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
JANUARY 3, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Communications; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: BCHD Outrageous Overheads and Compensation
Date: Friday, December 23, 2022 1:26:02 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
From the ER ... "BCHD has 46 full-time, and 63 part-time employees. Property taxes of $4.5 million provide one-third of the district’s $14.5 million annual budget. Another third comes from leases, and the final third from user fees, partnerships and grants." Of those 46 full-time BCHD employees, 10 are executives. According to TransparentCalifornia, the Top 10 executives at BCHD cost taxpayers $2,034,635.91 annually. That's around half of the property tax revenues taken in by BCHD each year paid out to 10 executives.
Frighteningly, those 10 executives in the bloated BCHD management team only manage 36 full-time employees between them all. That's fewer than 4 employees each. That span of control is unprecedentedly pathetic for any organization and certainly flies in the face of any management theory or practice for executive teams.
That implies that each Executive is paid over $28/hour per FTE managed of the $101.73/hour that each of the 10 executives costs taxpayers on average. Taxpayers deserve better.
As taxpayers and residents of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach we expect and deserve to have our Cities exert maximum control over the reckless spending of BCHD. BCHD is attempting to Privatize 3 acres of Public Land for nearly 100 years for MORE MONEY while BCHD's bloated management team each manage fewer than 4 full time employees. This is unacceptable.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Michael Webb Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Garth Meyer; Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Article in EasyReader and BCHD Misrepresentation of Facts to ER Date: Thursday, December 22, 2022 9:57:18 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Mayors, Councils, Planning Commissions, City Attorneys, Public Works Directors of Torrance and Hermosa, Redondo, and Manhattan Beaches
Please see the article at:https://easyreadernews.com/campus-clash-healthy-living-campusdraws-flak-in-redondo-beach/ Good article, unfortunately BCHD continues its misinformation flow and few people have sufficient command of BCHD's thousands of pages of documents on the project to provide corrections to BCHD's deceptive communications. That's the entire reason for the Sunshine Laws on public agencies in California. Sunshine is the disinfectant for secret and hidden public agency actions.
BCHD misstates its own paid consultant's results and assumes that the public is too busy or uninformed to recognize BCHD's misdirection. BCHD also spent nearly $1M on advertising/PR on this project and about $2M in legal fees to thwart the rights and will of Redondo Beach residents. Residents cannot receive information in the face of such a highcost, taxpayer funded attack by a public agency. .
1. BCHD's seismic consultant Youssef Associates stated that the "best practice" for the 514 hospital building allows continued use for 25 years - not 3-5 years (CWG Presentation, 1/16/2018, p.6.)
2. BCHD alone publishes estimated rent costs for the privately developed/owned/operated assisted living. BCHD's rent estimates range from $11,311 to $12,922 per month per room.
BCHD's MDS consultant based all BCHD market analysis for assisted living on "market" rental rates that averaged $13,424.07 per month per room (MDS, May 2019, p 1-24). BCHD's Cain consultant based all their financial studies on an average $13,922.73 per month per room (Cain, 6/16/2020, p 4) BCHD's Cain consultants also published PMB LLCs proposed room rates that averaged $11,311 per month per room (PMB LLC Proposal to Cain). BCHD needs to own its data and publish current information IN ADVANCE of any application at the City.
3. BCHD spends about 50% of its property tax revenues on the top 10 executives (over $2M), supporting Mr. Pinzler's bloated management comment. (Transparent California database of compensation)
4. BCHD cannot continue to hide its intentions. In 2019 it published a project height of 60-feet tall on the edge of the 30-foot tall site (BCHD EIR NOP, June 2019). In 2020 BCHD raised the height to 76-feet built on the edge of the 30-foot tall site. It added an 8-10 story parking ramp as well and removed 160,000 sqft of underground parking (BCHD BoD Presentation June 2020). In BCHD's March 2021 Draft EIR to the public, it raised the height again to 103- feet (133.5-feet above Beryl St.).
5. BCHD negotiated in secret with the City Attorney of Redondo Beach in 2019. BCHD's high paid lawyers sent a secret letter to Mike Webb in February of 2019 about the "deal". BCHD then withheld the letter from the public until July 2020, a month after BCHD approved the project at the June Board meeting..
