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
DECEMBER 20, 2022
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Tim Ozenne
To: Planning Redondo; MayorCouncil; Martinez, Oscar; [email protected]; CityClerk; City Clerk; [email protected]
Cc: Communications
Subject: Design-Build Authority vs. BCHD Development Plan Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:59:07 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Officials:
.
It is my understanding that Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) is about to approve an "assignment" of its design-build authority to its development partner.
However, let me take this opportunity to remind you that the whole BCHD development project has serious legal problems.
In particular, the 514 N. Prospect property was obtained via eminent domain in 1957.
That status has never changed. But once property is obtained through eminent domain, the rule is that the property must forever remain in "public use." California law does permit a change in use pursuant to CCP SECTION 1245.245, but BCHD has never followed that procedure even after the hospital was closed over two decades ago and new uses were established under the law.
To me, if officials now allow BCHD to assign its design-build auth for facilities that are not "public uses," those officials are responsible for a miscarriage of the law. So I ask that you intervene as best you can.
Secondly, be aware that BCHD apparently expects to allow a residential facility on its property through a private developer. However, the relevant rule in the Principal Act is this:
(j) To establish, maintain, and operate, or provide assistance in the operation of, one or more health facilities or health services, including, but not limited to, outpatient programs, services, and facilities; retirement programs, services, and facilities; chemical dependency programs, services, and facilities; or other health care programs, services, and facilities and activities at any location within or without the district for the benefit of the district and the people served by the district. “Health care facilities,” as used in this subdivision, means those facilities defined in subdivision (b) of Section 32000.1 and specifically includes freestanding chemical dependency recovery units. “Health facilities,” as used in this subdivision, may also include those facilities defined in subdivision (d) of Section 15432 of the Government Code. (emphasis added)
I ask you to examine all of the direct and indirect references to what is a health care facility. I have looked many times, and the sort of residential facility proposed by BCHD is not allowed in the statute. I invite you to show me I am wrong. But if you find no statutory rule that allows BCHD to enable sort of RCFE it proposes, then I would hope you would deny any steps to make this the BCHD redevelopment plan centerpiece. Does the statute language mean nothing? I understand that BCHD has often quoted only the first part of (j) here, but it leaves out the bolded text. Doing so omits a key provision of the law.
Thank you
Tim Ozenne
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; CityClerk; Michael Webb
Cc: Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains
Subject: Public Comment from Quality of Life StopBCHD.co Group - BCHD Design Build Contract Proceeding Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:26:10 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Torrance and Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, Planning Commissions, City Counsel, and Public Works Directors:
The following are comments regarding BCHD's approval and data for the Design-Build agreement:
1. BCHD has asserted that the public is jumping to conclusions about rents, square feet, etc.
The public and especially StopBCHD.com is using BCHDs public documents such as Cain Bros presentations, MDS, allcove, and supplementing with National PACE Association, CMS.gov, California DHS, and US Census Data. If BCHD has chosen to withhold its decision making information from the public, then BCHD cannot expect the public to be informed of it.
2. BCHD acknowledged that the EIR erred in its No Project Alternative. Clearly the No Project is downsize and demolish 514, not retrofit. That is based on Board members requesting the CEO to explain the course of action if there is NO PROJECT. Retrofit is not required and is a Red Herring by BCHD. BCHD clearly gamed the EIR.
3. Outside Counsel Lundy stated that the City of Redondo Beach has determined formally that no Measure DD vote is required. The City has not confirmed that statement and BCHD has not provided any proof.
4. The Redondo Beach permitting process is a Redondo Beach issue, not a 3 beach city issue.
BCHD can always relocate to a location outside the District or in another member city.
5. BCHD and PMB assert they have a partnership. There are no partnership agreement documents forming any partnership in the record.
6. Even if all 3 cities are considered, 80% of RCFE, 91% of allcove and 95% of PACE are NON-RESIDENT PROGRAMS with 100% damages to Redondo Beach as the permitting city.
A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE IS REQUIRED UNDER MEASURE DD
As the numerous documents tonight demonstrate, BCHD has a 0% ownership of the Phase 1 project.
That implies a private company will have 100% ownership.
PMB LLC or one or more special purpose entities of PMB will lease 3 acres of Public Land for 95 years and convert it to Private Use.
That Private Use is contemplated to have PMB-occupied RCFE, and commercial rental space for miscellaneous uses, including PACE, allcove, and office space.
PACE is not a conditionally allowed use in P-CF public zoning. The list of conditional uses for P-CF in Muni Code 10-2.1110 does NOT contain adult daycare, and therefore by ordinance, no omitted use can be allowed. PACE, according to both Federal CMS and State DHCS requires adult daycare.
PMB’s conversion of Public Land to a Private Use is a Major Change according to City Charter 27.2(g)(2)
The land allocated to BCHD is explicitly included in the same reference as 27.2(g)(2)(v) “land allocated to the Beach Cities Health District”
Both the 510 and 520 conversions to Private Use predate Measure DD. However, they would both have required a vote of the public today.
