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
MAY 9, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: BCHD"s Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) Fails to Consider the Key Objectives of the Voters that Formed the District Date: Monday, May 8, 2023 10:13:45 AM
Attachments: image.png
BCHD PBB Failure.pdf
BCHD - CPRA - Conducting PACE Analysis in the Shadows.docx BCHD CPRA - Bakaly Claims He is Unaware That BCHD Didnt Have Program Budgets.docx BCHD - CPRA - As of 2019 No Program Accounting or Budgets 25 yrs of NO CONTROLS.docx BCHD CPRA - No Costs or Services by Zip Code (Res vs NonRes).docx BCHD - CPRA - BCHD has no ability or obligation nor ability to compute benefits or costs of programs.pdf BCHD - Nat Pace Assoc 16 enrollees of 400.docx
BCHD - Superior Court Establishment Pleading.docx
BCHD - Losses from 84 percent non resident testing.docx BCHD - Taxpayers subsidize 40percent non residents at CHF.docx BCHD - Can restrict to residents only - West Basin - Vector Control etc.docx CAUTION Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - BCHD Owners - HB/MB/RB Mayors, Councils & Planning Commissions Because BCHD claims to not have any mission, budget, or expertise to determine the public health community benefit of its programs, BCHD has resorted to a beauty contest approach where Executives, Directors, the Board, Employees, Committee Members, Consultants, Contractors, Vendors, Affiliated Volunteers and a small handful of unaffiliated public vote on priorities and budgets. BCHD fails to consider the intent of the voters/residents/taxpayers that formed the District as BCHD weighs priorities.
The priorities are quite clear. The District was formed and funded by voters of HB/MB/RB for the benefit of the "residents who reside" in the District. Therefore, PBB must first and foremost rely on funding and meeting the needs of the "residents who reside" in the District. Employees and workers in the District (including non-resident BCHD staff) have no inherent right to services based on the will of the voters.
BCHD has been unable to provide the specific language that the voters were voting on in the 1950s. However, we have the legal Pleading of the first Board of Directors as contemporaneous evidence that the District was formed for the benefit of RESIDENTS. Further, the District and hospital sizing were both based on a study commissioned by HB/RB/MB regarding the need for hospital rooms in the three cities. The record is clear, the District was formed for the benefit of the RESIDENTS.
BCHD's PBB fails to first and foremost remove all funding and services from non-residents in order to determine if the budget will balance.
We know that CHF and AdventurePlex run at large losses and are taxpayer subsidized. Further, we know that 30-40% of members are nonresidents who also receive the taxpayer subsidy. BCHD has no accounting of resident vs non-resident expenditures according to two separate CPRA requests. As a result, it seems highly likely that BCHD is CUTTING SERVICES TO RESIDENTS in order to service and subsidize NON-RESIDENTS.
BCHD must clear up its PBB failure and first and foremost balance the budget by removing subsidies and services to non-residents. The legal pleadings of the District are clear that the RESIDENTS WHO RESIDE in the District are to benefit.
In line with West Basin’s mission to provide a safe and reliable supply of high-quality water to our service area we:
Wholesale imported water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to nearly one million people in 17 cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County.
Produce five types of recycled water with purchased water from the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant. The purified waters are provided to municipal, commercial and industrial customers for the following purposes:
• Irrigation
• Seawater barrier and groundwater replenishment – The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (WRD) injects high-purity, recycled water into the West Coast Seawater Barrier.
• Industrial cooling towers
• Low-pressure boiler feed water
• High-pressure boiler feed water
Implement effective water conservation programs to help residents and businesses use water more efficiently.
• Grass Replacement Rebate Program
• Public Agency Design Assistance
• Rain Barrels
• Water Conservation Tips
Explore ocean water desalination in pursuit of a diverse, local water supply portfolio and the protection against future water scarcity.
Offer free community water education programs to teach our residents about local, national and global water issues.
• Education Program
• Public Briefings and Tours
Charlie Velasquez <[email protected]> Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:50 PM
to me
Mark,
Please see below for the District's response to your public records request dated 6/18/20.
The District has identified documents responsive to this request - see below in red.
Last night during the Board meeting, the Board made a specific point of referenced 40 evidence based programs. The following questions refer to those programs.