6. BCHD's private assisted living would serve 80% non-residents of the beach cities and 91% non-residents of Redondo Beach, the city that suffers the damages (MDS, 2019)
7. BCHD's "allcove" program services 1.4M residents of planning area 8 of LA County Health. That means that 91% of the "allcove" program is for non-residents of the District and 95% of the "allcove" program is for non-residents of Redondo Beach, the city that suffers the damages (BCHD Press Release)
8. BCHD's proposed PACE facility will service 95% non-residents of the District and 97% non-residents of Redondo Beach, the City that suffers the damages (National PACE Association data - BCHD refused to provide Public Records Act responses).
9. BCHD added a building to its plan diagrams along Diamond St. When asked, BCHD refused to disclose the need or use of the building in Public Records Act responses. It turned out to be an enclosure for a power plant and 10,000 to 70,000 gallons of fuel storage along Diamond St. less than 100-feet from homes and adjacent to the proposed bike path (Public Records Act Request).
10. BCHD does not own either the 510 or 520 commercial office buildings on campus. BCHD did not conduct the CEQA analysis on either building (nor did SBHD, BCHD's predecessor agency).nor have any material involvement. If Measure DD had existed in 1970 or 1990 or 1995 when the limited conditional use permit ONLY FOR USE IN THE 514 BUILDING was issued, a public vote would have been required. The proposed 107.5-foot tall, 300,000 sqft PMB LLC private building requires a public vote since it is a new privatized use of Public Land.
But for Public Records Act requests - no one would ever know the depth of the BCHD scheme to service 90% non-residents on the backs of 3 small cities of 120,000 people and push the damages off onto the residents of Redondo Beach.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Lack of Respect for Surrounding Neighborhoods Date: Thursday, December 22, 2022 6:03:57 PM
Attachments: MN Comments BCHD NOP-EIR for BoD Mtg 4-24-19.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Torrance and Redondo Beach Mayors, Councils, City Attorneys, and Planning Commissions:
Back in April of 2019, it became clear to the BCHD Community Working Group that BCHD was moving ahead to an EIR with its "Great Wall of Redondo" design. That was a 60-foot tall, 4-story structure ringing the outside of the 30-foot elevated site. That was quite different than BCHD's communicated priority (May 2017 CWG Presentation p 25) that was provided to the CWG that the outside of the campus would NOT be built on and would be a buffer of parking and greenspace. Hindsight being 20/20, that was the beginning of a long series of betrayals of the surrounding residents by BCHD.
BCHD went from 60-feet tall in 2019 to 76-feet tall in 2020 to 103-feet tall in 2021. In 2022 BCHD filed a 107.5-foot height in its pre-CUP at the City of Redondo. In short, BCHD has repeatedly ignored the input of the over 1200 TRAO petition signatories, other TRAO members and StopBCHD. Ignored.
Attached is the April 2019 Board comment that I was compelled to author to directly address the Board when the BCHD management authored "CWG Reports to the Board" were clearly slanted and inaccurate to prop up the project.
Mark Nelson
Former CWG member
April 22, 2019
Mark Nelson
[email protected]
CWG Member – Redondo Beach local neighborhood, Prospect Ave.
Comments on Potential BCHD HLC Project and NOP/EIR Formulation BCHD Board of Directors and Staff:
As a member of the Community Working Group, I have made many of these comments in writing or in discussion during our group meetings. Typically however, our discussions in the CWG are more along the lines of framing the project and reacting to proposals, and they are less about the multi-facets of the environmental analysis and City of Redondo permitting. In any event, my prior comments have not been made in light of a potential NOP, and as such, I am using typical portions of an EIR table of contents to guide this comments.
These comments are predominantly written from the perspective of the local Redondo Beach Beryl Heights neighborhood where I live, which is most likely to be impacted by the project in both the construction phases and the ongoing operations.
Project and Program Description
As is mandatory for an undertaking such as the Healthy Living Campus, the project must be described in detail. Because this is mixed-use (residential, public, professional, food service, and perhaps retail), the neighborhood residents will require significant detail to evaluate and determine its ultimate support or opposition based on the benefits and detriments of the proposal. A number of specific issues come to mind, including but not limited to descriptions and dispositions of: the specific facilities for use by area residents, the timing of development of those facilities, the displacement (and accommodation) of medical services that many of us currently use in the 510 building, anticipated phasing and timing, operating days and hours, and the project’s physical characteristics. Because this is a program, that is, a series of related projects across a significant timespan and likely several management teams (up to 15 years), a detailed description of each phase, its timing, and its linkages to other parts of the mixed-use campus is required. An example would be the timing and linkages of residential housing, the Center for Health and Fitness replacement, meeting rooms, cafes, etc. Also, the impacts cannot be determined without an understanding of pricing and subsidy policies, such as: pricing policy for residential assisted living, food service, fitness clinic, and other products and services.
