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
APRIL 4, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; Martha Koo; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; CityClerk; CityClerk; Communications; Vanessa I. Poster Cc: TRAO News; [email protected]
Subject: An Opportunity for Additional Face-to-Face Public Meetings between BCHD and the Public Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 2:38:32 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
BCHD HLC QUESTIONS.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - BCHD, City of Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councils, and Planning Commissions and various electeds and agencies Ms. Poster of BCHD Board has requested additional face-to-face meetings regarding the roughly 800,000 sqft, 112-foot above Beryl & Flagler proposed campus plan. That is a near tripling of existing sqft of the buildings, and also moves the mass of the campus to the edges of the 10 acre site along Beryl, Flagler, Diamond and Prospect. The resulting campus sqft would be larger than all the homes of Beryl Heights added together.
These BCHD meetings would be in addition to the nearly 4 years of public input service of the Community Working Group (CWG) and approximately 10,000 pages of comments from over 1,000 members of the public. All of which resulted in merely BCHD PR spin and not benefits to the public in our view. BCHD increased size and height and continued to build in the visually maximizing positions along the edges of the 10 acre plot.
From our view, BCHD has failed to act in good faith and has converted face-to-face and public meetings into propaganda press releases. For example, from the 2017 inception of the CWG to the 2022 pre-CUP filing by BCHD at the City of Redondo Beach, BCHD has abandoned its commitment to buffer the residents from the damaging impacts of the development. BCHD pledged to use surface parking and greenspace to buffer surrounding property, and instead, moved to a exterior lot line of a 10-acre plot approach. Clearly, with 10 acres, there is ample space to center the new development to respect the natural terrain, protect property values and comply with RBMC. Instead BCHD willingly chose to break its commitments and affirmatively design to damage the neighborhood.
Moving forward, BCHD "spun" public calls for smaller, shorter and away from the edge into larger, taller, and still on the edge of the 10 acre plot.
Hence, the public has no interest in meeting with BCHD outside of Planning Commission, City Council and Superior Court. We do not care to become further topics of misrepresentation and BCHD press releases. While BCHD may have reduced the number of units in the assisted living (servicing 80% non-residents of the 3 beach cities anyway), at the same time it removed 160,000 sqft of underground parking and added an 8-10 story parking ramp towering over property at roughly Diamond and Prospect. Yet, BCHD falsely claimed it reduced the size of the project. It did not. BCHD increased the height and the sqft of surface buildings as can be CLEARLY demonstrated with their own documents.
Again, why should the public engage in further BCHD PR spin and misrepresentation? BCHD's words and actions have been inconsistent as it claimed to be smaller project while it was increased in height, size, mass, volume, and moved to the perimeter of the 10 acre site.
If BCHD seeks to have a face-to-face, let it be a public meeting that is broadcast and recorded with Q&A of both sides in a panel discussion.
A prerequisite of any meeting is for BCHD to provide answers to the seven questions in the attached document first that will be reviewed for content and completeness. They are straightforward and focus on statements and actions that BCHD has taken previously while claiming it was complying with RBMC and the desire of public comments to BCHD. As soon as the BCHD responses are received, they will be reviewed, published and a public meeting can be established. As you will see, we have attempted to answer the questions using publicly available statements and sources, however, only BCHD can provide its responses based on internal data.
As we've responded to Ms. Poster repeatedly, we continue to be open to written, documented exchanges of information, but due to our truth of BCHD's history of misrepresentation of the public's comments as demonstrated in the simple extracts from BCHD documents vs. their actual activity shown above from BCHD's own documents, we are not comfortable with any non-written interactions barring complete answers to the attached question set as a precursor. 7 KEY TRANSPARENCY QUESTIONS THAT BCHD MUST ANSWER
FOR THE PUBLIC REGARDING ITS 95-YEAR LEASE OF PUBLIC
LAND TO A PRIVATE FACILITY DEVELOPER/OWNER/OPERATOR
BCHD Claims if it doesn’t lease out our public land to a private company for nearly a 100-years that BCHD will have to cut services by 15-17% (Bakaly, ER). Cut services to whom? 84% of Covid tests were for NON-RESIDENTS and cost Taxpayers over $2M in non-reimbursed Covid expenses. According to Board Member Koo, that was “generosity.” BCHD has made finances the reason for this expansion from 300,000 sqft to 800,000 sqft and significant increase in visual mass. As such, BCHD must answer questions about the benefits to the RESIDENTS of the District.
Q #1. What Dollar Amount and Percentage of Annual Revenue Does the District Spend on NON-RESIDENT Services and NON-RESIDENT Subsidies at AdventurePlex, CHF, and all other BCHD services?
BCHD A #1. $ ___________________, _____________________% Available Public Information A #1 - BCHD doesn’t know because it isn’t fiscally responsible enough to track Resident vs. Non-Resident expenditures. What we do know is that BCHD spent $2.3M in non-reimbursed Covid expenses on non-resident testing and Board member Koo called it “generosity.” We also know that from zip code analysis 40% of the health club are non-residents and that taxpayers subsidize the CHF by $1.4M annually with taxpayer funds (that means $560K goes to non-residents).