1. Provide all documents necessary to fully describe each of the 40 programs. See District website https://www.bchd.org/. Click on 'WHAT WE DO' link to view information related to each program.
2. Provide the 2018-19 budget for each of the 40 programs No documents responsive; the District is working on setting up a system, Budget by Priority (or Program Based Budgeting), to budget total costs by Program. Historically the District budgets expenses by department, like Youth Services, Community Services, Finance, HR, etc. and by expense categories, like salaries, printing, program supplies, etc. While we are not yet completely able to calculate total cost by each program, the District is able to consolidate total costs by operating unit: Property Operations (20%), Life Spans Operations (47%) and Health & Fitness Operations (33%). Please see pages 37 and 38 at the link below, from the District FY20-21 Budget presentation at the June 24th Board meeting.
https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd 61f5bf3e0ae75c945d2109d0693d9 05e.pdf&view=1
3. Provide all research relied upon to develop each program. See link below (page 29) for the 40+ programs the District offers by Health Priority.
https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd 61f5bf3e0ae75c945d2109d0693d9 05e.pdf&view=1
Health Priorities are re-evaluated every three years using statistical sampling and analysis. See links below for the District 2019-2022 Health Report (click here http://online.fliphtml5.com/krrn/ftdz/#p=1) that can be found on the website (https://www.bchd.org/healthreport).
4. Provide all evaluation reports or analysis of each program. This request is overly broad. The District website contains information regarding each program (see above link in item #1). If this does not address your request, the District is willing to assist you in narrowing your request. Please resend your request with specific reference to documents you are seeking.
5. Provide all cost-benefit analysis and ratios of the aforementioned 40 programs. No documents responsive; however, if you are interested in additional context regarding benefits to the Community, please see link below, pages 3-13 in the FY20-21 Budget presentation illustrating evidence-based outcomes for the LiveWell Kids program deployed in local schools and administered by the District’s Youth Services Department, and pages 28-32 showing benefits and outcomes from the various programs offered by the District’s Life Spans programs, including Youth Services and Blue Zones programs as measured by Healthways’ Gallup Well-being Index.
The District also employs Social Workers for a program that assists seniors in the community to stay in their homes as long as possible free of charge. https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd 61f5bf3e0ae75c945d2109d0693d9 05e.pdf&view=1
If you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, please resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.
Best Regards,
PRR <[email protected]> Thu, Apr 7,
2022, 5:15 PM
to me, PRR
Mark,
Please see below for the District's response (in red) to your public records request received 1/27/22 that reads:
For each KPI presented in the Board study session Jan 26, 2022, provide
1. Historic Benefit-to-Cost ratios of the associated programs. See link below to the District FY21- 22 Budget presentation, plus the Priority Based Budget (PBB) illustrating benefits to the community/participants and costs by program.
https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd 030fbe242b640753a ded699c585625d7.pdf&view=1
https://www.bchdfiles.com/docs/bchd/finance/FY21-
22%20BCHD%20Priority%20Based%20Budget.pdf
Please see additional public documents related to Priority Based Budgeting on the District’s website presented to the community and Board at the October 15, 2021 half-day strategic planning meeting.
Program Info Sheets for the 10/15/21 Strategic Development Half-Day: Appendix-A https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd d6abc69cacbf978c9f 18f8b52242c34a.pdf&view=1
Pre-work packet:
https://bchd.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bchd f56e0959514d44cd24e0 c9d328a77486.pdf&view=1
2. Forecast Benefit-to-Cost ratios to justify continued program operation.
The Districts is currently preparing the FY22-23 Budget for next fiscal year and will also be update applicable performance, benefits and cost metrics. Please note that the District has previously explained that calculating a dollar community benefit for
each program is beyond the scope of the District’s mission, financial resources and abilities.
PRR <[email protected]> Thu, Apr 7, 2022,
5:23 PM
to me, PRR
Hi Mark,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records requests received:
10/29/21:
At approximately 2hr55min in the BCHD Board meeting on 10-27-21, Poster states that the Board has seen detailed need analysis to support Alternative 3. BCHD has published no need information for a duplicative PACE facility, since the entire ownership area of BCHD (90266, 90278, 90277, 90254) is covered by LA Coast PACE, a California licensed facility.
1. Provide the specific PACE need analysis for the duplicative facility alleged by Poster to be needed and covered by a detailed need analysis.
