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 9, 2024
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
elected to represent the voting public in Redondo Beach.
Public service ethics requirements of Article 2.4 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, including laws relating to personal financial gain by public servants, prohibiting bribery and conflict-of-interest, and Government transparency laws require that any actions taken by the city’s elected officials be completely transparent.
In view of this requirement, it is hard to believe that anything in the proposals being considered by the City Council would “appear overnight by magic.”
I belong to the fast-growing group of senior citizens that has benefitted immensely from the services offered by BCHD. It has had an enormous beneficial effect on the mental and physical health of the senior citizens in the beach cities. BCHD has also been providing much-needed help to several thousand teenagers through its suicide and crisis hotline, mental health counseling, and recovery center. All this will be severely curtailed or even dropped from its mission if the drastic change to reduce the F.A.R. by a whopping 40% is approved.
As our elected representatives, we would like to know if you can shed more light on the following:
• Why was it necessary to change the F.A.R. by 40% only for the BCHD project? An exception was made for the RB Performing Arts Center which is primarily meant for entertainment and is visited not more than a few times during the year by residents.
However, the Healthy Living Campus is visited daily by those who depend on its wide range of services. Why does the
Performing Arts Center enjoy a special status but not the organization that serves hundreds of residents every day? •
What input prompted this change? And from whom? Do they outnumber those who support it? After all, in a democracy, all the decisions should be made to comply with the will of the majority.
Is there any evidence that a majority of the beach cities’ residents opposed the Healthy Living Campus as planned by BCHD?
•
Why was the advisory committee (GPAC) in the dark about the change in F.A.R. when it submitted its recommendations to the planning commission?
•Has anyone studied the impact the drastic reduction in the F.A.R. would have on the various services currently offered by BCHD?
•
If this change in the F.A.R. for the Healthy Living Campus is pushed through the city council, there is no doubt it will lead to lawsuits that will drag the project on for many years. In the meantime, if the unthinkable happens and we are struck by a major earthquake, the 60-year-old building is not likely to survive.
That will result in enormous costs and loss of life. Are you willing to acknowledge the risks and take responsibility for such calamity?
It is not a question of if but when such a quake could strike us and have a devastating effect on the buildings and those inside it if they are not updated as soon as possible. Just read the news in today’s papers that describes in horrific detail the impact of the 7.4 magnitude earthquake that rocked Taiwan, leaving at least 9 dead and more than 1,000 injured.
Los Angeles County has a very high probability of experiencing a strong earthquake. Here's a breakdown based on the most recent forecasts by the United States Geological Survey (USGS):
There's a more than 75% chance of one or more earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.0 or greater striking Southern California within the next 20 years. Specifically for Los Angeles, the probability gets even higher for strong earthquakes:
60% chance of a magnitude 6.7 earthquake.
46% chance of a magnitude 7.0 earthquake.
31% chance of a powerful
magnitude 7.5 earthquake. (Ref. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/whatprobability-earthquake-will-occur-los-angeles-area-sanfrancisco-bay-area) The change of F.A.R. from 1.25 to 0.75 would essentially stop the project and the city’s residents would be left with an old building that cannot be modified to meet the code. A drastic change in the design and layout of the Healthy Living Campus resulting from such a huge reduction in the square footage would force the BCHD to eliminate many aspects of its plan that are essential to the wellbeing of the residents.
I am well aware of the opposition to the project. The “Stop BCHD” movement is endorsed by very few people. A great majority of the beach cities’ residents who are benefitting from the services offered by this nonprofit organization overwhelmingly support the project. The movement is painting a doomsday scenario by projecting a loss of property value should the project proceed as planned. It is not based on any verifiable and believable data. I predict that the property values of the homes in the vicinity of the Healthy Living Campus will significantly appreciate once the project is completed.
The management of BCHD has had numerous meetings with the residents of our cities and has carefully considered their opinions and suggestions. They have made several changes to
accommodate as many of the suggestions as they possibly could.
The most responsible, prudent and sensible thing to do, in my opinion, is for you and your fellow council members to discuss all the aspects of the project with the management and approve the project so BCHD can proceed with it without any further delays.
Any efforts to stop the project will surely lead to more pain and discord among the elected leaders and the voting public. You can well imagine the consequences of such a scenario.
I would urge the Redondo Beach city council to comply with the state laws on transparency and fairness, and not force an exception to the F.A.R. on the BCHD project in the interest of few but to the detriment of a majority of residents of the city.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Colleen Otash
Redondo Beach
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Michael Webb; Planredondo
Cc: Vanessa I. Poster; [email protected]; Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat Subject: Is BCHD is spending our tax money on political organizing and threatening LAWSUITS? Date: Saturday, April 6, 2024 8:01:11 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
PUBLIC COMMENT - Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, City Counsel, Planning Commission, Planning Director, and General Plan records
BCHD sure seems to be sending out communications with taxpayer funding. And those communications sure smell like litigation against the City by BCHD. Concerned members of the public brought BCHD's political organizing to our attention. BCHD seems to threaten to sue the City of Redondo Beach with our tax dollars - a City that provides nearly 100% of its services to RB RESIDENTS.
BCHD's proposed new facility will have only 3% PACE, 5% allcove and 9% assisted living Redondo Beach Resident services (and only 5% to 20% District services) with the rest of the HLC plan providing services to non-resident/non-taxpayers. (stats based on BCHD, LA County, or National PACE Association data/analysis) Furthermore, the claims of BCHD have little truth and are easily rebutted. See below. It's becoming clear that BCHD will spend as much tax money as needed on its 80% to 95% non-resident services scheme. --
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: Communications; CityClerk; Planredondo
Subject: Public Comment - A Clear Explanation of BCHD"s HLC Failure Date: Thursday, April 4, 2024 1:38:18 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, PlanRedondo From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Communications; Planredondo; Nils Nehrenheim; Scott Berhrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Vanessa I. Poster; Jane Diehl; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; James Light; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell
Cc: Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment: Would BCHD Like some Cheese with its Whine? Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 1:51:40 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD has sent its CEO on a campaign to allege that the City of Redondo Beach has "spot zoned" the site that South Bay Hospital condemned for a medical facility to service the "residents who reside" in the District. Nothing could be further from the truth than BCHD's claim.
The City has followed State mandates to provide objective (numerical) standards for development. The City proposed a conservative standard that would force development on all public land in Redondo Beach to have a compatible scale with surrounding neighborhoods. In two cases, the City proposed a denser development standard for Redondo Beach taxpayerowned public lands. Given that the land will be developed for the overwhelming, targeted benefit of Redondo Beach residents, the density's value more than offsets its imposition on City residents.
BCHD is inimating that the City's act was illegal, which more than likely means that BCHD will spend District resident tax dollars to sue the City. This lawsuit would be so that BCHD could pursue its nearly 800,000 square foot, 100+ feet above Beryl, Flagler and Diamond commercial development for 80% to 95% non-residents of the District.
Yes, BCHD would continue to spend District taxpayer funds in order to pursue a 100% privately-owned assisted living facility for 80% non-residents, the allcove facility for a 91% District non-resident service area (LA County's SPA8), and a 95% non-resident enrollee PACE facility. So what's a few million dollars more in District taxpayer funding to sue the City of Redondo Beach.
BCHD seems to be enjoying a hefty dose of aromatic Limburger cheese with its whine, since BCHD's accusations stink to high Heaven.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Undisclosed BCCs.
From: Soheila Mirmiran
To: CityClerk
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2024 11:38:37 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.