Blue Folder- J.1 — Redondo Beach City Council, February 14, 2023

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
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Attachment available until Mar 10, 2023
From: Susan Higgins
To: Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Christian Horvath; Zein Obagi; Laura Emdee Cc: Bill Brand; Cameron Harding; Kelly Orta; CityClerk
Subject: Second Petition to Redondo Beach City Council to Establish Dedicated Pickleball Courts (a Pickleball Complex) in Redondo Beach
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:37:40 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To: D1 CM Nils Nehrenheim, D2 CM Todd Loewenstein, D3 CM Christian Horvath, D4 CM Zein Obagi, D5 CM Laura Emdee
cc: Mayor Bill Brand, Community Services Director Cameron Harding, Community Services Sr Mgmt Analyst Kelly Orta, City Clerk Eleanor Manzano, and Recreation and Parks Commission (request Community Services to share with this Commission) From: Susan Higgins, Redondo Beach Resident Pickleball Players Group Lead and 33 Years Redondo Beach Resident (District 4)
Councilmembers:

At last night’s City Council Meeting the subject of pickleball courts and allocating funding was once again raised. This was a welcome sign to the Pickleball Community that establishing dedicated pickleball courts has not been discarded. We (Pickleball Community) have strongly continued to advocate for the City to establish 6 to 8 dedicated pickleball courts at the same location with court lighting, fencing and seating (benches); i.e., a pickleball complex/facility which can be used by the Pickleball Community every day of the week in the morning, afternoon and evening so that we may enjoy our sport without sharing court space with other sports. Aviation Park Open Field is the only identified site in Redondo Beach which can support this standalone pickleball complex.

I recognize that at least one Councilmember has been discussing pickleball courts at Redondo Union High School and that’s a nice idea for backup courts and a good idea for the students at the High School but this approach does not give the hundreds of pickleball players a standalone facility which can be used every day of the week in the morning, afternoon and evening to play our sport. Relative to other comments made by a Councilmember that the City already has 6 pickleball courts, I can only once again state that I respectfully disagree with this position. As of today, the City has no pickleball courts but Community Services is working on the resurfacing and restriping of Perry Park to add three pickleball courts to the basketball courts for shared, dual use, and striping (painting lines) on the basketball courts at Franklin Park to add two pickleball courts for shared, dual use and to stripe (paint lines) on the half basketball court at Anderson Park to add one pickleball court for shared, dual use. The City is NOT providing any pickleball equipment at these three locations. The City is only painting pickleball court lines. Therefore, it will be necessary for pickleball players to bring privately purchased portable pickleball nets in order to play at all three of these locations.

Only Perry Park has fencing (on three sides) and lighting. Franklin Park has no fencing, no court lighting and no seating. Anderson Park has no fencing, no seating but there is court lighting. The mention of pickleball courts at Dale Page Park is misleading. There are taped lines laid by a few pickleball players on the basketball courts (concrete pad) at Page Park in a very tight formation. These are not legit pickleball courts.

On June 1, 2022 a Petition was submitted to Redondo Beach City Council signed by 773 pickleball supporters residing in the South Bay and the adjacent cities requesting that the City Council approve a Capital Improvement Project to fund and construct a Pickleball Complex at Aviation Park Open Field with 6 to 8 dedicated pickleball courts, court lighting, fencing and seating. The majority in City Council voted not to approve funding for these dedicated pickleball courts.

Attached hereto is a second Petition to the Redondo Beach City Council to Establish Dedicated Pickleball Courts (a Pickleball Complex) in Redondo Beach at Aviation Park Open Field. This second Petition has only been signed by Redondo Beach Residents.

There are 329 signatures covering all 5 Districts:

District 1 = 90 signatures
District 2 = 27 signatures
District 3 = 70 signatures
District 4 = 56 signatures
District 5 = 86 signatures
The signatures on this Petition were gathered by me and others in my Redondo Beach Resident Pickleball Players Group over the past 4 weeks. This Petition is now presented to the City Council.

If the City Council chooses to allocate the Aviation Park Open Field to an “Olympic size swimming pool” at an enormous expense (millions of dollars), then the Pickleball Community requests that City Council approve and fund the conversion of two tennis courts at Alta Vista Park into 8 dedicated/permanent pickleball courts. Conversion of Tennis courts 7 and 8 is recommended. Conversion of these courts to pickleball would still permit the tennis players to conduct their leagues, tournaments and recreational play on the 6 remaining tennis courts. The tennis courts conversion would provide the pickleball players with the 8 dedicated courts in the same location to accommodate open, drop-in recreational play, leagues, classes and tournaments. The court lighting, fencing and seating is already in place.