Alternatives
The CWG has had only brief discussions about alternatives, and they included additional/replacement land leases such as 510 and 520. No other uses other than the HLC have been brought forth that I am aware of, and I believe that a robust set of alternative uses of the BCHD land is needed.
No Project Alternative
The CWG has had a limited discussion of the No Project Alternative in the form of some financial projections of the retirement of 514. The No Project Alternative is not well understood to my thinking, and it requires significant development and explanation such that the surrounding neighborhood can understand what happens if the HLC or one of its alternatives fail to move forward. Some examples include: a parallel to the AES Power Plant (shutdown, decommission, park land), sale for real estate or other development, alternative use of the existing buildings, termination of BCHD, etc.
Purpose and Need
BCHD and its activities were a deviation from the South Bay Hospital that preceded it. The HLC will be a deviation in some activities (district owned rental housing) from the BCHD activities to date.
Given that health districts in California have a variety of functions, a crisp discussion of the purpose and need of the project will be very helpful. Over two years of discussion, the CWG has inferred purpose and need, but communications to the adjacent landowners will need to be full, concise and persuasive. Further, recent CWG discussions have focused on the HLC being a financial engine for the BCHD other activities, and also as an engine to discount the cost of assisted living for financially qualified local residents. That discussion seems to be an integral part of purpose and need that is currently lacking a concise written form.
Aesthetics
From the local neighborhood perspective, I continue to have my stated concerns about mass, height, setbacks, artificial lighting, sun reflection, and invasion of the visual privacy of the surrounding homeowners. Simulations, elevations, illustrations, and models will be needed to provide an adequate disclosure of the design. Again, because this is phased, it will be important to understand timing and activities on the BCHD site during the decade to 15 year interim period.
Air Quality
While I don’t currently anticipate any specific air quality issues, I am concerned that exhaust from the underground parking and from any food preparation facilities are not a burden on the local receptors.
As a result, the program should disclose and analyze emissions beyond any onsite cooling towers, generators, boilers or other equipment and include food preparation and parking ventilation at a minimum. Construction is another issue however with respect to air quality impacts, with demolition debris, truck and transport emissions, PM2.5s and PM10s from all sources, concrete flydust, fugitive dust, portable generators, construction equipment, and other concerns. It is likely that the buildings are laden with asbestos (to be discussed in HazMat) and any wind drift causing toxins to spread will be unacceptable to the neighborhood, therefore, any potential winddrift accumulated biohazard will need to be managed during demolition.
Biology
The biological impacts of the changing use of the BCHD campus will be analyzed, with special emphasis needed on urban wildlife such as coyotes, raccoons, opossums, rats, mice, raptors, feral cats, nuisance animals and insects, etc. The neighborhood, its children and pets are at risk from potential disease and attack.
Energy
Neighborhood concern regarding energy would arise in the long term if the facility had significant onsite generation that would either pose a potential fuel and emissions hazard, or, a local area line voltage fluctuation. Concerns over diesel fuel generator use during construction are needed, and disclosure is required for the neighborhood’s review.
Geotechnical
Aside from proper retaining walls, removal (not abandonment) of buried piping and tanks, etc., I see no particular geotechnical concerns from a neighborhood perspective. The standard analysis should suffice, including disclosure of the local seismic background.
GHG
GHG is a global issue. Again, the neighborhood may have concerns if BCHD uses onsite alternative energy generation to mitigate GHGs, as wind turbines and solar panels can have unintended side effects to wildlife, create noises that curtail neighborhood quiet enjoyment of our property, or create solar panel glare or heat islanding. Any plans for onsite GHG mitigation should be disclosed.
HazMat
Biohazards, biowaste, asbestos, PMxx, diesel, fuel oil, underground tanks, buried pipelines, etc. both during demolition and during long term operation are a neighborhood concern that will require disclosure.
Hydrology
Water capture (rain), water runoff (rain), and water runoff (irrigation) are at present the only impacts that I see of concern to the neighborhood. BCHDs analysis will need to assess their needs for construction.
Land Use/CUP
A clear understand of the future land uses for the project, alternatives and no project will be needed for the local area to understand its optionality with respect to the project. Covenants on long term use may be required for neighborhood support to assure that the site does not become an incompatible use with the neighborhood, for example. Notwithstanding legal opinions, the local area may opt to sponsor a local initiative “vote of the people” for any change in use of the site that was originally, legislatively a hospital and was never contemplated for 400 residential units.
Noise
The current facility has significant operational noise with emergency vehicles, vehicle traffic, loading and unloading, trash collection, night and weekend maintenance, etc. that impact the adjacent neighborhood. A curtailment of long run noise is compatible with the housing component of the project and with the neighborhood. A decade of construction noise and any amplified or acoustically concentrated (constructive wave interference) noise from the green space or circular building will need to managed heavily as well. If the Beryl Heights neighborhood is at the mouth of a de facto amphitheater, it is unlikely that the neighborhood will support the project. Noise, both long term and construction, is a very, very important design factor and concern.
Population and Housing
The Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (or assisted living) housing will be 400 beds from our initial understanding. That is equivalent to about 125 local area homes homes, or roughly 4 blocks of the surrounding homes worth of additional population and housing. While that doesn’t seem large, it will be incumbent on BCHD to explain the impacts from services, occupant traffic, visitor traffic, rideshare traffic, and other ancillary local impacts.
Public Services and Utilities
California is in the midst of a homeless crisis. Large open spaces are double-edged swords, and will require tight management by the BCHD or lessees in order to assure that the neighborhood does not end up with an encampment or increased levels of transients. Thus, a full description of both private security and policies, along with a participating agency analysis by the RBPD and perhaps surroundings Pds will be needed for local neighborhood assessment of the project. In addition, the usual gas, water, sewer, and power analysis by local suppliers will be required to understand any local impacts, such as drainage, sewer, water supply, gas/power, or other public utility services.
Transportation and Parking
South Bay Hospital had a very negative relationship with the local community with regard to parking.
Undersizing the parking at BCHD, or assuming high proportions of rideshare or other parking-reducing actions must be revealed and carefully analyzed. In the 1980s and 90s, the surrounding neighborhoods were forced to use permit parking as result insufficient and overpriced parking at South Bay Hospital, along with poorly managed employee parking policies. That has happened once, and cannot be allowed again.
BCHD traffic emerging from the 510/514 shared driveway has been a long term, unsafe situation.
Emerging traffic often does not yield for pedestrians in the crosswalk, creating an unsafe situation.
Further, the same traffic heading south asserts an illegal right-of-way and fails to yield to traffic exiting the Prospect frontage road that has the clear, legal right-of-way. As a result, traffic control at the intersection must be modified during this development to assure the legal traffic rights of the area residents. Perhaps the 510/514 driveway should be removed, with access points limited to the existing exits on Prospect to the south of 510 and the north of 520. In any event, the current situation is unacceptable.
This is not intended to be a complete issue listing, however, it will hopefully provide a view from a local resident, who in my case, is approximately 100 feet from my east lot line to BCHDs west lot line at the 510 building according to inspection using Google Earth. Thank you for the ability to participate in this process from the beginning, which will hopefully avoid many of the project pitfalls and conflicts that I’ve witnessed over the past several decades. Assuming my schedule cooperates, I plan to attend the BoD meeting on the 24th of April.
Mark Nelson
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Communications; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: BCHD Outrageous Overheads and Compensation Date: Friday, December 23, 2022 6:00:00 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
It was pointed out to me that for each $1 of BCHD full time employee spending, the 10 top executives salaries constitute a 73¢ overhead (or tax). That is the impact of $2M in executives managing a pool of full time employees that is compensated at $2.8M. Any way it is described, BCHD executive management is a bloated, inefficient structure and a burden to taxpayers.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 1:25 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:
From the ER ... "BCHD has 46 full-time, and 63 part-time employees. Property taxes of $4.5 million provide one-third of the district’s $14.5 million annual budget. Another third comes from leases, and the final third from user fees, partnerships and grants." Of those 46 full-time BCHD employees, 10 are executives. According to TransparentCalifornia, the Top 10 executives at BCHD cost taxpayers $2,034,635.91 annually. That's around half of the property tax revenues taken in by BCHD each year paid out to 10 executives.
Frighteningly, those 10 executives in the bloated BCHD management team only manage 36 full-time employees between them all. That's fewer than 4 employees each. That span of control is unprecedentedly pathetic for any organization and certainly flies in the face of any management theory or practice for executive teams.
That implies that each Executive is paid over $28/hour per FTE managed of the $101.73/hour that each of the 10 executives costs taxpayers on average. Taxpayers deserve better.
As taxpayers and residents of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach we expect and deserve to have our Cities exert maximum control over the reckless spending of BCHD. BCHD is attempting to Privatize 3 acres of Public Land for nearly 100 years for MORE MONEY while BCHD's bloated management team each manage fewer than 4 full time employees. This is unacceptable.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach