J.1- Blue Folder — Redondo Beach City Council, April 2, 2024

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 2, 2024
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Planredondo Subject: BCHD Project Fast Facts with Citations
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 10:55:22 AM
Attachments: BCHD Fast Facts with Cites.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment: Mayors, Councils, Planning Commissions of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Torrance
We continue to work with various parties to develop reference materials for easy use.If you have recommendations for additional reference materials, please email [email protected] --
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, 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: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Planredondo; Planning Redondo; Nils Nehrenheim; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Subject: Comments on Density of Public/Institution Land Use and Surrounding Property Value Protection (General Plan) Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 1:19:06 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment: General Plan, Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director 1) The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 as a base for P/I zoning is appropriate. It protects surrounding neighborhoods from the damages of excessive development. 2) The proposed FAR of 1.25 for selected City of Redondo Beach parcels is appropriate. When the City of Redondo Beach develops land, it is nearly always for the exclusive benefit of residents and taxpayers of the City. As such, the benefits are greater than other P/I development that is generally for non-residents and regional use.
3) The March, August and September 2022 GPAC meeting materials contained the FAR 0.75 and FAR 1.25 for P/I in the draft General Plan materials. The public and GPAC members all had ready availability. It is unfortunate that some GPAC members failed to read the draft plan for all 3 consecutive meetings. Others not only read it, but also provided public comments in a timely fashion. 4) FAR 0.75 has demonstrated that it causes significant property value degradation to surround landowners.

FAR 1.25 is inappropriate for P/I development that is not 100% (or very highly) focused on benefiting the residents and taxpayers of Redondo Beach.
5) As an example, the Redondo Beach residential properties within 1/2-mile of BCHD are worth nearly $100M less than they would otherwise be if they were not located near the FAR 0.72 BCHD campus. This is a high level of damage, and one can only expect further value damages to property owners from a 1.25 FAR.

The City should move forward with the P/I FAR of 0.75 as a base and FAR 1.25 for specific City of Redondo Beach owned parcels as called out in the Draft General Plan. Publication and public notice was provided for 3 consecutive meetings of the GPAC in 2022, and in the 2023 CEQA NOP for the General Plan. Ample time for comment was provided and all legal notices were properly noticed. --
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, 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; Planredondo; Planning Redondo; Nils Nehrenheim; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Subject: From Mark Nelson: Comments on Density of Redondo Beach Public/Institution Land Use and Surrounding Property Value Protection (RB General Plan)
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 1:29:47 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I concur with the comments below and request that the General Plan affirm the Public-Institutional FARs of

0.75 for non-City of Redondo Beach development and 1.25 for City of Redondo Beach development. I see Kensington as a good example of a P-CF parcel that has been lost from the use of Redondo Beach residents for 50 to 100 years for the benefit of a majority of non-resident tenants. That is an excellent example of why FARs should be kept low except for the special case of City of Redondo Beach development. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 1:22 AM
Subject: Comments on Density of Redondo Beach Public/Institution Land Use and Surrounding Property Value Protection (RB General Plan)
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
The following comments were supplied to the General Plan, Council and others. We recommend that you forward this email to the same email list below and add a private comment. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 1:18 AM
Subject: Comments on Density of Public/Institution Land Use and Surrounding Property Value Protection (General Plan)
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Zein Obagi <[email protected]>
Public Comment: General Plan, Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director 1) The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 as a base for P/I zoning is appropriate. It protects surrounding neighborhoods from the damages of excessive development. 2) The proposed FAR of 1.25 for selected City of Redondo Beach parcels is appropriate. When the City of Redondo Beach develops land, it is nearly always for the exclusive benefit of residents and taxpayers of the City. As such, the benefits are greater than other P/I development that is generally for non-residents and regional use.
3) The March, August and September 2022 GPAC meeting materials contained the FAR 0.75 and FAR 1.25 for P/I in the draft General Plan materials. The public and GPAC members all had ready availability. It is unfortunate that some GPAC members failed to read the draft plan for all 3 consecutive meetings. Others not only read it, but also provided public comments in a timely fashion. 4) FAR 0.75 has demonstrated that it causes significant property value degradation to surround landowners.

The City should move forward with the P/I FAR of 0.75 as a base and FAR 1.25 for specific City of Redondo Beach owned parcels as called out in the Draft General Plan. Publication and public notice was provided for 3 consecutive meetings of the GPAC in 2022, and in the 2023 CEQA NOP for the General Plan. Ample time for comment was provided and all legal notices were properly noticed.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, 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 voterapproved 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.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on Density of Redondo Beach Public/Institution Land Use and Surrounding Property Value Protection (RB General Plan)
Date: March 20, 2024 at 1:22:28 AM PDT
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
The following comments were supplied to the General Plan, Council and others. We recommend that you forward this email to the same email list below and add a private comment.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 1:18 AM
Subject: Comments on Density of Public/Institution Land Use and Surrounding Property Value Protection (General Plan)
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Nils Nehrenheim
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Zein Obagi <[email protected]>
Public Comment: General Plan, Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director
1) The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 as a base for P/I zoning is appropriate. It protects surrounding neighborhoods from the damages of excessive development.
2) The proposed FAR of 1.25 for selected City of Redondo Beach parcels is appropriate. When the City of Redondo Beach develops land, it is nearly always for the exclusive benefit of residents and taxpayers of the City. As such, the benefits are greater than other P/I development that is generally for non-residents and regional use.
3) The March, August and September 2022 GPAC meeting materials contained the FAR 0.75 and FAR 1.25 for P/I in the draft General Plan materials. The public and GPAC members all had ready availability. It is unfortunate that some GPAC members failed to read the draft plan for all 3 consecutive meetings. Others not only read it, but also provided public comments in a timely fashion. 4) FAR 0.75 has demonstrated that it causes significant property value degradation to surround landowners. FAR 1.25 is inappropriate for P/I development that is not 100% (or very highly) focused on benefiting the residents and taxpayers of Redondo Beach.
5) As an example, the Redondo Beach residential properties within 1/2-mile of BCHD are worth nearly $100M less than they would otherwise be if they were not located near the FAR 0.72 BCHD campus. This is a high level of damage, and one can only expect further value damages to property owners from a 1.25 FAR.

The City should move forward with the P/I FAR of 0.75 as a base and FAR

1.25 for specific City of Redondo Beach owned parcels as called out in the Draft General Plan. Publication and public notice was provided for 3 consecutive meetings of the GPAC in 2022, and in the 2023 CEQA NOP for the General Plan. Ample time for comment was provided and all legal notices were properly noticed.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, 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: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Planredondo; Planning Redondo
Subject: Fwd: Fw: BCHD Planned expansion is bad for South Bay Residence Date: Sunday, March 31, 2024 5:17:14 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Comments to Mayor, Council and General Plan Staff from Mr.Morse, forwarded at his request Subject: Re: BCHD Planned expansion is bad for South Bay Residents 50 yr beach cities taxpayer - mb & rb resident/business owner On Mar 20, 2024, at 1:14 PM, Steve Morse wrote:

1. Using our funds for 90-95% families, out of our area, seems inappropriate.

2. Overcrowding and increasing FAR also seem like abusing the system

3. Open space planned for free parking space to a company is not appropriate - it should be rented out to highest bidder, or even social services for volunteers , as an idea or other nonprofits, for the benefits of the South bay.

4. Isn't time to redirect the BCHD towards direct benefits for local paying communities and refocus on getting more local participation or reduce services and expenses to reflect actual activities benefitting us.

5. This reminds me of the beach expansion idea that research showed was an estravagant idea that could have put an unberable burden on our community.

Thanks, Steve Morse, 40-year resident of the South Bay
KEEP P/I FAR AT 0.75 BASE AND 1.25 FOR LIMITED CITY OWNED

PARCELS
Back in early 2022, City staff along with the City Council were forced by a State law change to add rigor and pre-published standards to development in the City. One of the few land use/zonings with significant Planning Commission discretion was in the public sector.

For example, P-CF (Public – Community Facilities) zoning had only subjective standards on how much building could be crammed onto a PCF zoned lot. The Planning Commission was free to allow only 1 story, or 10 stories. The Planning Commission could enforce an FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 0.1 or 2.0. Essentially, there were no objective rules for P-CF development.
“A design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” (California Government Code, Section 65913.4) As a result, the Council provided a base FAR of 0.75 for P/I publicinstitutional land use and allowed for a 1.25 FAR in certain areas of City owned property for public services development. This was merely a conformance with the change in State law and provided the required objective standards.

BCHD has elected to claim this is “spot zoning” and is a taking from the District. By law, that is not true. The prior flexibility used by the Planning Commission no longer meets State law. Furthermore, the Planning Commission was free under the prior Redondo Beach Code to issue BCHD an FAR of 0.5 for future development. That would have been completely compliant with City Code. So BCHD is actually better off with

0.75 than with subjective standards.

PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE 0.75 / 1.25 PROPOSAL WAS REPEATED

MADE TO GPAC
City Staff and Council provided the FAR 0.75 base FAR and 1.25 limited FAR to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) in March of 2022.

The draft document was provided to the members and the public three times, in March, August and September. How it could be that few GPAC members bothered to review the draft document throughout 2022 is simply astounded. Some did, and they even filed comments.

IF THE 0.75 / 1.25 PROPOSAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE, ROLL BACK P/I to 0.75 FAR
For the protection of the surrounding public, the City should roll back the FAR for P/I to 0.75 uniformly if it concludes that FAR 1.25 for specific Redondo Beach resident-taxpayer owned is indefensible on the grounds of benefits to residents of Redondo Beach.

BCHD PLANS TO PRIVATIZE P/I LAND USE THROUGH 95 YEAR

CONTRACTS
It's not at all clear that BCHD intends to use the P-CF zoning for PUBLIC use. It appears that BCHD plans to lease 3 acres to a 100% private entity for 95 years for commercial use. BCHD's estimates show that 80% of the use will be by non-residents.https://www.stopbchd.com/post/only-bchdpreserve-public-space-by-leasing-it-to-a-100-private-developer-for-95- years

CURRENT P-CF INDUCED PROPERTY VALUE DAMAGES EXCEED
$150M
Consolidated property damage values from existing 0.72 FAR P-CF site on RB/Torrance border:
$97M Redondo Beach property value declines within 1/2-mile $65M Torrance property value declines within 1/2-mile
LOCAL REDONDO BEACH RESIDENTS SUFFER NEARLY $100M IN
PROPERTY VALUE DECLINE WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE BCHD

PARCEL AND HIGHER FAR DEVELOPMENT WILL CREATE MORE

DAMAGES
The property value decline ($97M) in Redondo Beach surrounding the 312,000 sf, 99.7% under 52-foot tall campus is estimated by econometric models and the dataset used by BCHD's MDS consultants for market analysis (purchased and licensed by
StopBCHD).
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/redondo-beach-propertyvalue-loss-within-1-2-mile-of-bchd-campus-over-97m-2024-update The impact of being within 1/2-mile of BCHD campus has been estimated for Torrance residences, using the Redondo Beach model as a proxy. The property value damage from proximity to the 312,000 sf, 99.7% under 52- foot tall existing campus is $65M. Greater FARs and denser development will undoubtedly create larger losses for surrounding property values and property owners.

PCDR REQUIRES PROTECTION OF PROPERTY VALUES
The PCDR requires that new developments are subject to protecting property values. The 0.72 FAR of BCHD site damages surrounding property by $100M. The current 0.75 proposed FAR will result in increased property value damage.

P/I LAND USE SHOULD BE USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF REDONDO

BEACH RESIDENTS
From a policy perspective, P/I land should be used primarily for the benefit of Redondo Beach residents. Based on BCHD's consultant's work, Kensington (P-CF zoned) likely services 80% non-residents on 3 acres of P/I land. The use of Redondo Beach public land is unsustainable if it is consumed for non-resident use.

BCHD PROPOSED HLC IS 80% to 95% DISTRICT NON-RESIDENTS
BCHD PROPOSED HLC IS 91% to 97% REDONDO NON-RESIDENTS
BCHD's HLC is supermajority benefit of non-residents
RCFE - BCHD's MDS consultant demonstrates 91% non-Redondo Beach resident tenants by zip code for the assisted living
PACE - BCHD's PACE will be 97% non-Redondo Beach resident enrollees.
allcove - BCHD's allcove services LA County SPA8 (1.4M population) and is 95% non-Redondo Beach residents.

While the damages of P/I fall entirely to Redondo Beach, the benefits of BCHD proposed HLC accrue to 91% to 97% non-Redondo Beach residents.

Residents should NOT have damages to service NON-RESIDENTS on P/I land

CITY RESIDENT-TAXPAYER OWNED SITES SHOULD NOT REQUIRE

PCDR REVIEW
Sites developed by the City of Redondo Beach for the majority benefit of residents should not require a PCDR process. They should be assumed compliant.

It should be explicitly stated that P/I land use should be for at least a majority benefit of the residents of Redondo Beach. The damages accrue 100% to Redondo Beach residents, therefore, they should receive a minimum level of a majority of benefits from the land use.

THE CURRENT P-CF BCHD SITE IS NON-CONFORMING WITH ITS
CUP
At least one P/I site, the BCHD campus, no longer has a hospital, therefore, "associated medical" are no long permitted uses. The can be allowed to remain until their natural sunset lifespans.

OBJECTIVE NUMERCAL FARS ARE REQUIRED
The State mandate for objective (not subjective) standards requires the city abandon the PCDR chosen FAR and it be replaced by objective standards. This proposal is consistent with State mandate.

BCHD HAD A PAID CONSULTANT AS CHAIR OF THE GPAC
Nick Biro was the Chair of GPAC and a $10,000 to $15,000 per month retained consultant of BCHD. Mr. Biro had both a GPAC obligation and a fiduciary taxpayer obligation via his BCHD to review all draft General Plan documents and provide comments timely.

THREE GPAC MEETINGS PUBLICIZED THE FAR PROPOSAL
March, August and September 2022 GPAC meetings and 2024 CEQA NOP for GP all included public notice of the P/I proposed 0.75 and 1.25 FAR.

The full content of each of the following html links is also entered into the formal record, in the same way as attached files would be under California law:
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/the-redondo-beach-general-plan-far-for-pi-land-use-is-appropriate-and-should-not-be-changed https://www.stopbchd.com/post/where-is-the-city-s-or-bchd-s-analysis-ofthe-property-value-damages-from-the-current-bchd-developme https://www.stopbchd.com/post/redondo-beach-property-value-loss-within1-2-mile-of-bchd-campus-over-97m-2024-update https://www.stopbchd.com/post/torrance-property-value-loss-within-1-2- mile-of-bchd-campus-is-65m
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/stop-bchd-s-high-density-commercialdevelopment-on-public-zoned-land

From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Planredondo; Planning Redondo
Cc: r
Subject: Fwd: Public Comments - P/I FAR in Draft General Plan Date: Saturday, March 30, 2024 11:23:24 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Filed at the request of RA Loeffler.

Dear Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, and General Plan Staff:

These comments are being filed at the request of the cc:d party on this email. Please add them to the record of the draft General Plan and the P/I FAR issue. Thank you.

KEEP P/I FAR AT 0.75 BASE AND 1.25 FOR LIMITED CITY OWNED PARCELS Back in early 2022, City staff along with the City Council were forced by a State law change to add rigor and pre-published standards to development in the City. One of the few land use/zonings with significant Planning Commission discretion was in the public sector.

For example, P-CF (Public – Community Facilities) zoning had only subjective standards on how much building could be crammed onto a P-CF zoned lot. The Planning Commission was free to allow only 1 story, or 10 stories. The Planning Commission could enforce an FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 0.1 or 2.0. Essentially, there were no objective rules for P-CF development.
“A design standard that involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.” (California Government Code, Section 65913.4)
As a result, the Council provided a base FAR of 0.75 for P/I public-institutional land use and allowed for a 1.25 FAR in certain areas of City owned property for public services development. This was merely a conformance with the change in State law and provided the required objective standards.

PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE 0.75 / 1.25 PROPOSAL WAS REPEATED MADE TO GPAC
City Staff and Council provided the FAR 0.75 base FAR and 1.25 limited FAR to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) in March of 2022. The draft document was provided to the members and the public three times, in March, August and September. How it could be that few GPAC members bothered to review the draft document throughout 2022 is simply astounded. Some did, and they even filed comments.

IF THE 0.75 / 1.25 PROPOSAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE, ROLL BACK P/I to 0.75 FAR
For the protection of the surrounding public, the City should roll back the FAR for P/I to 0.75 uniformly if it concludes that FAR 1.25 for specific Redondo Beach residenttaxpayer owned is indefensible on the grounds of benefits to residents of Redondo Beach.

BCHD PLANS TO PRIVATIZE P/I LAND USE THROUGH 95 YEAR CONTRACTS It's not at all clear that BCHD intends to use the P-CF zoning for PUBLIC use. It appears that BCHD plans to lease 3 acres to a 100% private entity for 95 years for commercial use. BCHD's estimates show that 80% of the use will be by nonresidents. https://www.stopbchd.com/post/only-bchd-preserve-public-space-byleasing-it-to-a-100-private-developer-for-95-years CURRENT P-CF INDUCED PROPERTY VALUE DAMAGES EXCEED $150M Consolidated property damage values from existing 0.72 FAR P-CF site on RB/Torrance border:
$97M Redondo Beach property value declines within 1/2-mile $65M Torrance property value declines within 1/2-mile
LOCAL REDONDO BEACH RESIDENTS SUFFER NEARLY $100M IN PROPERTY VALUE DECLINE WITHIN ½-MILE OF THE BCHD PARCEL AND HIGHER FAR

DEVELOPMENT WILL CREATE MORE DAMAGES
The property value decline ($97M) in Redondo Beach surrounding the 312,000 sf,

99.7% under 52-foot tall campus is estimated by econometric models and the dataset used by BCHD's MDS consultants for market analysis (purchased and licensed by StopBCHD).https://www.stopbchd.com/post/redondo-beach-property-value-losswithin-1-2-mile-of-bchd-campus-over-97m-2024-update The impact of being within 1/2-mile of BCHD campus has been estimated for Torrance residences, using the Redondo Beach model as a proxy. The property value damage from proximity to the 312,000 sf, 99.7% under 52-foot tall existing campus is $65M. Greater FARs and denser development will undoubtedly create larger losses for surrounding property values and property owners.

PCDR REQUIRES PROTECTION OF PROPERTY VALUES
The PCDR requires that new developments are subject to protecting property values.

The 0.72 FAR of BCHD site damages surrounding property by $100M. The current

0.75 proposed FAR will result in increased property value damage.

P/I LAND USE SHOULD BE USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF REDONDO BEACH

RESIDENTS
From a policy perspective, P/I land should be used primarily for the benefit of Redondo Beach residents. Based on BCHD's consultant's work, Kensington (P-CF zoned) likely services 80% non-residents on 3 acres of P/I land. The use of Redondo Beach public land is unsustainable if it is consumed for non-resident use.

BCHD PROPOSED HLC IS 80% to 95% DISTRICT NON-RESIDENTS
BCHD PROPOSED HLC IS 91% to 97% REDONDO NON-RESIDENTS
BCHD's HLC is supermajority benefit of non-residents
RCFE - BCHD's MDS consultant demonstrates 91% non-Redondo Beach resident tenants by zip code for the assisted living
PACE - BCHD's PACE will be 97% non-Redondo Beach resident enrollees. allcove - BCHD's allcove services LA County SPA8 (1.4M population) and is 95% non-Redondo Beach residents.

While the damages of P/I fall entirely to Redondo Beach, the benefits of BCHD proposed HLC accrue to 91% to 97% non-Redondo Beach residents.

Residents should NOT have damages to service NON-RESIDENTS on P/I land

CITY RESIDENT-TAXPAYER OWNED SITES SHOULD NOT REQUIRE PCDR REVIEW
Sites developed by the City of Redondo Beach for the majority benefit of residents should not require a PCDR process. They should be assumed compliant.

THE CURRENT P-CF BCHD SITE IS NON-CONFORMING WITH ITS CUP At least one P/I site, the BCHD campus, no longer has a hospital, therefore, "associated medical" are no long permitted uses. The can be allowed to remain until their natural sunset lifespans.

THREE GPAC MEETINGS PUBLICIZED THE FAR PROPOSAL
March, August and September 2022 GPAC meetings and 2024 CEQA NOP for GP all included public notice of the P/I proposed 0.75 and 1.25 FAR.

The full content of each of the following html links is also entered into the formal record, in the same way as attached files would be under California law:
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/the-redondo-beach-general-plan-far-for-p-i-land-useis-appropriate-and-should-not-be-changed https://www.stopbchd.com/post/where-is-the-city-s-or-bchd-s-analysis-of-theproperty-value-damages-from-the-current-bchd-developme https://www.stopbchd.com/post/redondo-beach-property-value-loss-within-1-2-mileof-bchd-campus-over-97m-2024-update https://www.stopbchd.com/post/torrance-property-value-loss-within-1-2-mile-of-bchdcampus-is-65m https://www.stopbchd.com/post/stop-bchd-s-high-density-commercial-developmenton-public-zoned-land --
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, 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: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Planredondo; Planning Redondo
Cc:

Subject: Fwd: Public Comments - P/I FAR in Draft General Plan Date: Saturday, March 30, 2024 1:05:51 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

This comment was requested by Mike Jamgochian. Please enter it into the record.