On behalf of the Pickleball Community, I respectfully request that City Council approve Capital Improvement funds to establish a Pickleball Complex with 6 to 8 permanent courts at the same location to include court lighting, fencing and seating.

For further discussion, questions or other information, I may be contacted at email address:
[email protected]. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Susan Higgins
Redondo Beach Resident Pickleball Players Group Lead
33 Years Redondo Beach Resident (District 4)
Click to Download
2nd Pickleball Petition for Dedicated Courts February 2023.PDF

27.5 MB
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: Oral comments tonight, J.1
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:56:03 PM
Attachments: CityCouncil 2723.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Clerk,
Please forward this written copy of my oral comments to all members including mayor Brand. This contains very important information regarding the active Draft EIR on the Metro C-Line.

I know it's past 3:00 but CM Obagi suggested I email to you. I will be speaking during non-agenda items.

Thanks!!
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3
Niki Negrete-Mitchell, D3
Good evening,
As most of us are aware, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was released 12 days ago, meaning we have 33 days left to respond. I have been working real hard trying to get the word out via social media and the interwebs to as many residents as possible. I do see a traffic uptick on rightofsay.com where everyone can find everything they need to get started, so that’s working.

I had a document inserted into the blue folder for tonight which consists of 2 pages from the DraftEIR.

It is page 3 & 4 of the Geology/Soils chapter with tables to show the local “Relevant Regulations” with regard to the geology and soils that should support a project build. I highlighted on the tables for each city where Redondo is sandwiched between Lawndale and Torrance, both of those cities have language about “human-induced safety hazards”, however for Redondo the DEIR only shows general language citing California general regulations code number. I had to Google that and figured out I was able to refer to the previous page, where in that separate space you’ll find the specific language which is very explicit about “man-made hazards” and “protecting the community from any unreasonable risks”. Among those risks are:
• effects of siesmically-induced surface rupture
• ground shaking
• ground failure
• slope instability
• SUBSIDENCE
• seismic hazards
• mud or landslides
I cherry picked those bullet points to disinclude seiche, tsunami, liquification to remain relevant specifically to Ruxton/Condon, between Artesia and Grant.

How disturbing not seeing the explicit safety language for Redondo Beach regulations, my first thought was “who is protecting us?” Okay, I had to do some dot connecting to figure it out but my fear is that not a lot of people are diligent dot connectors. If I hadn’t been able to do that it would appear that the message is, us homeowners are low key royally screwed.

REDONDO NEEDS TO HAMMER ON THIS!
We are holding a rally this Saturday, 2/11 from 3-5pm at Franklin Park. We’ll go over how to more easily get into this huge document and how to respond. Information on that is at rightofsay.com/events.

Thank you for letting me speak tonight.

From: Barbara Kiyokane
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: BCHD Opposition by Torrance Homeowner
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:45:32 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

The following is a public comment from Phil and Barbara Kiyokane of Torrance.

We ask the City Councils to act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the Redondo Beach and Torrance Municipal Codes on its 100% commercially developed, owned and operated Phase 1 campus expansion. BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process. Despite the Public’s call for shorter, smaller and further from the site edges, BCHD increased the height from 60-feet (6/2019) to 76-feet (6/2020) to 103-feet (3/2021) and to 107.5-feet (2/2022). BCHD also removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8-10 story parking ramp on the site’s edge. The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30-feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

BCHD’s advertising campaign cleverly claims to have downsized the project, yet it is now both taller and has more above ground square feet than it did in June 2019 despite public outrage to reduce the size since June 2019.

The recent hearing by the Redondo Beach City Council to overturn its Planning Department’s approval of the Catalina Avenue development shows the Department’s strong bias to support commercial developers – not the Public. It’s disappointing that the Redondo Beach City Council had to appeal and overturn its own Planning Department’s poor decision. But thankfully, the Council sided with the Public and did correct the injustice proposed by Planning.

We ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95-year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

We ask the Torrance City Council to diligently work to defend the interests of property owners under the Hillside Overlay Ordinance by actively opposing any and all BCHD or City of Redondo Beach activity that would be inconsistent with the rights that residents would have if the project were in Torrance.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at https://bit.ly/PMB-BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; CityClerk; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: BCHD Project Misinformation from the BCHD Consultant and BCHD CEO Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 10:53:44 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Torrance and Redondo Beach Councils and Planning Commissions:

CONFUSION OR DELIBERATE MISDIRECTION - EITHER IS UNFORGIVABLE

BY BCHD
The BCHD CEO repeatedly stated that the privately owned PMB LLC permit filings will be in 3-6 months. However, in parallel, and for planning purposes at the City of Redondo Beach, BCHD's consultant Nick Biro stated in writing that the preliminary date for filing is March 17, 2023. Clearly BCHD is either attempting to mislead the City of Redondo Beach or the Public.

There is no other reasonable explanation for a December letter from the BCHD Consultant with a March 17, 2023 date while the CEO's December report stated 3-6 months. BCHD has fewer than 50 full time employees who are managed by 10 executives. Those 10 executives have a payroll of over $2M annually of the $4.5M in property taxes received by BCHD. This level of disarray between the BCHD CEO and his highly paid consultant are truly concerning as a public agency allows a private company to develop a private project on publicly owned and zoned land.

Furthermore, why is BCHD fronting (shilling?) for PMB LLC, a 100% private company on a 100% privately developed, owned and operated project at the City of Redondo Beach? Is the developer not competent to permit a project?
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
cc: media, electeds, BCHD District owners
From: SINSHEIMER
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: BCHD Proposal
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 7:13:28 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

I am a resident of Redondo Beach. I have lived in Redondo Beach since 1987. I have watched over the years more and more building, but not sufficient open space. I don’t believe that the path that the board of BCHD has decided to pursue is in the best interested of the citizens of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Torrance.

I ask the City Councils to act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the Redondo Beach and Torrance Municipal Codes on its 100% commercially developed, owned and operated Phase 1 campus expansion. BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95-year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

I ask the Torrance City Council to diligently work to defend the interests of property owners under the Hillside Overlay Ordinance by actively opposing any and all BCHD or City of Redondo Beach activity that would be inconsistent with the rights that residents would have if the project were in Torrance.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
Jeanne Sinsheimer
1915 Spreckels Lane
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Sent from my iPad
From: Tom McGarry
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: BCHD
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:51:13 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public comment from Tom McGarry, Redondo Beach
To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process.

Despite the Public’s call for shorter, smaller and further from the site edges, BCHD increased the height from 60-feet (6/2019) to 76-feet (6/2020) to 103-feet (3/2021) and to 107.5-feet (2/2022). BCHD also removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8-10 story parking ramp on the site’s edge. The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30-feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at
https://bit.ly/PMB-BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’
[10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: Rosann Taylor
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Do not approve BCHD’s proposed project
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 7:30:53 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment from Rosann Taylor. As a homeowner directly across from the BCHD property, I am strenuously opposed the proposed project.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
Aloha! ♀
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Easy Reader News Letter to the Editor
Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 12:54:09 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD either is, or isn't transparent in its actions. BCHDs press releases on transparency claim it's very transparent. At the same time, BCHDs press releases on the private PMB LLC developed/owned/operated Healthy Living Campus project state "the public will be able to access the plan when it is submitted to the City."
Is that transparent? No, that's BCHD hiding the project from the Public.

BCHD and its land and buildings are funded and owned by the Public. BCHD's funding is from the Public's property taxes of roughly $4M annually and rents from the Public's property.

BCHD's Top 10 executives earn over $2M to service the Public and they are failing.

The only transparency in BCHD's statement is that BCHD plans to deny access to the project by the Public. That may be BCHD's executives' idea of transparency, but it's not the Public's idea. BCHD needs to share the design IMMEDIATELY or fold the project. Hiding the project from the taxpayer-owners of the Public is not an option.Visit your neighbors at StopBCHD.com for more information.

