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 16, 2024
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; CityClerk; Zein Obagi Subject: ITEM NEEDS MORE CONSIDERATION - Item 12 - 4/17/24 Planning & Programming Committee Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 12:29:17 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Wednesday April 17, 2024 Metro Planning & Programming Committee Meeting Agenda Item
12. SUBJECT: PROPOSED PROJECT AND LOCALLY PREFERRED 2023-0532
ALTERNATIVE FOR THE C LINE EXTENSION TO TORRANCE RECOMMENDATION Thursday April 18, 2024 Metro Executive Management Committee Meeting Agenda Item 12.
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PROJECT AND LOCALLY PREFERRED 2023-0532
ALTERNATIVE FOR THE C LINE EXTENSION TO TORRANCE
To: Metro Board, Metro Planning & Programming Committee, Metro Executive Management Committee, LA County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Mitchell, Redondo Beach Mayor and City Council:
Following a review of Attachment A, I find a number of issues that fail to support the recommendation of a hybrid ROW route:
1) I recommend that the issue be returned to staff in order to clarify the ambiguous and unsupported record.
2) If a decision MUST be made without clarification, correction and added support of the record, then I support the Hawthorne Option based on the existing record, as it a) serves more riders, b) provides more trips, c) eliminates more carbon emissions, d) has a lower cost per project trip than 2 of the other 3 options, and e) mitigates the monetized health damages from 24/7/365 2-track operation through residential neighborhoods.
With regard to the only record provided being ATTACHMENT A: Metro C (Green) Line Extension to Torrance Comparison of Alignments & Alternatives Evaluated in Draft EIR, the following unsupported issues should be resolved prior to decision making:
THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE HARVEY BALLS ARE SUBJECTIVE AND
UNSUPPORTED
The mere fact that this comment needed to be authored demonstrates that lack of a proper record from staff for the Committees and Board. The Harvey balls in Attachment A are purely subjective and without objective discussion. The Attachment needs to carry sufficient stand alone content including the objective criteria, weighting methods, and discussion narrative of the Harvey ball development.
UNCERTAINTY OF COSTS IS NOT STATED
For example, at a full FTA 10% level-of-engineering, project contingency is typically +25% of the project cost. Though nothing is stated for the Committee or Board decision making, at this time the engineering is unlikely at 10% across all four scenarios. As such, the cost estimates are more likely at a level such as -10%/+35%. At a 35% uncertainty level, the project costs are statistically indifferent.
THE HAWTHORNE OPTION SERVES MORE RIDERS, PROVIDES MORE TRIPS,
REMOVES MORE CARBON, AND HAS AND THE SECOND LOWEST COST PER TRIP
There are a number of metrics and the Hawthorne option has greater ridership, more trips, greater carbon reduction, and lower cost per project trip. It is well understood that deeper reductions in carbon emissions will come at an increasing cost. No analysis is provided of the cost of the project's increased trips vs. replacement of existing gas powered vehicles with EVs on a mass scale. If the project is generally not less expensive than conversion to emission free vehicles, then it should not be undertaken at all.
FEDERAL FUNDING MAY FULLY EQUALIZE THE COST OF THE HAWTHORNE
OPTION WITH OTHER ALTERNATIVES
No analysis is provided regarding Federal funding and the assumption appears to be made that it will be $0. That seems unlikely as the nation seeks to reduce carbon emissions.
NO SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION OF ROW DAMAGES IS PROVIDED
The heath damages of of 24/7/365 noise and vibration are discussed in many NIH peer reviewed articles. No monetization of those health damages was considered or included as a benefit offset to costs of the Hawthorne route.
CONCLUSION
The analysis is not complete and is insufficient for decision making at this time. It should be sent back to staff for full inclusion of the monetized benefits of the Hawthorne alternative vs. the others, along with the specific issues above.
If decisions are made without the corrections and augmentation to the record, then the assumption that the environmental benefits of the greater rides, VMT reductions, and avoided damages to the ROW adjacent resident health should be assumed to SUPPORT the Hawthorne route's selection.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Stop BCHD
To: Planredondo; CityClerk; Planning Redondo; Sean Scully; Zein Obagi; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic
Cc: Kevin Cody; Residents Against Overdevelopment; Stop BCHD; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - PlanRedondo - Proposal for PI FAR Development Date: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:29:33 AM
Attachments: Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey-3.png Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey-1.png
Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey-4.png
Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey-5.png
Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey-2.png
Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey-8.png
Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey-6.png
Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey-7.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
Redondo Beach Public Land Use Intensity Survey.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - Mayor, Council, Planning Commission, General Plan note: survey results are both embedded and a PDF to allow for easy viewing and also to prevent loss of comment if PlanRedondo does not accept attachments.
A survey was conducted through Facebook and Instagram promotion (2730 promotions by Meta) Saturday through Monday (4/13 to 4/15) on P/I development philosophy and FAR. The survey is summarized and presented below and supports a reconsideration of a Redondo Beach resident benefit/survey test for P/I development with associated FAR bonus.
Overall,
76.2% support a requirement that Public land use be commensurate with the share of its services provided to RB residents
71.4% agree that FAR should be used as the tool for encouraging benefits/services
69.0% agree with the specific FAR proposal that any P/I development qualify for the following FAR levels:
RB Resident Benefit/Service Level FAR
Less than 50% of its benefits/services 0.50
50-75% of its benefits/services 0.75 (i.e., bonus = 0.25) over 75% of its benefits/services 1.25 (i.e., bonus = 0.75)
SURVEY SUMMARY
Based on this indicative survey, there is considerable support for requiring Public/Institutional land use to provide substantial benefits/services to Redondo Beach residents as a condition of development.