Based on BCHD and LA County Data, we KNOW that 1) 40% of members of the health club CHF are non-residents, 2) the allcove contract is for 91% non-residents, 3) the assisted living will be 80% non-residents (MDS Consulting), 4) the PACE facility will be 95% non-residents (Natl PACE Assoc), 5) Covid testing was 84% non-residents (LA County), and 6) Covid vaccines were 45% non-residents (BCHD)
Q #2. If the District complied with its prior Superior Court filing to provide services to the “residents who reside” in the “District”, would RESIDENT ONLY services reduce the budget by 15-17% and thereby mitigate the revenue need cited by Bakaly if the HLC does not proceed? A #2. YES __________ NO __________ (be sure to show your work) Available Public Information A #2 - BCHD doesn’t know because it isn’t fiscally responsible enough to track Resident vs. Non-Resident expenditures. It’s sad for taxpayers to find out that BCHD has insufficient controls and fiscal analysis to know where funds from taxes, property, buildings, and other assets are spent. Based on BCHD $2.3M in non-reimbursed Covid spending with 84% non-resident testing, the inefficient CHF and AdventurePlex that require another $2.3M a year in taxpayer subsidies, and the bloated management team that is paid another $2.3M a year, it seems like BCHD has plenty of runway to reduce costs.
Q #3. According to the District consultant MDS, under 20% of RCFE tenants will be from 90277, 90278, 90254 and 90266. 50% will be predominantly from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. 30% will be from completely outside the area. What ownership share will the District have in the super-majority NON-RESIDENT servicing RCFE? What net profits (revenues minus offset costs) will the District receive from the NON-RESIDENT RCFE fees to apply to District RESIDENT services?
A #3. __________% $______________
Available Public Information A #3 – BCHD has 0% ownership in the privately developed RCFE/PACE/allcove/Administration building and will be a renter. BCHD will receive zero equity participation, so rather than a private public partnership, this is simply a wayward agency giving public land to a private developer to service a supermajority of non-residents.
Q #4. According to the District’s press releases (PR), allcove Beach Cities services is funded by contract to service SPA8 which is 1.4M population. Of that, only 9% are District RESIDENTS and 91% are NON-RESIDENTS. What net profit does the District receive from the 91% NONRESIDENTS that it can apply to RESIDENT ONLY services? A #4. $_______________ per year
Available Public Information A #4 – No public data available. BCHD’s taxpayer funded staff, management, land and facilities are used to support allcove, but there is no publicly available data on whether allcove pays any net benefit for BCHD servicing an area of 1.4M population with taxpayer assets. If this is a cost-reimbursement activity, then BCHD is wasting taxpayer assets to provide 91% non-resident services.
Q #5. The District refuses to share any financial information or usage studies of its 400 enrollee PACE proposal. According to the National PACE Association’s statistics, 95% of the enrollees will be NON-RESIDENTS of the District? What net profit will the District receive from the 95% NON-RESIDENTS that it can apply to RESIDENT ONLY services? A #5. $_______________ per year
Available Public Information A #5 – PACE will service 95% non-district residents and 97% to 98% non-Redondo Beach residents according to the National PACE Assoc. data.
Q #6. The District has previously acknowledged that it damages the surrounding neighborhoods in the same manner as businesses. The District is required to protect property values according to RBMC 10-2.2502. What additional damages to property values will occur from the District’s proposed expansion from 300,000 sqft to 800,000 sqft and massive increase in visual mass by locating approximately 500,000 sqft of new structures on the perimeter of the site overlooking residential?
A #6. Property value damages are estimated to (increase/decrease) by ___________% Available Public Information A #6 – BCHD has not conducted any analysis on its financial damages to surrounding property values. Statistical analysis provided to BCHD shows that home value damages range from $200,000 per property closest to BCHD to $25,000 per property at approximately ½ mile away.
As BCHD increases the amount of building sqft at maximum height from 968-sqft to nearly 300,000 sqft and increases the overall campus buildings from 300,000 sqft to 800,000 sqft the damages will be magnified.
Q #7. The District plans to move construction from a mass minimizing location on the site center to a mass maximizing location on the perimeter. The District is required to respect the natural terrain according to RBMC 10-2.2502. The District is required to avoid overwhelming building scale according to the Residential Design Guidelines. Provide statements justifying how the current proposed 113-foot above Beryl & Flagler, 275,000 sqft proposed privately developed/owned/operated Phase 1 HLC building complies.
A #7. Compliance explanation for RBMC 10-2.2502 respect for site terrain __________ Compliance explanation for RDG avoidance of overwhelming building scale _________ Available Public Information A #7 – There are no explanations available that can demonstrate compliance. BCHD is moving a 968-sqft “Penthouse” that is in the center of the campus to a 300,000 sqft building built on the edge of the elevated site along Beryl and Flagler. Any architect, engineer, or student can explain how respect for an elevated site and avoidance of overwhelming scale requires not building on the edge of the 10 acre site.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Green Line
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 8:31:46 AM
Attachments: DEIR Comment Letter Greenline (C-Line).pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Mayor & Council:
The following comments were submitted by Lawndale. I recommend that Redondo Beach support this comprehensive document.
Mark Nelson
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; RDG Update
Subject: Public Comment on the Objective Design Standards Process Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 9:43:33 PM
Attachments: image (1).png
image (2).png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Mayor, Council, and Planning Commissioners:
As a participant in the March 29, 2023 meeting, it appears that the group is on a death march to an approval this summer of the objective standards. As a result, staff is stating that the Planning Commission may get a draft that they don't like, because tonight was the only night to comment on the draft. That seems very, very short sighted.
I believe that the Council (that requested this activity) step-in and determine jointly with the Planning Commission how to allow more time for this process.
Much of it was conducted during Covid and the public input has been intermittent and somewhat limited. I'm a quite engaged participant, and the first time that I even heard of this action was when the draft was posted.
Please consider engagement the Planning Commission and determine how to get more time. Right now, the Planning Department has tossed out any RDGs that were subjective that it could not make objective and that is unacceptable. At a minimum, the subjective issues that cannot be objective, must be kept in the revised RDGs.