J.1- Blue Folder — Redondo Beach City Council, April 18, 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
APRIL 18, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Judy Rae
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Date: Sunday, April 16, 2023 7:14:43 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
[Note: Public Comment to Redondo Beach Mayor and Council] BCHD taxpayer-owners beware. If the CEO and Board of BCHD get tangled up and in a $250M deal that fails, then taxpayer-owners will bear the burden of any financial failure, claims, lawsuits, and bad decisions centered around the District's actions. BCHD won't show us the legal opinions we taxpayer-owners paid for, so we have no idea what amount of risk the BCHD board is choosing to take with our checkbooks, land, buildings, and current property tax revenues.

In the not too distant past, the Los Medanos Healthcare District was dissolved. That occurred after it filed for bankruptcy. Unfortunately for taxpayers, the debts of the District could not be discharged in bankruptcy. The chair of the board stated that "for anyone to pretend they can dismantle the district and those debts would go away is ludicrous." And he was right. In fact, one of the candidates for the District board said "we pay in our community twice the annual taxes to a closed hospital than we do to our own school system -- that's pathetic." Why those taxes? To cover the debts of the District after a Federal Bankruptcy judge ruled that the taxpayers were on the hook.

And why are we taxpayer-owners not voting on this BCHD deal that we bear the risk of failure on? The answer is that BCHD won't let us. And is this $250M deal for us? Not really.

BCHD's studies showed that 80% of the tenants in the assisted living will be non-residents of the District. BCHD's contract for ALLCOVE shows that 91% of the service area for ALLCOVE is non-resident. And the National PACE Association's data shows that BCHD's PACE facility will service an average of 95% non-residents. So, we taxpayer-owners of BCHD are hanging out so that BCHD can let a private developer build a facility on our public land for non-residents of the District.

No matter how many millions of dollars BCHD spends on lawyers, BCHD is up against a highly experienced, large, private development company. This is BCHD's first $250M rodeo, but for PMB LLC, internet searches show that they've done over $2B in deals like this. And if this debacle fails at any time in the future, the BCHD outside law firms already got paid, the board members walk away unscathed to their businesses and medical practices, the BCHD CEO gets his six-figure retirement, and a federal judge will stick the District taxpayer-owners with tab for a facility that was built for 80% to 95% non-resident use.

BCHD must show us the legal opinions that they bought with our tax money and then let us decide if we need to vote on this massive non-resident project to protect our future property taxes from BCHD's decisions made in the shadows.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; CityClerk; info Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Fails to Gain Public Participation or Input Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 12:58:06 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

PUBLIC COMMENT Torrance and Redondo, Hermosa, and Manhattan Beach Mayors, Councils, and Planning Commissions; LALAFCO
A few years back, John Oliver produced a segment on Special Districts in the US. Those districts have a $100B aggregate budget but as Oliver demonstrates, have pathetically small levels of public participation and are generally little more than autocracies with poor oversight.

Oliver's segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3saU5racsGE BCHD is no different. The graphic is from Bakaly's March CEO report.

There are 88,000 registered voters in the District from LA County records. Of the 88,000, only 31 participated last month at BCHD. There is no assurance that these are unique attendees. In fact, as few as 14 unique attendees may have participated. Even if all 31 were unique, that is 0.035% of the taxpayer public that funds BCHD and owns every one of BCHD's assets.

Such trivial engagement by BCHD is a clear sign of its attempt to fly under the radar as it attempts to allow PMB LLC to build a 100% PRIVATE commercial building on 100% PUBLIC LAND with 0% BCHD OWNERSHIP. Further, the proposed structure is noncompliant with TMC and RBMC as demonstrated at:
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/hopefully-bchd-s-new-year-s-resolutions-are-to-stopdestroying-the-neighborhood From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; CityClerk; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD is EMPLOYEE PACKING A PUBLIC MEETING - MANDATORY ATTENDANCE! Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 5:07:14 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

This is the absolutely the END of any credibility BCHD has EVER HAD.

BCHD is MANDATING that its employees attend the Strategic Planning Half-day to assure that BCHD controls the voting at the meeting.
**MANDATORY ATTENDANCE! THIS IS SO UNETHICAL, BUT COMPLETELY EXPECTED FROM BCHD!**
BCHD can make NO CLAIMS that these meetings represent the views of the public EVER AGAIN!
Hello team!
We have locked in the next Strategic Development Half-Day on the calendar for Friday, May 12, 2023 from 8:30am-12:30pm at Aplex.

