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
DECEMBER 12, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Jacki Bacharach; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Robert W. Lundy; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Board Retreat 12/8/2023 Agenda (II. Icebreaker) Date: Thursday, December 7, 2023 3:15:22 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment to All Agencies
BCHD Icebreaker - Board Discussion Regarding Dismally Low Public Participation Levels
During 2023, BCHD had essentially no public participation in its decision making, as quantitatively measured by BCHD's monthly CEO reports of attendance at both Board and Committee Meetings. BCHD does not report attendees by name, so it is impossible to determine if there are many repeat attendees each month, or, if there are alternatively, new faces at each meeting. Only a minimum and maximum attendance by unique attendee can be determined.
According to the Registrar, there are 86,203 registered voters in the District.
During 2023, BCHD Board and Committee meetings had a minimum of 14 attendees (that is, only 14 unique people could have accounted for every member of the public that attended every BCHD Board or Committee meeting throughout the entire year. That would represent
0.016% of the registered voters/taxpayers/owners of the District.
During 2023, if each BCHD Board or Committee attendee was unique, that is, no person ever attended more than one meeting throughout the entire year (clearly implausible, but represents the MAXIMUM public participation level), then a mere 153 persons attended. They may or may not have been "Residents who reside" in the District. That results in a public participation rate MAXIMUM of 0.177% if District voters/residents/taxpayers.
BCHD's dismal outreach and participation level for 2023 therefore ranged from 0.016% to
0.177%. This clearly represents either massive failure of outreach by BCHD, or, a concerted effort by BCHD to minimize public participation.
The Board should discuss why its public participation levels are so low and how it can achieve reasonable levels that assure that the Board is not working in an opinion-reinforcing echo chamber.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Jacki Bacharach; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Robert W. Lundy; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - Welcome to BCHD Board Retreat 12/8/2023 Agenda (I. Welcome by Tom) Date: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:51:36 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Opening Comment for BCHD's Board Retreat from the Unaffiliated PublicBCHD receives virtually NO INPUT form the unaffiliated public. During a typical month, fewer than 20 unique members of the public participate in BCHD meetings. That is less than
0.001% of voters in the District. During BCHD strategic planning half day meetings, BCHD swamps the roughly 100 total attendees with 50 paid BCHD staff, management, consultants, contractors and vendors, along with the full BCHD Board and BCHD committee members and affiliated volunteers. The unaffiliated, unbiased, public represents 4-7% of the meeting in general.
BCHD deliberately creates an echo chamber to avoid public input based on how it packs the meeting with COMPENSATED staff and consultants.
The BCHD Board needs to seriously assess its failure in a quantitative manner. BCHD has discarded (failed to store) its fundamental document - the language from the voter formation of the District. As a result, the most contemporaneous document is the District's pleading to condemn the Prospect property the next year. That "taking" was justified by the District stating that it was authorized by voters to provide benefits to the "Residents who reside" in the District. BCHD is in violation of its only voter approved role. BCHD future plans range from 80% non-residents in the 100% privately owned RCFE (per MDS's zip code analysis) to 95% non-residents in PACE (per National PACE Assoc) to 91% non-resident service area for allcove (per SPA8 population shares) and BCHD already recognized failure of 84% nonresident covid tests, resulting in a $2.3M non-reimbursed loss to taxpayers.
This is an abject failure of the Board and its members who are long in the tooth, but biologically and in their Board role. Failure is unbecoming and the Board needs to assess its failure, own it, and either retreat back to its only voter-approved role of servicing "Residents who reside" in the District - or - the Board needs to fall on the sword and resign as a group.
Welcome to the future.
Public Comment: All agencies
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Jacki Bacharach; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Robert W. Lundy; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment: BCHD Negative Impact on Surrounding Property Values in Redondo Beach is $87,259,263 Date: Friday, December 8, 2023 12:28:20 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment to All Agencies
According to statistical analysis of property values in Redondo Beach within one-half mile of BCHD, the value of those properties is now over $87M lower than if those same homes were more than one-half mile from BCHD. This modeling demonstrates the damages to home values based on the proximity to BCHD's 300,000 sqft campus buildings located in the center of the 10 acre plot.
BCHD is proposing moving the mass of buildings from the center to the perimeter, vastly increasing the negative impacts on property values. Furthermore, BCHD is proposing an increase in building size from 300,000 sqft to nearly 800,000 sqft.
CLEARLY - THIS WILL FURTHER DAMAGE PROPERTY VALUES
The increase in BCHD damages to property values is a combination of BCHD's damage function to property values within one-half mile and the 18.3% increase in property values overall based on PropertyShark.com, a data service. BCHD's damages eroded the full property value appreciation of the surrounding property, and the 250% expansion of SQFT and movement of tall buildings to the perimeter can other further destroy property values.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Jacki Bacharach; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs; Robert W. Lundy; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: The BCHD Misinformation Map
Date: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 9:29:14 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment: HB/RB/MB City Councils (owners of BCHD) and other Agencies BCHD lays out the following in its Board retreat agenda - each of which reflects serial failures of the District:
1. Redondo Beach city council approval of the CUP. As construction begins the neighborhood can see that we are being
responsible and that the inconvenience is less then they thought.
BCHD current campus is 300,000 sqft and located in the center of the 10 acre parcel. BCHD is proposing to allow a 100% PRIVATE PMB LLC facility of 250,000 sqft on the very east and north edges of the campus, atop 30 foot hills. BCHD is failing to consider the size of the parcel and the ability to place the new facility in the center. Furthermore, statisitcal models show that home within a one half mile radius of BCHD suffer significant property value damage.
2. Continue to have strong belief in our mission and vision and interact with the public who benefit from and appreciate
our programs. Every event and service should have the message that it is provided at no charge because of the District's
ability to leverage other resources to cover costs and that leverage depends on our income from property that will be
impacted by trends and must be dealt with.
BCHD is planning to continue to damage those surrounding the facility with reduced property values, increased PMx emissions and various other negative externalities. BCHD is planning to even further increase services to non-residents (91% allcove, 95% PACE, 84% Covid testing, 80% RCFE non-resident zip code tenants per BCHD studies), and ignore providing value to any public that do not "appreciate" the programs. BCHD is failing its only voter established purpose - to provide benefits to the "residents who reside" in the District.
3. Priority-based budgeting is key to our success.
BCHD has stated in CPRA responses that it has NO ABILITY to evaluate the costeffectiveness of its programs. As such, BCHDs mythical "priority based budgeting" is little more than a beauty contest where BCHD invents non-quantitative measures of spending the direct funding of taxpayers (property taxes) and the indirect funding of taxpayers (interest income, rents from taxpayer owned land, rents from taxpayer owned buildings, rents from taxpayer funded enterprises). BCHD spending cannot be justified as having positive net benefits to DISTRICT RESIDENTS. BCHD Covid tested 84% non-residents and left taxpayers with a $2.3M Covid response, non-reimbursed loss. BCHD's allcove service SPA8, an area that is 91% non-residents. BCHD's allcove building will use land and staff of the district to service a 91% non-resident service area for the required 30-year minimum period.
District taxpayers are obligated to pick up the tab for BCHD's 30 year commitment, or alternatively, fold the district.
4. We must be committed and decisive and move more quickly when opportunities arise.
BCHD Board is ill prepared and ill equipped for its role. The board has no meaningful project development experience. The Board has no meaningful financial experience. In short, the Board's ability to move quickly and decisively is impaired by its lack of ability, experience and requirements to use consultants at every turn. The BCHD 13-executive, $2.3M payroll brings no analysis ability to the Board as demonstrated by BCHD's admission that it cannot conduct a simple Benefit to Cost or Net Benefits analysis on programs due to lack of staff ability.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; City Council Cc: Garth Meyer; [email protected]; Tyler Evains; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; Jacki Bacharach; Vanessa I. Poster; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl Subject: Public Comment on BCHD"s Celebration of the Most Expensive Bike Path Research can Find at Nearly $400 per INCH!
Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2023 1:53:01 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD alleges to have spent $1.73M for 400-feet of bike path. At $4,325 per foot, I can find NO BIKE PATH ANYWHERE at that obscenely high cost. The reason for BCHD's excessive cost appears to be BCHD's use of Metro funds to shore the wall to the north side of the bike path. For 70 years, the District has deferred maintenance until it was able to find a lax agency that would allow the use of other taxpayers' money to complete the project.
From a lay perspective:
Metro's Measure M Oversight Board has been malfeasant.
Metro's Inspector General has been malfeasant.
BCHD's ethics officer has been malfeasant.
SBCCOG's Board has been malfeasant.
All of these agency officers and board members had affirmative obligations to force BCHD to pay for its 70 years of deferred hillside maintenance, and all failed to protect the Measure M funds and taxpayers of LA County. Instead, they loaded the trough at BCHD for the piggies to gorge.
Mark Nelson
Expert Witness
Redondo Beach
Note:
At $1.73M per 400 feet, BCHD spent $23.8M per mile, which is 250 times the typical estimate of the most expensive bike lane.