11/2/21:
According to the leading PACE trade group (and we know from experience that BCHD puts much faith in trade groups, as that's where BCHD wins all its awards), the following is the payment ratio of PACE:
90% Medicare + Medicaid
9% Medicaid Only
1% Cash
1) Provide all documents and studies demonstrating the number of seniors with PACE needs (that is, they are nursing home qualified) in the 3 beach cities that OWN BCHD that are both Medicare and Medicaid/MediCal eligible.
2) Provide all documents and studies demonstrating the number of seniors with PACE needs (that is, they are nursing home qualified) in the 3 beach cities that OWN BCHD that are Medicare eligible.
In plain English, BCHD has supplied no bona fide research studies by BCHD or any of its army of consultants that demonstrates a quantified need for a duplicate PACE facility serving the zip codes of 90254, 90277, 90266, and 90278.
To the extent that your request seeks records that are not related to final determinations, or to records that have not already been published, such information remains privileged by the District. Below is additional information/context.
For your information, please find attached the preliminary analysis performed by Cain Brothers about the PACE program already published.
Under the Public Records Act (“PRA”), Cal. Gov. Code § 6254 sets forth certain categories of records that have been exempted from the disclosure requirements of the PRA. These exemptions have been enumerated due to concerns regarding the confidentiality and sensitivity of the information contained therein. Additionally, Cal. Gov. Code § 6255 recognizes that not every specific category of records can be detailed in a statute, and instead sets forth a standard under which any record may be exempt from disclosure if “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” This same balancing-of-interests test is also set forth in the §6254(a) exemption related to preliminary drafts, notes and intra-agency memoranda. One of the important public interests that the California Supreme Court has recognized as exempting documents from disclosure is known as the “deliberative process privilege.” Under the deliberative process privilege, senior officials of all three branches of government are not required to disclose or to be examined concerning the mental processes by which a given decision was reached, as well as the substance of conversations, discussions, debates, deliberations, and like materials reflecting advice, opinions, and recommendations by which government policy is processed and formulated. California courts have recognized three policy bases for the deliberative process privilege: (1) It protects creative debate and candid consideration of alternatives within an agency, (2) it protects the public from the confusion that would result from premature exposure to discussions occurring before the policies affecting it had actually been settled on, and (3) it protects the integrity of the decision-making process itself by confirming that officials should be judged by what they decide, not for matters they considered before making up their minds. Cal. First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 4th 159 (quoting Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 3d 1325, 1351 [1991], Jordan v. United States Dept. of Justice 591 F.2d 753, 772-773 [D.C. Cir. 1978]). “Courts have been particularly vigilant to protect communications to the decision maker before the decision is made.” Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 3d 1325, 1341 (1991).
Additionally, Cal. Gov. Code § 6254(k) exempts from disclosure records that are otherwise privileged under state law, such as “official information”, which is information provided to a government entity on a confidential basis, and “trade secrets”, such as proprietary tools and assessments developed by a third party.
The identified requests seek exactly the type of pre-decisional information that is protected by the deliberative process privilege, such as proposals, analyses, and preliminary reports that may contain internal discussions and recommendations considered by the District prior to reaching final conclusions.
Per the District Notice to you dated March 1, 2022, Re: Notice of Suspension of Document Production, and after the District has notified you in accordance with this Notice that the back-log of your Public Records Requests have been fully processed, if you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, you may thereafter resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.
Thank you
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 1:00 AM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - Need Analysis - Duplicate PACE Facility
At approximately 2hr55min in the BCHD Board meeting on 10-27-21, Poster states that the Board has seen detailed need analysis to support Alternative 3. BCHD has published no need information for a duplicative PACE facility, since the entire ownership area of BCHD (90266, 90278, 90277, 90254) is covered by LA Coast PACE, a California licensed facility.
• stopbchd
•
•
o Oct 2, 2022
o
o 1 min read
Is $2M in "Generosity" Actually Material
Malfeasance by the BCHD Board? - If not, Why
Not?
BCHD lost $2.3M ($5.2M less $2.9M) of Taxpayer funds from the residents of the three Beach Cities in its Covid Response. BCHD Covid services were 84% non-resident testing and 45% non-resident vaccinations. As a result, of the $2.3M, roughly 80% or $1.8M were incurred solely due to BCHDs Board decision to be "generous" with Taxpayer funding during Covid.
BCHD had no obligation to provide non-resident services, as is readily seen by West Basin Water District that requires residency for programs. Furthermore, a number of cities and counties had RESIDENT ONLY testing and vaccine clinics, therefore cementing that BCHD Board willfully engaged in spending Beach Cities taxpayer funds on non-resident services.
Board Member Koo chalks the $2.3M loss up to "generosity" with taxpayer funds. If that isn't material malfeasance of the Board, what is?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Dl-ZizVqE
Ending the BCHD Doublespeak on PACE -
Only 1 in 1,000 Seniors Uses PACE
BCHD has refused to provide any estimated use of its planned 400 enrollee PACE facility.
According to the National PACE Association (NPA), PACE facilities can only be used by persons Medicaid (MediCal) certified for nursing home persons. Also, NPA says that about 60,000 of 60,000,000 (1 in 1,000) seniors use PACE. For the three Beach Cities that founded, bond funded, and continue to property tax fund BCHD, that a total of 16 seniors.
So why is BCHD using our public land and public paid staff to create a facility that's 20- times larger than the Beach Cities need? Because they claim they can we the public can't stop them.
FORMED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS WHO RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT The District was formed for the benefit of the "residents who reside in the District". That's a legal limitation put on the District made by the VOTERS and acknowledged by the District Board as a matter of legal record recorded on July 31, 1957 after the election in INGL, C1594.
Since the District was formed the benefit of the Residents, why is BCHD signing a 20-year lease at a cost of over $16M for 95% NON-RESIDENT benefit for PACE? That's 1 in 1,000 Seniors or 16 Seniors in the entire three Beach Cities. ing the BCHD Doublespeak on Non-Resident
Use - District Explicitly Formed to Benefit
Residents
Notwithstanding state law or LAFCO, the District was unequivocally formed for the benefit of "residents who reside within" the District. PERIOD. No equivocation. No matter whether or not subsequent law changes make the District ABLE to operate with Non-Residents or outside the District, THIS SPECIFIC District has a clear VOTER CHARTER for the benefit of the Residents of the District.
• stopbchd
•
•
o 2 days ago
o
o 1 min read
Why Do Taxpayers Pay a $55/month Subsidy
for each BCHD CHF Member - Resident or
Non-Resident?
Taxpayers subsidize the BCHD gym (the CHF) by $1,406,691 per year. According to the latest CEO report, there are 2,124 members at the CHF. That's $662/year or $55/month that taxpayers pay to subsidize every member - RESIDENT or NON-RESIDENT.
That level of inefficiency of operations cannot be tolerated. BCHD Board and $2.3M per year of Executives must be held accountable for such pathetic performance.
Taxpayers pay a PREMIUM EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT COST to BCHD, why do we get pathetic performance? See details of BCHD compared to an efficient Health District at https://www.stopbchd.com/post/why-is-bchd-so-executive-management-top-heavy? From BCHD Budget:
From BCHD CEO Report:
CPRA
Inbox
Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 6:41 PM
to PRR
Bakaly asserts at 633PM during the 5PM board meeting that he is unaware that BCHD did not 1) Budget at the Program Level, 2) Conduct cost accounting at the Program level, 3) Evaluate program benefits, and 4) Cost-effectiveness of programs.
Provide all 1) Program Level Budgets, 2) Program Level Cost Accounting, and 3) Program Level Cost-Effectiveness during Bakaly's employment with BCHD.
Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> Wed, Jan 26, 2022, 9:34 PM
to Paul
BCHD CEO Bakaly asserted that he was unaware that BCHD did not budget, conduct cost accounting, evaluation or cost-effectiveness of its programs in the past. That is objectively false. Bakaly has been CEO for 5 years. If he was unaware that is malfeasance.
PRR <[email protected]> Thu, Jan 27,
2022, 2:19 PM
to PRR, me
Hi Mark,
Your request for public records has been received. An initial response will be provided within 10 days.
Thank you.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
PRR <[email protected]> Thu, Jun 9,
2022, 4:07 PM
to me, PRR
Mark,
Please see below for the District's response (in red) to your public records request received 1/27/22 that reads:
Bakaly asserts at 633PM during the 5PM board meeting that he is unaware that BCHD did not 1) Budget at the Program Level, 2) Conduct cost accounting at the Program level, 3) Evaluate program benefits, and 4) Cost-effectiveness of programs.