Mark Nelson
StopBCHD.com
cc: Public Comment, City of Redondo Beach and Torrance Councils and Planning Commissions
From: Glen and Nancy Yokoe
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 1:09:17 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment from Glen and Nancy Yokoe
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:11 PM
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers By Email to: [email protected], [email protected] To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

From: Stephanie Dyo
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:00:23 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment from Stephanie Dyo
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 11:12 AM
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
******NOTE FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS AT STOPBCHD.COM******
EMAIL 2/2 - you should have received Email 1/2 about an hour ago explaining the situation We realize that your time is precious and that we don't have BCHD's $10M taxpayer funded budget for advertising and letters and $300,000+ annual management salaries like BCHD does.

You are welcome to write your own comment letter and use all or part of the letter below as you like.

However, in the interest of time and in recognition of the complex issues, we hope that you are able to find time TODAY to support your friends and neighbors by forwarding this email to:[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Please include a very short note in your forward, such as "Public Comment from John Doe".

That will be sufficient to make it a valid comment.

Thank you for your continued support, and together we will continue to work to save our local neighborhoods and refocus BCHD.
******THANK YOU!*******
By Email to: [email protected], [email protected] To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: KENNETH KWAN
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 4:22:38 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From: "Pam Absher" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected] [email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 12:15:25 PM
Subject: Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:12:36 AM PST
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers NO BCHD.
******NOTE FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS AT STOPBCHD.COM******
EMAIL 2/2 - you should have received Email 1/2 about an hour ago explaining the situation We realize that your time is precious and that we don't have BCHD's $10M taxpayer funded budget for advertising and letters and $300,000+ annual management salaries like BCHD does. You are welcome to write your own comment letter and use all or part of the letter below as you like.

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process.

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at
https://bit.ly/PMB-BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’
[10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 8:03:00 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

My public comment is below. I am very concerned about the damages that BCHD's tenant PMB will do with its private 100+ foot tall building to our neighborhoods.

By Email to: [email protected], [email protected] To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: Terry Thomas
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD"s Private Developer PMB Cannot Be Allowed to Damage Neighborhoods Date: Thursday, February 9, 2023 10:33:33 AM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I have been reading the information about the project and how BCHDs architect firm filed a pre-CUP at the City of Redondo Beach with a 107-foot tall height of a 300,000 square foot building on the edge of Beryl (from about Prospect to Flagler) and on Flagler (from Beryl about halfway to Towers). I am very disturbed.

Putting a 100-foot wall on top of a 30+ foot elevated site destroys the property values and privacy in the neighborhoods north and east of the building in both Torrance and Redondo Beach. The current buildings were put in the center of campus for a reason to preserve the surrounding area.

This is not a public project. It's a private one. PMB LLC is the sole owner.

If BCHD continues fronting this project for PMB, then it should be denied.

The rest of my comments are below.

Mr. Thomas
To the Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - City Council
Date: Sunday, February 12, 2023 10:59:58 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Both Mary Drummer and Susan Brilliant brought forward false arguments to the City Council regarding the Phase 1 HLC building that will be 100% developed, owned and operated by PMB LLC. PMB LLC is required to comply with each and every condition of the RBMC for Conditional Use and Planning Commission Design Review. It is not an entity of BCHD and the specious arguments of Drummer and Brilliant are wholly irrelevant.

Relevant arguments include damage to surrounding privacy, damage to surrounding property values, failure to respect the 30-foot elevated site by building on the perimeter, consistency with neighborhood character, and the compliance with the intent of the Residential Design Guidelines.

I urge the Council to reject arguments by Drummer and Brilliant that are off point for the development project's approval.

Mark Nelson
Expert Witness
Redondo Beach
for StopBCHD.com
From: janice allen
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public comment
Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 9:54:37 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Sir:

I find the following article valid of concern, please look into this.

Thank you.

Janice
To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process.

The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30-feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at
https://bit.ly/PMB-BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’
[10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.”
[11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.”
TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 5:01:15 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

My views on the BCHD project:

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
Thank you,
Ann Bulson
Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment from Marianne Teola in Opposition to BCHD Development Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 7:21:08 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process.

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at
https://bit.ly/PMB-BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’
[10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: Mike and Jill
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT from Mike Jamgochian
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 5:34:48 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

City Clerks in Redondo Beach and Torrance,
Please forward my public comment to the mayor, city council, and planning commissions of your respective cities.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors,
Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

I have deep concerns about the negative impact that the proposed BCHD Healthy Living Campus will have on the
surrounding neighborhoods in Redondo Beach and Torrance.

I ask the City Councils to act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the
Redondo Beach and Torrance Municipal Codes on its
100% commercially developed, owned and operated
Phase 1 campus expansion. BCHD has 0% ownership
of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any
other commercial project.

Please refer to the attached additional information for the details.

Respectfully,
Mike Jamgochian
Resident, Redondo Beach
Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process.

The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30-feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at
https://bit.ly/PMB-BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’
[10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.”
[11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.”
TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.” From: Hamant and Robin Patel
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment from Robin and Hamant Patel
Date: Sunday, February 12, 2023 4:23:58 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Robin and Hamant Patel
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 3:29:25 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
-
Public Comment by Jennifer Sams
To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process.

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at
https://bit.ly/PMB-BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’
[10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: Vin Raju
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Stop BCHD
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please instruct City Staff to support the Public - not the Developers Date: Thursday, February 9, 2023 5:39:45 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment from Vinay Raju.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process.

The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30- feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

GUIDANCE FOR CITY STAFF
Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at
https://bit.ly/PMB-BCHD_NonComplianceAnalysisFeb2023
the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”
[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9]“Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’
[10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.”
[11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance.

From: Lisa Falk
To: [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: Please Support the Public - not the Developers Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 10:25:50 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

I ask the City Councils to please act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the Redondo Beach and Torrance Municipal Codes on its 100% commercially developed, owned and operated Phase 1 campus expansion. BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…” [1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review
The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS [3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:
[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”
[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.
[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”
[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES” [8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RB Residential Design Guidelines
According to the intent of the RDGs:
[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’ [10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” [11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood” [12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”
[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions” [14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance
Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:
[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”
[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity” [17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”
[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”
[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Vanessa I. Poster; Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; [email protected]; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; TRAO News; CityClerk; CityClerk Subject: Re: BCHD - Malice/Malfeasance/Misdirection or Incompetence/Ineptitude/Incoordination? Which is Worse? Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 7:03:58 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Adding Planning Commissions of Torrance and Redondo Beach Dear BCHD Board Member. Poster:

As anyone with a Stanford MBA such as yourself is well aware, you have neither actual, nor even apparent legal authority to bind BCHD. As a result, any discussions with you are by nature one-sided and only to BCHD's benefit. Nothing you say is binding absent a passed resolution of the Board. Thus, I must decline as would any other party with billions of dollars in project and development experience in this situation. BCHD is clearly awash in legal opinions based on its pre-development expenditures on lawyers of $2,201,458 (Dec 2022 Board Report) so I assume my response on the lack of any business value of a discussion is no surprise to you.

If you would like to proceed with written questions and answers, I would consider that option. At least the responses could be made public and used to demonstrate the continued pattern of BCHD.

The most helpful act that BCHD could take at this time would be to cease shilling for PMB LLC, or whatever liability limiting companies it is using for development, ownership and operation of the proposed 107.5-foot tall, approximately 300,000 square foot facility to be built on the north and east site perimeter. The developer can enter into meaningful, binding discussions with the public, while BCHD cannot. Further, BCHD has a 0% ownership stake in the project and insufficient credit to bother with "step in" rights.

Based on the fact that the District shirked any CEQA responsibility on the development of the 510 or 520 N Prospect commercial office buildings, I can only assume that part of the $2.2M in legal fees was to shop for a legal opinion to REQUIRE BCHD to self-certify the EIR for the HLC. BCHD had no CEQA experience and selected a miniscule subsidiary of a large UK industrial firm to complete CEQA and "protect" the impacted residents. BCHD's bold choice was Wood PLC, a UK-based company with refinery and tar sands operations, that advertises "Wood is an industry leader in Western Canada with presence in the in-situ, mineable oil sands" (AKA TAR SANDS). BCHD's "environmental" firm specializes in the dirtiest fuel on Earth. What a terrible choice.

BCHD needs to STEP BACK and allow the 100% commercial developer/owner/operator of the proposed Phase 1 building to take over the process.

Until then, the opposition will continue to grow against BCHD and its non-compliant project under both RBMC and TMC.

And for the record, BCHD cherry picked my January 2019 comment that was 3 pages long and provided a framework for BCHD to effectively work with the neighborhoods. BCHD also ignored my April 2019 memo to the Board when it became clear that the Board had ceased to take neighborhoods into consideration. I am happy to provide the full documents, as BCHD can via Public Records Request.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mark,
Thank you so much for your comments and input. I would like to meet with you personally to discuss these issues face to face. Please reply in order to schedule something.