In-person professional administrative staff participation is mandatory for this Strategic Development Half-Day. Health & Fitness staff, please connect with your managers regarding participation and facility coverage.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 12:57 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

Oliver's segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3saU5racsGE BCHD is no different. The graphic is from Bakaly's March CEO report.

Such trivial engagement by BCHD is a clear sign of its attempt to fly under the radar as it attempts to allow PMB LLC to build a 100% PRIVATE commercial building on 100% PUBLIC LAND with 0% BCHD OWNERSHIP. Further, the proposed structure is noncompliant with TMC and RBMC as demonstrated at:
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/hopefully-bchd-s-new-year-s-resolutions-are-to-stopdestroying-the-neighborhood From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; info; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Wasting Resident Taxpayer Funding on Non-Resident Services Date: Saturday, April 15, 2023 1:59:32 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach Mayors and Councils:

While the purpose of the cause that BCHD funded for a Suicide Guide may be worthy, why should BCHD be reallocating tax revenues from the three beach cities that founded, own, and fund the District to over 1.4M non-residents in the entirety of SPA8 of LA COUNTY? It should not.

For awareness, Service Planning Area 8, or SPA 8, serves the communities of Athens, Avalon, Carson, Catalina Island, El Segundo, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, Long Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Dominguez, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, San Pedro, Torrance, Wilmington, and others. As stated above, that is over 1.4M people of which the beach cities are less than 9%.

The District stated affirmatively to the Superior Court of California that it was created for the benefit of "residents who reside" in the District.

Not NON-RESIDENTS. In fact, not even relatives of residents. RESIDENTS WHO RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT.

BCHD has over $2M in unreimbursed Covid expenses that we borne by the taxpayers of the three beach cities, despite the fact that BCHD staffed and used resident resources to test 84% NON-RESIDENTS. Again, while the purpose of the cause may be worthy, BCHD is not funded by RESIDENTS to allocate tax funding to NON-RESIDENTS.

BCHD proposed privatization of PUBLIC land for PMB LLC's PRIVATE BUILDING will service 80% NON-RESIDENTS in assisted living (per BCHD's MDS study), 91% NON-RESIDENTS in ALLCOVE (per SPA-8 funding agreement service area), and 95% NON-RESIDENTS in PACE (per National PACE Assoc. statistics and US Census).

The three cities need to take on this egregious violation of the public trust by BCHD. Taxpayers don't pay for fire, police, paramedic, pothole filling or other public services outside the three beach cities, and BCHD should not be squandering our taxpayer funding and rents from taxpayer purchased assets and businesses outside the cities either.

From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Mayor, Council, Planning Commission Date: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 3:33:14 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Subject: BCHD Expansion and Privatization of Public Land to PMB LLC Occurring in the Shadows

BCHD AND PMB LLC MUST STEP OUT OF THE SHADOWS
As a stakeholder of the BCHD expansion from the current 312,000 square feet to nearly 800,000 square feet, I am very concerned about BCHD and PMB LLC operating in the shadows out of public view. BCHD’s CEO Bakaly has stated on at least two occasions that the public will have no access, nor has any right to access, to the plans for Phase 1. Phase 1 is currently expected to be 113-feet above homes and 275,000 square feet along Beryl and Flagler streets. Bakaly/BCHD has stated:
"Let’s reserve judgment until everyone sees what it is exactly we are applying for,” Bakaly said. “Similar to other projects that apply for a conditional use permit, the public will be able to access the plan when it is submitted to the City.”
Bakaly and BCHD have forgotten that residents and taxpayers are the owners of BCHD and that BCHD is not a commercial developer of real estate. BCHD cannot hide in the shadows and blindside the public yet again. BCHD must disclose its plan for public comment prior to submitting any City application.

BCHD HAS A PATTERN OF BLINDSIDING THE STAKEHOLDERS AND BETRAYING PRIOR COMMITMENTS The events in the timeline below clearly demonstrate BCHD’s lack of cooperation with the stakeholders as BCHD continually blindsided the public with revised, promise-breaking plans.

BCHD MUST DEMONSTRATE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH TORRANCE AND REDONDO BEACH CODES TO THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO

SUBMITTING PERMIT APPLICATIONS
BCHD’s massive project is adjacent to both Redondo Beach and Torrance neighborhoods and must comply with both sets of Municipal Codes. BCHD must provide the public with the proposed plans and detailed explanations of Municipal Code compliance prior to BCHD or PMB LLC submitting any plans to either City. BCHD must stop BLINDSIDING the public.

TMC 91.41.6 Planning and Design (Torrance Hillside Overlay, THO) Minimize Intrusion - “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.” Protect Property Values - “the design will not have a harmful impact upon the land value and investment of other properties in the vicinity.”
TMC 46.3.1 CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS
Limited Construction Days and Times and Noise – M/F 0700-1800, Sa 0900-1700, S – NONE TMC 46.7.2 NOISE LIMITS
Maximum Noise at Receptor – Ongoing noise is limited to 55dB day and 50dB night for Zone 4 RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
No Adverse Impacts - “will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties;” “no adverse effect on abutting property”
Lot Placement Must Yield No Impact - “for the proposed use … shall be adequate in size and shape to accommodate such use.” RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR) Compatible With Neighborhood - “ensure compatibility … in the community;” “overall design shall be integrated and compatible with the neighborhood and shall strive to be in harmony with the scale and bulk of surrounding properties.”
Protect Surrounding Property Values – “protect property values … of neighborhoods.” Respect the Elevated Site’s Impacts on Neighbors – “location of buildings and structures shall respect the natural terrain of the site.”
Not Impact Surrounding Property - “shall consider the impact … of the user in respect to circulation, parking, traffic, etc.” Adhere to Intent of Residential Design Guidelines - “shall be consistent with the intent of residential design guidelines.” RB Residential Design Guidelines (RDG)
Must Improve Quality of Life of Surrounding Neighborhoods - “to improve the quality of life in residential neighborhoods …[t]hese design guidelines are intended to help accomplish this objective.” Must be Compatible with Surrounding Property - “compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development; and preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods;” “goal of these design guidelines … overall intent of compatibility with the neighborhood;” “developments should be compatible with the character of the neighborhood;”
“development should respect the development in the immediate area through the … avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions;” “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.” RBMC 4-24.503 Construction noise
Limited Construction Days and Times and Noise – M/F 0700-1800, Sa 0900-1700, S – NONE RBMC 4-24.301 Maximum permissible sound levels by land use categories Limited Operational Noise – Any BCHD noise is limited to NEVER EXCEED 65 dBA night and 70dBA day with further limits as follows:

Correction for time characteristics.

No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at any location within the City or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed:

The noise standard of the receiving land use district for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus five (5) dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or
The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus ten (10) dB for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or
The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus fifteen (15) dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or
The noise standard of the receiving land use district plus twenty (20) dB for any period of time.

STAKEHOLDER REQUEST
BCHD has stated publicly that it refuses to share any design activity and that the public will be required to receive the application after it is filed. As stakeholders, we request ALL information from BCHD provided to the Cities of Torrance and Redondo Beach be made public immediately and posted on a website to offset the secrecy of BCHD and PMB LLC from the taxpayers, residents, stakeholders, and ultimately owners of BCHD.

Thank you for your cooperation in this request for transparency in commercial building development. --
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-oflife, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - Residential Design Guidelines Date: Thursday, April 13, 2023 12:33:15 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

City Council and Planning Commission:

I'm very concerned that the January 2023 draft RDGs are still the most recent ones posted on Redondo.org at https://www.redondo.org/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=3287&TargetID=11.

Those guidelines have chosen to all but eliminate character, consistency and the other key values of Redondo Beach property owners and residents from the language of the guidelines.

After substantial comment from both the public and the commissioners, we approach another Planning Commission meeting with no update on the official website.

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: Re: An Opportunity for Additional Face-to-Face Public Meetings between BCHD and the Public Date: Monday, April 17, 2023 11:04:28 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
BCHD HLC QUESTIONS.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD will have until 5PM on Wednesday April 19 to determine if it will answer the provided questions in order to have a public meeting or an EasyReader sponsored debate with StopBCHD.

If BCHD elects not to answer the questions, then the public will be informed of refusal.

The questions are attached and listed below.
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 NONRESIDENT 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.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 2:37 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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 #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.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Robert W. Lundy
Subject: Re: UPDATE - Re: CPRA - BCHD Communications
Date: Monday, April 17, 2023 7:57:19 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment: Mayors, Councils, City Attorneys, Planning Commissions of Hermosa, Manhattan and Redondo Beach
Public Comment all others
To be accurate, the District has provided very little useful information in its response to CPRA requests. The District has frequently invoked deliberative process exemption when it damn well knew the outcome, such as, when BCHD refused to admit that it was placing fossil fired generation, backup fuel, and high voltage switchgear against residences on Diamond. It was ludicrous to believe that BCHD commissioned the structure without knowing its use. These types of acts seriously eroded BCHD's credibility. The volume of requests was in direct response to BCHD's non-responsiveness in content.

BCHD also refused to provide legal opinions to taxpayer-owners of the District. Opinions that WE taxpayer-owners paid for with our property taxes and rents from our land and buildings.

Last, one of BCHD's most common responses was NO DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE. This was a direct result of the District's bush league practices, such as, failing to conduct program level budgets, cost accounting, public benefits computation and cost-effectiveness analysis. About $250M of taxpayer funding has gone though the District since 1996 when Poster first went on the Board, and until the appointment of Chatterji, BCHD did not even attempt any analysis. Sadly BCHD has elected to use a "beauty contest" process where BCHD loads up the room with employees by making the meeting MANDATORY as demonstrated already. That assures that whatever BCHD management and Board desire, is rubber-stamped by the roughly 95% majority of the Board, Executives, Employees, Consultants, Contractors, Vendors, Board Approved Committee Members, Agencies, and affiliated Volunteers. The unaffiliated public represents less than 5% of the voting. This is consistent with BCHD's typical public participation on a monthly basis of 15-25 non-exclusive attendees at meetings out of 80,000 registered resident voters.

It should come as NO SURPRISE that the extraction of information from BCHD requires brute force.

With a public participation rate in meetings in the range of 0.04% of registered voters, actual awareness is near 0 at any level of detail. In fact, neither the Board President nor the CEO was aware that BCHD filed 107.5-feet as the height of its proposed project with the City of Redondo Beach in the Pre-CUP when discussing the issue in the September 2022 Board meeting.

BCHD and PMB LLC need to comply FULLY with the RBMC and TMC on the 100% Private, 0% BCHD-owned building on 100% Public-owned land.

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 6:44 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Nelson,
Based on your unconditional withdrawal of the remaining 26 of the 1,087 requests the District is accepting the withdrawal.

To be clear the District has already responded to 1,061 of the 1,087 requests that you sent between November 11, 2019 and February 15, 2022, equating to approximately 40.3 records requests per month during a 2 year and 3 months period. Further, the oldest outstanding request is from April 2021, and is not 5 years old as you are claiming below. The District takes seriously your continued false accusations about the District and has therefore, copied everyone you copied in your email below to the District.

Further, the suspension of your new record requests is also lifted. Because the District has completed the collection, review and analysis of the remaining open 26 requests that contained a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records and has committed significant Public resources and time to resolve the remaining open requests, the District will respond with those records from the 26 remaining requests that meet the defined term of a Public Record in the near future.

Therefore, the District will accept your two most recent requests noted below as Public Records requests as of April 13, 2023, which is the date you withdrew your prior requests unconditionally.

The District will respond according to the CA Public Records Act requirements:

1. Provide all communications between BCHD and Metro from the period January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023.

2. Provide all Partnership agreements to the legal entity referred to by Mr. Nolan, including but not limited to filings with the state of California declaring the partnership name, legal formation, tax ID numbers, ownership shares, etc.
“…47:29 me very happy which was that you are pleased to have the expertise to deliver on our vision and that's what this whole; 47:37 partnership is about and I really liked hearing that and I appreciate that so thank you..”
Sincerely,
Tom Bakaly
CEO Beach Cities Health District
www.bchd.org
www.facebook.com/beachcitieshealthdistrict
Creating a healthy beach community.

THE PRECEDING E-MAIL, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CONTAINS

INFORMATION THAT MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL, BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY

CLIENT OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES, OR CONSTITUTE NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED ONLY TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE

NOTIFY THE SENDER BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR REPRODUCTION OF THIS

MESSAGE BY UNINTENDED RECIPIENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 4:18 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>; Communications <[email protected]>; info <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; Robert W. Lundy <[email protected]>; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Michael Webb <[email protected]>; Kevin Cody <[email protected]>; Lisa Jacobs <[email protected]>
Subject: UPDATE - Re: CPRA - BCHD Communications

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Due to BCHD's request for another 2 to 3 week timeframe to provide what appears to be a mere summary of only 26 outstanding PRR requests (that I suspect could be up to 5 years aged), I have withdrawn ALL PRIOR REQUESTS unconditionally. As of 4/13/23 at 1614, I have NO REQUESTS on file at BCHD under the California Public Records Act.

Adding Redondo City Attorney and media for awareness.

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 2:23 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

Public Comment
California Public Records Request Communications
Effective immediately, and due to BCHD's clear lack of resources and likely incompetence in public records request processing, all existing requests are withdrawn subject to BCHD providing an accounting of the unprocessed requests and date of submission of each request outstanding. cc: City of Redondo Beach City and Torrance City Council and Planning Commission On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 5:28 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Nelson,
This serves as a reminder that the District suspended responses to you for new public records requests and that suspension has not yet been lifted. The District continues to work on completing all your outstanding requests which requires gathering, reviewing, analyzing and determining if such records meet the definition of the defined term of a Public Record.

The District will notify you when the backlog of requests is complete and therefore will not be responding to this request at this time.

As of today, the District has responded to 1,045 of the 1,071 distinct requests from you resulting in 26 current open requests.

Thank you,
www.bchd.org
www.facebook.com/beachcitieshealthdistrict
Creating a healthy beach community.

THE PRECEDING E-MAIL, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CONTAINS

INFORMATION THAT MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL, BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY

CLIENT OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES, OR CONSTITUTE NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED ONLY TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE,

PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR

REPRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE BY UNINTENDED RECIPIENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 9:18 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - BCHD Communications

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Provide all communications between BCHD and Metro from 1/1/2023 to 2/28/2023 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody; Robert W. Lundy
Subject: Re: UPDATE - Re: CPRA - BCHD Communications
Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 2:54:53 PM
Attachments: BCHD - Denial of explosive fuel tanks-16kV-4kV-2to4MW of Generation.docx CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

In a continuing effort to demonstrate the District's attempts to mislead the surrounding public, the attached response from BCHD demonstrates BCHD spinning a false narrative to hide behind loopholes in the CPRA. In this case, BCHD issued a revised plan with a structure adjacent to surrounding homes. The structure carried no marking or label. When adjacent neighbors requested to know that the structure was for, BCHD misinterpreted the CPRA and claimed deliberative process. BCHD was fully aware that the enclosure was designed for high voltage electric gear, generators and fuel storage. While BCHD did not yet know if the generator would be a Mitsubishi S16R-Y2PTAW2-1 or a Ge – Diesel Engine:
16V250GSU or some other model number, BCHD was clearly aware there would be a generator in the enclosure.

BCHD was also fully aware that there would be fuel stored in above ground tanks. Again, whether they were 20,000 gallon triple wall horizontal or 2-10,000 gallon triple wall vertical tanks or some other was unknown.

The public was deliberately denied the right to know that BCHD planned dangerous high voltage equipment, diesel generators, and thousands of gallons of fuel next to their homes.

This is yet another example of why many CPRA requests were required in an attempt to pierce the veil of BCHD's obfuscation.

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 11:14 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

For the purposes of demonstrating BCHD's processes, see the attached reply to a single BCHD CPRA request.

1. Based on BCHD's inflated numbers, this single request was counted as 5 PRRs for BCHD's PR spin.

2. Vanessa Poster went on the Board in 1996 and this confirms that from 1993 until 2020 when the reply was made, BCHD did not bother to budget, conduct cost-accounting, evaluate public health benefits or compute benefit-to-cost ratios for the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that went through their fingers.

After BCHD was forced to make such a damning admission, I'm not surprised at all that it began to slow roll responses.From where I stand as a professional who managed larger projects and budgets than BCHD's entirety, BCHD was using little more than cookie jar accounting. And the lack of evaluation clearly demonstrates that BCHD is not using analytics to compare benefit-cost ratios and optimize our taxpayer spending.

3. According to BCHD's annual budgets, BCHD has a revenue of $152M for the 13 years from 2008 to 2020. This ignores the 15 years of operation from 1993-2007 because BCHD does not post that data.

The revenues were relatively flat around $10M for most of that period, so an estimate of an additional $100M in revenue for the period seems conservative yielding an overall revenue of $252M for 1993 to 2020 when the PRR was responded by BCHD. For the period of Poster's board tenure from 1996, the number would still be over $200M in expenditures without program budgets, cost-accounting, public health benefit analysis or benefit-cost ratios.

In short, the management controls of BCHD have not met any reasonable corporate or project management standard for programs based on my experience with projects up to roughly $1B each and budgets that exceeded $30M per month. I am also an expert witness in a number of proceedings before various legislators and regulators.

Absent aggressive questioning, BCHD's taxpayer-funded PR spin would vastly overstate the controls and local benefits from the District.

This is merely a single example, and I can provide narrative for dozens.

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:56 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote: