights (except Prospect and north of Beryl) pre-existed the failed Hospital by a decade. The rest of Beryl Heights pre-existed Hospital Phase 2 and both Commercial Office Buildings. Beryl Heights and Torrance pre-existed both Commerical Office Buildings.

Beryl Heights
Redondo Beach
1949 – Completed west of Maria,
1951 – Completed west of Paulina,
1965 – Complete
Pacific South Bay
Torrance
1969 - Complete
1960
1967
1971
1991
North of Beryl
1963 - Complete
94 PROPERTY VALUES
Surrounding Built Environment (Cont’d)
Beryl Heights predates at least 2/3rds of site buildings.

The existing campus has been expanded from approximately 100,000 sqft to over 300,000 from 1960 to 1991.
1960 – ~100,000 sqft original hospital for the 3 beach cities residents 1967 – ~50,000 sqft addition of south tower
1971 – ~50,000 sqft addition of 510 Commercial Office Building (510 COB) 1984 – Failure of South Bay Hospital as a Public Facility 1991 – ~50,000 sqft addition of 520 Commerical Office Building (520 COB) Size 312,000 sqft, Max Height 968-sqft @ 76-ft, 99%+ Height @ 52-ft or lower All of Beryl Heights was fully built out by 1965. The majority of Beryl Heights predated the Hospital and all of Beryl Heights predated the south tower.

Pacific South Bay was fully built out by 1969 and predated both COBs. 95 PROPERTY VALUES
Property Value and Externality Impact Modeling
Econometric Modeling is Often Used to Assess Property Values and Impacts Factors such as lot sqft, home sqft, year built, # bathrooms, # bedrooms, distance from a positive impact, distance from a negative impact, etc. are used to determine property value. Often, the factors are highly correlated, and larger lots have larger properties have more rooms, etc. Thus, the ultimate factors of statistical importance are determined by empirical analysis.

Data is available from a variety of sources, such as the private companies that BCHD’s marketing consultant MDS used for BCHDs analysis.

In this case, the roughly 1,000 SFD within ½ mile of BCHD were used for modeling, along with their GIS distance from BCHD and their characteristics from the BCHD-used data vendor.
96 PROPERTY VALUES
Modeling Hypothesis
Property Value Models wil be Augmented with BCHD Distance to Ascertain Whether BCHD is a Negative, Positive, or Inert Externality The shape of BCHD’s impact on surrounding property values will be non-linear.

For example, if BCHD were a landfill, there is some point at which being further away does not further reduce the negative impact. Alternatively, if BCHD were open, public parkland, there is likely some distance that is “close enough”, while there is some terminal distance where other parks compete once transporation is required. Thus, in either case, the impact should be greatest close, least far, and it should drop off by some form of power function, such as a logrithm or square root.

Because this is a RBMC requirement, only Redondo Beach SFD’s were used in the dataset. One-half mile radius includes Torrance and Hermosa Beach. 97 PROPERTY VALUES
Modeling Results
Modeling Results Demonstrate that Within a one-half Mile Radius, Property Values Increase with Distance from BCHD Controlling for Major Characteristics 98 PROPERTY VALUES
Modeling Results (Cont’d)
Aggregate Property Value Losses Within one-half Mile of BCHD in Redondo Beach Total Over $50M
Estimating the value of the surrounding property in the absence of BCHD raises overall values by slightly over $50M, with a roughly $50,000 average property owner loss due to the BCHD proximity factor.

BCHD has acknowledged damages to the surrounding neighborhoods but asserts that BCHD was there first and the owners of property should have known better. Neighbors apparently should have known that the campus would expand from 100,000 sqft to 800,000 sqft. Clearly that defense has been discredited since the 1960s in courts and in ethics texts. The fact remains, the current campus drained $50M in property value in the surrounding one-half mile, and nearly tripling it will make the damages larger as the negative externalities propagate further.
99 PROPERTY VALUES
BCHDs Stated Views
BCHD Fails to Consider that 80%-96% of the Project Benefits Accrue Outside the Beach Cities and that 92-98% of the Benefits Accrue Outside Redondo.

No, 40% of Vons Shoppers are NOT from PV as with BCHD’s Assisted Living Most Benefits of BCHD is Targeted at Non-Residents of the District For Assisted Living, PV is 40% of the tenants.

For Allcove, Long Beach is 33% of the service area.

For PACE, only 4% of 400 enrollees are Beach Cities residents.

Surrounding Neighborhoods have Frequently Complained about Excess Noise, Excess Nighttime Lighting, Traffic Backups and Construction. BCHD SIMPLY IGNORED THEM.

The Beryl Heights neighborhood predated South Bay Hospital and an 800% increase in size of the buildings since 1960 DAMAGES property values. 100

PROPERTY VALUES
BCHDs Demonstrated Lack of Concern
BCHD Refused to Consider Surrounding Property Values
As recently as last year, following BCHDs termination of the Community Working Group and increase in project height to 133-1/2 feet above Beryl St, BCHD had conducted no property value impact studies. NONE.

From: PRR <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: CPRA - Surrounding property values
Please see below for the District’s response (in red) to your public records request received 9/29/21 that reads:

Provide all studies demonstrating the impact of the current BCHD on surrounding property values. No documents responsive.

Provide all studies demonstrating the impact of the proposed BCHD self-certified project on surrounding property values. No documents responsive.

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

Thank you.
101

PROPERTY VALUES
Redondo Beach and Torrance Must Strictly Enforce All
Ordinances with Regard to BCHD to Protect Property Values The Effectiveness of the TMC and RBMC Rely on Enforcement Too Tall: 108’-8” is over 4 times the average surrounding property height Too Big: 800,000 sqft is larger than all of Beryl Heights and 800% larger than the 1960 South Bay Hospital
Too Close: South Bay Hospital respected the natural terrain and located in the center, minimizing impacts. BCHD moved to the edges, MAXIMIZING impacts.

Out of Character: Concrete and glass, flat roof, commercial Wrong Style: BCHD proposes a large commercial box from the 1950s Miami Beach strip
Damages exceed Benefits: 80% to 96% of benefits are non-resident/nontaxpayer for prospective programs Of the $80M in annual revenue, BCHD is projected to get a maximum of $2.5M for encumbering public land for 50-100 years
Analysis of BCHD’s Phase 1 HLC Commercial
Developer/Owner/Operator Project:
“Benefits Claims”
103
Following Hidden Negotiations, BCHD Counsel Asserted to the Redondo Beach City Attorney that the HLC Project “Clearly” has “Significant Benefits” to Redondo Beach Residents
As BCHD attempted to not have the P-CF campus require a rezoning vote of the public to commercial zoning, BCHD made claims about the net benefits of the HLC to Redondo Beach residents. BCHD provided no quantitative documentation. Absent detailed benefits analysis, it is more likely that a facility with 90% - 97% non-resident Redondo Beach Resident use will have NET DAMAGES, not NET BENEFITS.

1.Use of BCHD funded studies and public records demonstrates that BCHD’s HLC will serve only 2-8% Redondo Beach Residents, and 92-98% non-residents.

2. BCHD provided the City no quantitative detail of the HLC benefits and damages and therefore had no grounds to assert net benefits to the City Attorney

3. BCHD has provided the public no quantitative detail of the HLC benefits and damages and therefore has no grounds to assert net benefits to the Residents of Redondo Beach

4. BCHD concealed the discussion with City Attorney Mike Webb until after the BoD vote to approve the design to disadvantage the public

5. BCHD reported in public records responses that its “mission” and “abilities” do not require or allow the assessment of public health benefits – AND - BCHD has made no attempt to assess its existing or future property value damages to surrounding properties.

6. BCHD refuses to provide its Bluezones vendors workpapers on asserted benefit computations 104
BCHD’s Phase 1 HLC will serve only 2-8% Redondo
Beach Residents, and 92-98% Non-residents
BCHD claimed that its HLC benefits were both obvious and significant to Redondo Beach residents as BCHD attempted to avoid a public vote on zoning, however, BCHD avoided any meaningful analysis of its benefits and damages.

Unequivocally, BCHD’s Phase 1 HLC is designed to serve over 90% non-residents of Redondo Beach.
-8% of BCHD RCFE, 5% of “allcove”, and 2.4% of PACE Will Service Redondo Beach Residents -BCHD provided no assessment beyond hand-waiving to the City Attorney as meaningful evidence of its claimed “significant benefits” and the City Attorney and staff are not development experts and could not identify the potential ruse.
-BCHD provided NO ASSESSMENT of damages to neighborhood character, privacy, property values, or quality-of-life.
-BCHD provided NO ASSESSMENT of damages from incompatibility/inconsistency in scale, mass, volume, bulk, architecture, design, and other mandatory characteristics of compliance in the RBMC.
105
8% of BCHD RCFE, 5% of “allcove”, and 2.4% of PACE
Will Service Redondo Beach Residents that Absorb
100% of the Construction and Operating Damages
106
BCHD provided the City no quantitative detail of the
HLC benefits and damages and therefore had no
grounds to assert net benefits to the City Attorney
BCHD claimed that its HLC benefits were both obvious and significant to Redondo Beach residents as BCHD attempted to avoid a public vote on zoning.

BCHD made the following unsubstantiated claims of benefits:
-BCHD stated a “belief” of the need for senior housing without any definition of affordability or specific need that BCHD was filling
-BCHD blindly asserted that a Bluezones café and other health amenities would outweigh any unevaluated, unstated damages by asserting that the project would “Clearly” have “significant benefits” to Redondo Beach residents. Had BCHD not hidden the secret negotiations, the public would have stepped in and potentially litigated for the right to vote In short, BCHD provided no fact basis for its claim and denied voters their rights by withholding the discussions for nearly 18 months until after it voted on the project. 107
BCHD has provided the public no quantitative detail of
the HLC benefits and damages and therefore has no
grounds to assert net benefits to the Residents
In denying voters the right to even attempt a vote, BCHDs claim of “clearly” “significant benefits” to the Redondo Beach residents damaged the public. BCHD has never provided any sort of analysis demonstrating that the HLC will benefit residents of Redondo Beach more than it damages them.

BCHD provided NO ASSESSMENT of damages to neighborhood character, privacy, property values, or quality-of-life.

BCHD provided NO ASSESSMENT of damages from incompatibility/inconsistency in scale, mass, volume, bulk, architecture, design, and other mandatory characteristics of compliance in the RBMC.

BCHD has stated that it has no “mission” or “abilities” to evaluate its program benefits, such as RCFE, “allcove” or PACE in Phase 1.

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 Summary: BCHD cannot assert benefits because it cannot/does not/does not have to compute them. 108
BCHD failed to disclose the discussion with City
Attorney Mike Webb until after the BCHD Board vote to
approve the design, thereby disadvantaging the public
BCHD made highly disputable claims to the City Attorney that were withheld from the public. The claims involved denying the public the right to vote on a required rezoning of the site.

BCHD Counsel made assertions on behalf of BCHD and CEO Bakaly absent the public’s knowledge in order to deny the public the right to intervene and preserve its right to vote.

BCHD – RB Secret Negotiations: Unknown – 2/2019
Restriction of Voter Rights 2/2019
BCHD Board Approval of Project Design: 6/2020
BCHD Disclosure of Secret Negotiations: 7/2020
A reasonable person must conclude that hiding negotiations to deprive the public the right to vote on zoning casts severe doubt on the accuracy and truthfulness of BCHD’s claims to the Redondo Beach City Attorney.

Full Text Counsel Letter at:: https://bit.ly/BCHDNoBenefits 109
BCHD reported in public records responses that its
“mission” and “abilities” do not require or allow the
assessment of public health benefits – AND - BCHD
has made no attempt to assess its existing or future
property value damages to surrounding properties
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 From the CPRA response of BCHD:
110
BCHD refuses to provide its Bluezones vendors
workpapers on asserted benefit computations
BCHD and Bluezones have made outrageous and unsupported claims of reduced insurance costs in the three Beach Cities due to Bluezones. When requested via public records act, BCHD refused, stating that Bluezones put a “confidential” stamp on the documents. As a public agency, BCHD should be forced to execute ONLY contracts with required disclosure.

Withheld due to BCHD error in contract terms
"Cost Savings of Blue Zones Project $21 Million Direct Medical Expenses" As stated in the slide, the source of the information is Gallup-Healthways. The District has identified a document responsive to this request, however the responsive document has been marked as ‘Confidential and Proprietary’ by the consultant. As such, the document remains properly withheld by the District.

Bluezones and Gallup both refused to provide documentation as well.

Thus, BCHD inflated claims must be discarded since they could have been arrived at on a cocktail napkin based on the information withheld.
111
BCHD Lack of Mission, Abilities, Effort, and Contractual Expertise in Benefits Calculations Renders Any Claims
of Net Benefits by BCHD to Redondo Beach Residents
as Unsubtantiated and therefore Invalid
Public agency or not, BCHD cannot assert claims and withhold evidence. BCHDs outside lawyers boldly asserted that “CLEARLY” the HLC would provide “SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS” to Redondo Beach residents. Neither BCHD nor its counsel provide any substantive backup for their assertions.

Furthermore, it can easily be demonstrated that only 2% to 8% of the BCHD proposed HLC will operate for the benefit fo Redondo Beach residents in the RCFE (Market Rate), “allcove” program, or PACE.

Thus, with all negative impacts, property value reductions, noise, trafffic, etc. impacting Redondo Beach residents, it is clear that the de minimis benefits cannot outweigh the damages of the 110- foot tall, 800,000 sqft compound created 12-to-1 to 50-to-1 for non-residents of Redondo Beach.

From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment on Major Change in Land Use - BCHD Date: Sunday, November 13, 2022 2:04:20 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, Planning Commission
Per the CIty Charter, the BCHD proposed Phase 1 project that leases 3 acres (the same size as Kensington) of Public (P-CF) land to a private company for up to 95 years is a major change and requires a public vote. Both BCHD and the RBUSD have the legal right to lease land out for money, however, that leasing act creates a private use on the public land and triggers the vote provision.

It is quite clear from the record in the RBUSD Kensington proceeding that the Council made a finding that leasing public land to a private developer resulted in a major change under (g)(2)
BCHD is unequivocally leasing land to PMB and PMB will be the developer/owner/operator of the facility, will need to pay property taxes, and will have business enjoyment of the facility.
https://library.qcode.us/lib/redondo_beach_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/official_charter-article_xxvii-sec_27_2 --
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: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment
Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 10:10:28 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, Planning Commission
RE: BCHD Agreement on the Agenda of Council 11/15/22
The agreement between BCHD and the City fails to include the taxpayer owners of BCHD and the taxpayers of Redondo Beach. There is much language about confidentiality, attorney client privilege, etc. that serves to obscure transparency by design. Further, there are no citizens involved and we are all well aware that the consultant to the City is very pro dense development from its prior work. This agreement and process was developed in the shadows and the agreements intend to keep it in the shadows - thereby assuring the need for litigation on any approvals by the City of the BCHD private, commercial Phase 1 building due to the City's lack of transparency and public participation.

From: Joan Davidson
To: CityClerk; Bill Brand; [email protected]; Stop BCHD Subject: RE: BCHD 95 year lease agreement on the Agenda - is this really a Sale of Public Land? Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022 5:24:35 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From Joan Davidson
215 Avenida del Norte
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Dear Redondo Beach Mayor Brand, RB Council, City Attorney, and Planning Commissioners:

Forever the BCHD has tried, without success, to serve the South Bay Community.

Now the BCHD is about to embark on the building of an enormous senior complex that is beyond the affordability of the Beach Cities retired residents.

This will end up as another failed project.

We learned on Thursday 11/10/22 that BCHD is going to pay $300,000 or more to reimburse the City of Redondo Beach for consultants.

The consultants who are already prejudiced, will review BCHDs private, 107-1/2 foot tall, 275,000 square foot Phase 1 building by PMB, the developer/owner/operator of the facility.

While the City Council Agenda Packet does not indicate any public involvement in the process, we believe that the Public Involvement is necessitated as the project affects the entire public and residential area.

The terms of agreement between BCHD and the City, such as “joint defense agreement” and “work product privilege” and others that are aimed at stopping the public’s ability to gain information during the $300K+ process.

This is not in accordance with CA laws.

Until such time as the City has a public participation plan in place for the duration of this consultant activity, the agreements between the City and all parties should remain unsigned. At a minimum, the public needs full access to all work product, review and comment rights on all materials provided by BCHD to the City or its consultants, and review and comment rights of the final work products before they are published. Any other action continues to blindside the public, especially surrounding property owners.

Tuesday night is NOT the time to execute these agreements. Notwithstanding the claim that “time is of the essence” clause in the agreement, time is NOT of the ESSENCE.

BCHD is proposing a 95-year lease to a private company that services 80% nonresidents of the District and BCHD is signing 20-year rental agreements for 91% District non-residents in the allcove mental health program and 95% District nonresidents in PACE.

Thank you
Joan Davidson

Redondo Beach City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Redondo Beach City Council
November 15, 2022