Vanessa Poster
President, Board of Directors, Beach Cities Health District 310-374-3426
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 3:26 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; info <[email protected]>; Lisa Jacobs <[email protected]>; Kevin Cody <[email protected]>; Garth Meyer <[email protected]>; Tyler Evains <[email protected]>; Martha Koo <[email protected]>; Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]>; Noel Chun <[email protected]>; Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>; Jane Diehl <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: BCHD - Malice/Malfeasance/Misdirection or Incompetence/Ineptitude/Incoordination? Which is Worse?

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION

BCHD INCOMPETENCE ON DISPLAY
BCHD recently launched an email to its list stating it had provided the City "a draft version of a planning and construction schedule for the campus [DATED 12-13-2023] ... [to] ...assist them with their long-range planning ..." That DRAFT SCHEDULE stated that the preliminary date for BCHD submission of the Conditional Use Permit for its 100% privately developed/owned/operated PMB LLC project would be March 17, 2023.

WAS BCHD ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC OR THE CITY OR BOTH BY GIVING A SPECIFIC DATE?

DOCUMENTED FACTS

1. BCHD's Consultant on 12-13-23 representing BCHD at the City of Redondo Beach

2. BCHD's CEO on 12-22-23 to the Board of Directors
THE CASE FOR Malice/Malfeasance/Misdirection
BCHD could be deliberately maintaining two schedules - the CEO's public statements, and the BCHD Consultant's foolish attempt to provide a different date to the City and conceal it from the public in full violation of the California Public Records Act. By April of 2019, BCHD stopped cooperating with the surrounding public and neighborhoods, so we are not at all surprised that BCHD has two sets of books in an attempt to deceive us. Several members of the public are monitoring the situation for StopBCHD.com via Public Records requests.

THE CASE FOR Incompetence/Ineptitude/Incoordination
BCHD has 10 executives that earn over $2M annually from the $4.5M in property tax revenues of the public. Those 10 executives manage only 36 full time employees between them. That tiny span of control is in violation of every good management practice for executives imaginable. (from the Easy Reader - "BCHD has 46 full-time, and 63 part-time employees (includes the 10 full time executives).

It is possible that BCHD simply doesn't know what it's doing. Literally. BCHD's consultants have made $10M so far off of the pre-development activity and BCHD CEO doesn't even know what dates they are using with the permitting authority - The City of Redondo Beach? That's even worse than deliberate Misdirection.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Vanessa I. Poster; Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; [email protected]; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; TRAO News; CityClerk; CityClerk Subject: Re: BCHD - Malice/Malfeasance/Misdirection or Incompetence/Ineptitude/Incoordination? Which is Worse? Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 7:32:28 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

How could BCHD in good faith to HEALTH and the ENVIRONMENT have selected Wood PLC as its "environmental" firm to protect the District's residents? How can any District resident ever have any confidence in BCHD decision making again on this project?
From National Geographic - [Alberta Tar Sands] This is the world's most destructive oil operation—and it's growing https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/alberta-canadas-tar-sands-is-growing-but-indigenous-people-fightback From BCHD "Environmental" Consultant Wood PLC - Wood expands office in Edmonton, Alberta.[for mineable oil sands]
https://www.woodplc.com/news/latest-news-articles/2019/wood-expands-office-in-edmonton,-alberta.

It is morally repugnant that BCHD is so tone deaf to ESG vendor selection that it chose a company that actively participates in the tar sands of Alberta. There are plenty of morally and ethically upstanding consultants in the environmental space without billions of dollars in revenues from Earth destroying actions.

We, the District taxpayer owners, would be so much better off dealing directly with the Developer/Owner/Operator than BCHD as a third party with questionable ethics and goals based on its actions.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 7:01 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

Adding Planning Commissions of Torrance and Redondo Beach Dear BCHD Board Member. Poster:

If you would like to proceed with written questions and answers, I would consider that option. At least the responses could be made public and used to demonstrate the continued pattern of BCHD.

BCHD needs to STEP BACK and allow the 100% commercial developer/owner/operator of the proposed Phase 1 building to take over the process.

Until then, the opposition will continue to grow against BCHD and its non-compliant project under both RBMC and TMC.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 4:09 PM Vanessa I. Poster <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mark,
Thank you so much for your comments and input. I would like to meet with you personally to discuss these issues face to face. Please reply in order to schedule something.

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION

WAS BCHD ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC OR THE CITY OR BOTH BY GIVING A SPECIFIC DATE?

DOCUMENTED FACTS

1. BCHD's Consultant on 12-13-23 representing BCHD at the City of Redondo Beach

From: Jill Klausen
To: CityClerk; Bill Brand; Nils Nehrenheim; Zein Obagi; Christian Horvath; Laura Emdee; Todd Loewenstein Subject: STOP BCHD FROM TURNING OVER PUBLIC LAND TO PRIVATE PROFITEERS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE Date: Thursday, February 9, 2023 11:23:05 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To All Whom It May Concern:

Although I have borrowed from a pre-written text, what follows IS NOT a verbatim copy, but includes my own thoughts and input on this project. I therefore ask that you read it in full.

I ask the City Council to act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code on its 100% commercially developed, owned and operated Phase 1 campus expansion. BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95-year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space with no benefit to the city or the local residents. I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council to provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the public, not the private developer. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the public land at BCHD.

Thankfully, the Council sided with the public and overturned the Planning Commission's illadvised approval of the former Catalina Coffee House project because it did not meet the needs of the public in violation of the Coastal Act. It is my fervent hope that you will do the same with this project.

In point of fact, a senior living project of ANY size is wrong for Redondo Beach. Here's why:

Most Seniors Are Choosing to Remain in Their Home
American Advisors Group recently polled more than 1,500 seniors ages 60-75, for its “Importance of Home Survey,” to gain a deeper understanding of exactly just how meaningful “home” is to America's senior population.
"Our studies have shown that seniors in this country have a strong attachment to their home and the pandemic only strengthened that bond."
The report found that most of America's seniors do not intend to sell their home, and have no plans of ever moving, with 82% of seniors polled saying they want to live in their home for the rest of their lives and 92% of seniors saying they would prefer to live their later years in their current home instead of moving to an assisted living facility.

Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence shows that access to green space in urban areas can bring considerable benefits to the health and well-being of city residents. These benefits may include improved cognitive development and functioning, reduced symptom severity of ADHD, reduced obesity, and positive impacts on mental health.

We desperately need more open, green, and forested space for the health of our citizens.

Building a monstrosity of concrete and steel that would loom over thousands of homes is downright dangerous to public health.
"Planting more trees could mean fewer people die from increasingly high summer temperatures in cities, a study suggests.
"Increasing the level of tree cover from the European average of 14.9% to 30% can lower the temperature in cities by 0.4C, which could reduce heat-related deaths by 39.5%, according to first-of-its-kind modelling of 93 European cities by an international team of researchers." https://Los Angeles County has only 15.9% tree coverage. We can and must do better.

And there are some excellent examples to follow from around the country.

A Denver Neighborhoods Creates Green Space to Improve Community Health “The residents of Globeville, Colorado, had a vision for 5.5 acres of land as being an open park that anyone in the community could enjoy and employed a unique process that brought the community to the table for almost every design meeting, almost every construction stage, and they even helped decide which kinds of trees would be planted. And it is now filled with pollinator gardens that are teeming with bees, butterflies, and wildflowers." Then there's Atlanta, which turned a 7-acre vacant lot into the largest food forest in the county, instead of developing it into townhouses, that is now providing citizens with free, organic fruits, nuts, vegetable, mushrooms and herbs, and includes a community composting facility, rainwater collection system, a medicinal mushroom walk, and an apiary to house bees for pollination.

So what are we doing in Redondo Beach, allowing our HEALTH DISTRICT of all people to build a massive concrete structure for private profit on PUBLIC land to house seniors primarily from outside our community? I cannot think of anything more unhealthy than that except maybe an oil well.

I believe it would be abject government malfeasance to allow this travesty to continue, and I'm calling on our elected and appointed representatives to take whatever steps are necessary to stop it in its entirety and re-imagine a more appropriate and HEALTHY use for that land, just as we did with the inappropriate mall on our shorefront.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Jill Klausen
Redondo Beach resident since 1994 and homeowner since 2004

Redondo Beach City CouncilFebruary 14, 2023

Redondo Beach City Council
February 14, 2023