Conclusion: BCHD’s privatization of 3 acres requires a vote of the people under the City Charter, as BCHD has now clearly stated it has 0% Public Ownership and PMB has 100% Private Use.
PMB LLC (or its SPE) DOES NOT PROVIDE NET BENEFIT TO REDONDO BEACH
RESIDENTS
Contrary to BCHD’s misrepresentation to the City Attorney (authored February 2019 and concealed from the public until July 2020) in a letter culminating secret negotiations, this private development of public land does not “Clearly have significant benefits to Redondo Beach residents”. The letter provides no quantification of benefits or damages and subsequent CPRA requests were ignored.
Further, in an Apr 7, 2022 CPRA response, BCHD stated: “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.” As such, BCHD acknowledged that it has no ability to compute community benefits needed to determine if Redondo Beach residents will “Clearly” have “significant benefits”.
PMB LLCs development is private with no demonstrable net benefit to Redondo Beach residents – that is, the Redondo Beach residents’ 9% of the RCFE, the 5% of allcove, the 3% of PACE have not, and cannot be demonstrated to outweigh the numerous damages, including but not limited to neighborhood character, property values, noise, traffic, toxic emissions, explosive fuel storage, generator operation, etc.
CONCLUSION – Measure DD Requires a Vote of the People and PMB is dead in the water until that vote or litigation.
BCHD’s Pre-CUP Fails to Meet RBMC Requirements
Now that PMB LLC has taken the driver’s seat as the private company has executed a 95 year lease and been assigned the Design/Build agreement with its own designer/builder, BCHD shilling can come to an end.
BCHD’s February 2022 pre-CUP filing failed miserably to comply with RBMC. 1) The project is listed at 107.5 feet in height by BCHD 2) The project is listed at approximately 300,000 sqft by BCHD 3) The project fails to “respect the natural terrain” and is proposed on the perimeter along Diamond, Prospect, Beryl & Flagler. Respect of the 30-foot elevated site requires lesser heights and/or campus center construction. The proposal is visually 3-4X taller than the existing hospital and 300X larger at the tallest levels. 4) The project fails to protect property values. Surrounding property values are $50K to $200K less than statistical models project. The largest decreases are closest to the campus site.
BCHD proposes to nearly triple the campus size from 312,000 sqft to nearly 800,000 sqft and creates “overwhelming building scale and visual obstruction” which is prohibited in the Residential Design Guidelines
5) The project is not “not compatible with the character of the neighborhood” as required in the RDGs
6) The fuel storage and 4MW of diesel locomotive generators is detrimental to the health and safety of the surrounding community as disallowed by the PCDR 7) The project does not “respect the development in the immediate area” as required in the RDGs
8) The project is not “in harmony with scale and bulk” of surrounding properties as required in the PCDR
9) At nearly 800,000 sqft, the project is larger than every home in Beryl Heights combined and clearly not “integrated and compatible with the neighborhood” In short, BCHD’s increase in above ground building square footage through removal of underground parking and BCHD’s increase in height from 60-feet in the NOP to 76-feet at the June 2020 BoD to 103-feet in the DEIR to 107.5-feet in the pre-CUP demonstrates that BCHD strives to ignore the surrounding neighborhoods and input, which has run 100-to-1 against the current project based on simple examination of filed comments.
CONCLUSION - The current project design is dead in the water and will be appealed and litigated as needed to provide maximum protection to the surrounding neighborhoods.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; Michael Webb; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Peculiar Statement by BCHD during BCHD Board Meeting Date: Friday, December 16, 2022 12:03:39 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
During the December BCHD Board meeting, BCHD responded to Torrance resident Ann Wolfson regarding environmental damages. As I recall BCHD statement, I find it puzzling to the point of bizarre.
BCHD asserted that its proposed 800,000 sqft, over 100-foot tall development on the perimeter of the site had no long term damages to the surrounding neighborhoods as determined by the proponent's (BCHD) EIR finding. In short, BCHD did the EIR and found no damages.
BCHD then made the odd statement that in Hermosa Beach when the oil company did its EIR on drilling and pumping oil, it found approximately 9 long term damages in its EIR. In short, the proponent in Hermosa found damage, but the proponent BCHD did not.
Why would McPherson (or whomever the oil company was for the EIR) find damages against its program while BCHD asserts that 100+ feet tall and 800,000 square feet is consistent with the neighborhood character, has no privacy impacts being built on the edges, etc.? As I stated, this seems peculiar to the point that BCHD's EIR's credibility is nil.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 12:06:41 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD (likely funded by PMB LLC, the private developer on our public land) has funded $300,000 worth of consultants and lawyers for the City of Redondo Beach. The City is supposed to use that small army to evaluate the PMB LLC Phase 1 "Wealthy" Living Campus proposal. The City and BCHD are both public agencies, so we need public meetings, public access and full disclosure of the process and actions. Anything less results in secret negotiations and a failure to respect the public.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
cc: City Council, Planning Commission of Redondo Beach and Torrance