Provide all 1) Program Level Budgets, 2) Program Level Cost Accounting, and 3) Program Level Cost-Effectiveness during Bakaly's employment with BCHD.
While the District does not agree with the assertion as stated, please find below links to the District Operating Budget website for access to District’s recent and past years Budgets, including recent Program Level budgets:
BCHD Operating Budgets:
https://www.bchd.org/operating-budgets
BCHD Priority Based Budget documentation:
https://www.bchdfiles.com/docs/bchd/finance/FY21-22%20BCHD%20Priority%20Based%20Budget.pdf
Per the District Notice to you dated March 1, 2022, Re: Notice of Suspension of Document Production, and after the District has notified you in accordance with this Notice that the back-log of your Public Records Requests have been fully processed, if you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, you may thereafter resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.
Thank you.
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: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 6:41 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA
Bakaly asserts at 633PM during the 5PM board meeting that he is unaware that BCHD did not 1) Budget at the Program Level, 2) Conduct cost accounting at the Program level, 3) Evaluate program benefits, and 4) Cost-effectiveness of programs.
CPRA - Provide BCHD services provision by zip code
Inbox
Mar
k
Nel
son
(Ho
me
Gm
ail)
Mon, Jun 14, 2021,
9:53 AM
1. For the 3 beach cities that own and fund BCHD, 90277, 90278, 90266, and 90254, provide the brea zip code
P
R
R
Mon, Jun 14,
2021, 10:16 AM
Hi Mark, Your request for public records has been received. An initial response will be provided within PRR <[email protected]> Fri, Aug 13,
2021, 9:42 AM
to me, PRR
Hi Mark,
Please see below for the District’s response (in red) to your request dated 6/14/21 that reads:
1. For the 3 beach cities that own and fund BCHD, 90277, 90278, 90266, and 90254, provide the breakdown of the annual cost of services provided in each zip code for the year 2019. If 2019 is not available, provide the breakdown of services for whatever year is available. (no documents responsive)
2. Based on statistically valid evaluation, provide the net benefits for those same zip codes of services provided by BCHD, that is, gross benefits less cost of service provision. (no documents responsive)
If you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, please resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.
Thank you.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 9:53 AM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - Provide BCHD services provision by zip code
1. For the 3 beach cities that own and fund BCHD, 90277, 90278, 90266, and 90254, provide the breakdown of the annual cost of services provided in each zip code for the year 2019. If 2019 is not available, provide the breakdown of services for whatever year is available.
Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> Fri, Aug 13, 2021, 10:02 AM
to Paul, PRR
For MSR
BCHD is funded and operated for the supposed benefit of RB, HB, and MB. However, as BCHD demonstrated during Covid testing when it failed to track the resident or worker status of testees, BCHD has no concern about where our tax dollars are spent, whether they are spent on residents, and whether they are equitably distributed between the 3 taxpayer-owner cities. Surely there is no other rational conclusion from BCHDs abject failure to track service delivery or spending.
BCHD failure to measure and financially quantify services according to documented public health evaluation methods is an even larger fiduciary lapse. Absent program net benefit computations and benefit-cost rankings, no competent comparison of programs to each other, the private sector, other delivery vendors, and prioritization is possible.
BCHD priority based budgeting is little more than an internal beauty contest where the Board, Management, Employees, Consultants, Contractors, and Committee members are in excess of 95% of the attendees, therefore effectively locking out any statistically valid view of the public and BCHD misrepresenting the process as independent.
District Budget Priorities Must Be Consistent with District’s Formation Approval and Subsequent Representation to the Superior Court July 31, 1957: District represents to Superior Court that its legal purpose is to provide services to the “residents who reside” in the District. This filing represents the District’s contemporaneous interpretation of the voter intent
that formed the District . While the public hospital failed Financially in 1984 and the name changed in 1993, the
Voter intent to serve residents continued.
REQUIRED PBB PRIORITIES
PRIORITY #1: COMPLY WITH THE EXPLICIT VOTER APPROVAL AS RECOGNIZED MONTHS AFTER FORMATION OF THE DISTRICT – Meet the needs of the “Residents who reside” in the District (MB/RB/HB). Note, Non-Resident Services were NOT proposed by the District to the Court, not even for Non-Resident Workers.
PRIORITY BUDGETING RULES MUST REPRESENT
1) Exclusive use of funding for Residents until Resident Services are FULLY MET 2) Any services for Non-Residents must be reduced until Resident Services are FULLY MET 3) Any subsidies to Non-Residents for services must be reduced until Resident Services are
FULLY MET
----- Message truncated -----
From: Dan Smith
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Brand; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; [email protected]; Scott Behrendt; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Tom Bakaly (he/him/his); Cristan Higa; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Vanessa I. Poster; Jacqueline Sun; Mike Witzansky; Bruce Moe; Suja Lowenthal Subject: Beach Cities Health District – Six Facts about the Healthy Living Campus project (and some corrections to misinformation, too)
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:00:05 PM
Some people who received this message 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.
Here’s the May edition of information about Beach Cities Health District and our Healthy Living Campus project, this time divided into two sections: Facts about the project and Corrections to some of the misinformation you may have received.
Please let me or CEO Tom Bakaly (cc’d) know if you have questions or would like additional information regarding BCHD.
Dan Smith
Director of Communications
Beach Cities Health District
-------
FACTS
Fact 1: Certified EIR - Last November, the Beach Cities Health District Board of Directors certified the Environmental Impact Report for the Healthy Living Campus master plan. The certified EIR identified zero permanent impacts and just one temporary impact: noise from construction. The certified final EIR was not challenged.
Fact 2: Seismic Improvements - BCHD’s plan to remove a 60+ year-old, seismically challenged building is prudent. The Los Angeles Times reported on the perils of non-ductile concrete construction – the same type of construction used for the 514 N. Prospect Ave. hospital building – in its February 2023 article “A deadly building flaw common in California brings destruction and misery to Turkey, Syria.”
Fact 3: Impact on Neighborhood - BCHD plans to replace its former hospital building with a modern, seismically compliant, energy-efficient building with two acres of green space and less traffic, a project that will benefit the area and residents of all ages. Any reported decline in home values is not associated with the Campus revitalization, rather it’s already happening: Real Estate website Redfin reports that in January 2023, South Bay home prices were down 22.4% compared to last year, most likely due to rising interest rates and the subsequent regional and national slowdown in home sales.
Fact 4: Resident vs. Non-Resident Services - At allcove Beach Cities, during the COVID-19 response, and previously with South Bay Hospital, residents from outside the Beach Cities can utilize some BCHD services. By serving the larger area, BCHD has been able to bring needed services in close proximity to Beach Cities residents, providing local access – for instance, COVID-19 testing and vaccines or mental health services for young people – that previously didn't exist. The Health District has also been able to obtain millions of dollars in grants and funding to provide these services for Beach Cities residents and the greater community.
Fact 5: Transparency - Transparency is vital for a public agency to serve its constituents. In September 2022, the Los Angeles Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) delivered its Municipal Services Review (MSR) of BCHD. In its Report, LAFCO determined that “the BCHD operates in a transparent manner,” and “the BCHD website contains an exhaustive amount of information, and substantially more than the average special district website.” In February 2022, the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) presented BCHD with an Operating Budget Excellence Award for its 2021-22 budget. The panel of judges included this comment: “This budget is absolutely outstanding; it is easy for a non-financial person to grasp what this district has gone through and where it is going. Great job team!” Fact 6: Public Code of Conduct: Like all public agencies, BCHD welcomes public comment from its constituents and stakeholders. Recently, the BCHD Board of Directors requested staff to provide clarification on all public comment opportunities for future Board meetings to make it easier for the public to know when public comment occurs during meetings.
CORRECTIONS
Countering some of the recent misinformation about BCHD and the Healthy Living Campus project:
1. Models estimate Redondo Beach Property Values Within 1/2-mile of BCHD Current Compound are Reduced by Over $70M – To be clear, this is a Mark Nelson-created “model.” As stated above, rising interest rates are the primary culprit in any declines in home values in 2023. Improving a community structure, providing services for residents of all ages and adding open green space will only enhance the community.
2. BCHD Phase 1+2 Project Increases Total SQFT by 254% In 2020, BCHD produced a revised Master Plan which reduced the scope of the Healthy Living Campus project. According to architect Paul Murdoch, the Total Developed Building area of the new project was now 792,520 square feet, or 97,180 sq. ft. smaller than the 2019 plan, a 10.92% decrease. Now that PMB WRC has been selected as the developer/operator, further refinements will be forthcoming.
3. BCHD Phase 1 Alone Increases the SQFT at 76-feet or taller by over 28,000% (from 962 sqft to 275,000 sqft). Mr. Nelson has confused things rather severely here, comparing one floor’s square footage with the full square footage of six floors of the proposed RCFE building.
4. BCHD Phase 1 Alone Increases Visual Height by 200-300% Due to Construction on the Site Perimeter (vs. current center-buffered layout). According to the certified EIR for the project, the actual height of the building can only increase by a maximum of 78 inches taller than what currently exists.
5. BCHD Phase 2 Will Add an 8-10 Story Parking Ramp Near Prospect & Diamond Homes. Phase 2 MAY add an eight-story parking structure. It may be smaller, based on the programmatic elements included in Phase 2, which are far from being finalized – Phase 2 is 8-10 years away.
6. Redondo Beach Will See Only SMALL Benefit from the Super-Majority Non-Resident Use of the Proposed Compound (RB use estimates range from 3% to 9% of Phase 1 PACE, ALLCOVE and RCFE Mr. Nelson is guessing at these figures. Based on current usage at allcove Beach Cities, 55% of the clients and visitors are from the Beach Cities – Mr. Nelson routinely states that “91% are nonresidents,” a figure that assumes 100% of young people in Long Beach will descend on allcove.
Thus far, no Long Beach residents have received services at allcove Beach Cities.
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: Blue Folder J.1 tonight 5/9
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:57:03 PM
Attachments: City Council 5-9-23.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear City Clerk,
Attached are my blue folder items for J.1 along with my oral comments in written form.
I will be attending tonight. Please ensure all 5 members plus the mayor receive them.
Thank you,
Niki Negrete-Mitchell D3
City Council 5/9/23
Niki Negrete-Mitchell D3, founding member of Redondo Beach Quality of Life Coalition, managing partner of Right Of Say representing 1,100 homes from Manhattan Beach Blvd all the way down to 190th. We have grown through hosting our town hall and our yard signs with web link which brought people to our rally in Franklin Park. Some of RightofSay’s original members in Lawndale posted our signs there which brought in even more Lawndale members and sparked our sister group Gnome Village all the way up near Manhattan Beach Blvd.
I just want to thank you all again for supporting us and taking in our comments on the Greenline extension. We are so lucky to have you all in our corner, which has been so helpful to our extended communities in both North Redondo and Lawndale, who’ve voiced their appreciation for your representation and motivated them to gain support from their city as well.
I’m super happy to share that we’ve been making progress in our quest for understanding among the Greater South Bay and more of a collaborative dynamic between the affected 3 cities. Diplomacy efforts have begun and the door has opened for unity.
It would be great to take it even further and for rhetoric to be walked back by those using outdated, irrelevant talking points. Please make it known publicly that positioning based on misinformation can no longer be tolerated by our extended communities. This has been problematic for years, and those of us who live here and in this fight long term have been feeling harrassed and bullied by our neighboring city.
Please remind your counterparts that no decision has been made on alignment and that ROW is not by any means a sure thing. And thank you SOO much to cm Obagi for speaking out so strongly on our behalf at the last COG Board of Directors meeting and saying out loud what everyone is thinking but afraid to say. Also to cm Loewnstein for beginning the diplomacy efforts. I’m asking all of you to please reach out on our behalf.
We’ve recently had a predatory real estate agent send out fallacious promo cards, I’ve blue foldered, soliciting us using fear mongering tactics about trains and with a terrible attitude. Some of us tried to communicate this was offensive but this agent just kept rudely doubling and tripling down. As it turns out their license lists them as being a Torrance resident. Misinformed and misguided. Please get the word out that the Metro Board of Directors are the decision makers and they won’t be ready for a few months.
The false rhetoric continues to negatively impact our quality of life.
This occurred just as we found ourselves in a positive trajectory toward unity. Please help us keep up that momentum on our way to a more collaborative dynamic.
Thank you for allowing me to speak here.