QUESTION #1
QUESTION #2
QUESTION #3
There are also verbatim comments that were collected and included. Warning - some of the language is foul, but we did no editing.
SURVEY CONCLUSION
If the General Plan is going to reopen the FAR issue for Public/Institutional then it should be reconsidered in light of the specific proposal and public input for RB Resident Benefit/Service Level FAR
Less than 50% of its benefits/services 0.50
50-75% of its benefits/services 0.75
over 75% of its benefits/services 1.25
SURVEY PROCESS
The following results were compiled from publication of the survey via Facebook and Instagram on Meta to an area approximating the BCHD District boundaries. Per Meta, the survey was presented to 2730 social media participants, 110 clicked through, and 83 completed the survey.
FULL TEXT SURVEY RESULTS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Kevin Cody
Cc: CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Michael Webb Subject: Public Comment and Rebuttal to Poster"s Sand Box Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 8:35:24 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see BCHD’s Poster avoid the any meaningful discussion of the facts surrounding BCHD’s new regional focus. BCHD has actively migrated from the Hospital District’s voter-mandated focus of the “residents who reside” in the District to a new regional focus that provides services to 80% to 95% non-residents of the District.
Why should BCHD be allowed to ignore the terms of the condemnation of the land that the District sits on? The land was taken from private owners in order to service the District residents per a Superior Court pleading by the District.
The land was not taken by the District for 80% non-residents in a 100% privately-owned assisted living facility as stated by two of BCHD’s own high paid consultants. Nor was the land taken by the District for a 91% non-resident service area facility for allcove - a function that stretches from Avalon to Long Beach according to LA County records. And the District surely did not condemn the land to develop a PACE facility that will enroll up to 95% nonresidents according to National PACE Association data.
BCHDs funding, except outside grants, is the result of property taxes, rent from taxpayerowned land/buildings and returns on other taxpayer-owned assets. BCHD programs cost more than their revenue generated - in the real world - they lose money. BCHD programs may charge fees, but they are overwhelmingly under collecting and not paying their own way, especially for non-residents. Both the gym and AdventurePlex allow non-residents, but both facilities consume subsidies from resident-taxpayers to operate. BCHD exports our property taxes and other funding to folks that never contributed to the District.
Poster is correct in her claims that BCHD has changed. It is no longer serving the voters that founded and funded it. Instead, it plans to use Redondo Beach Public land to service 80% to 95% non-residents of the District. And the view for Redondo Beach residents and taxpayers is even worse. Redondo Beach residents will only receive a meager 3% to 9% of the services of the new planned redevelopment. However, Redondo Beach residents will suffer 100% of the damages from BCHD’s non-resident focus in terms of traffic, noise, pollution, lost public land, and surrounding property devaluation.
Don’t let BCHD fool you into believing that it will deliver more services than costs or damages to Redondo Beach residents. BCHD doesn’t even bother to evaluate the benefits of its programs because it cannot. In a Public Records Act reply, BCHD stated “calculating a dollar community benefit for each program is beyond the scope of the District’s mission, financial resources and abilities.” The District is honest in this regard; the District doesn’t have the “ability” to determine if it provides more value than cost and community damage to neighbors.
BCHD has chosen to make the General Plan issue about BCHD. So be it. BCHD is providing 80% to 95% of its services to non-residents of the District and 91% to 97% of its planned service to non-residents of Redondo Beach. The City’s developments (with FAR 1.25) will provide nearly 100% of their services to Redondo Beach residents. There’s no comparison between the non-resident future focus of Poster’s future view and the continued residentcentric focus of the City of Redondo Beach to its residents. BCHD doesn’t deserve to dump 100% of its damages on Redondo Beach residents for only 3% to 9% Redondo Beach resident benefit. FAR 0.75 is gift that BCHD doesn’t even deserve as it consumes Redondo Beach's scarce public land for non-resident benefit.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Communications; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; Kevin Cody Subject: Public Comment: BCHD"s Board and Executive Management"s Failures Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 10:12:46 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
It is quite interesting that Ms. Poster wrote a rant on BCHD and Change for the EasyReader. At the same time, Ms. Poster represents the epitome of the status quo for the Board of Directors. Until 2021-22 budget year, Ms Poster tolerated BCHD's lack of program budgets, cost accounting and evaluation. That status quo action made BCHD less informed and a coin operated car wash or laundry mat regarding the cost-effectiveness of its programs. BCHD continues to profess that it has no obligation or ability to assess community benefits of programs (per CPRA response). Absent that evaluation, BCHD's processes for program evaluation and expenditures are little more than guesses. Coupled with a CEO that was incredulous that anyone with real world, public sector experience would want accounting "to the penny" (board meeting) it's clear that BCHD needs CHANGE.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Public Comment: Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, Planning Commission; LA Board of Supervisors; Metro Board; Supervisor Mitchell
CPRA Response: BCHD's Inability to Validate the Benefit-Cost or Net Benefits of any BCHD Program CPRA Response: BCHD's Lack of Program Budgeting throughout Ms. Poster's Board reign From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Communications; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody Subject: Public Comment: BCHD"s lack of health protection of Redondo Beach residents in the Green Line ROW expansion Date: Sunday, April 14, 2024 9:58:10 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD's decision not to protect Redondo Beach neighborhoods from 24/7/365 2-track rail is a failure of purpose of a health district. It is clear from the literature that 24/7/365 noise and vibration has a negative impact on residents. Further, BCHD has been posting repeatedly regarding the importance of sleep for health. Last, Blue Zones is clear that chronic stress - such as that caused by 24/7/365 noise and vibration - is the "silent killer". All in all, it appears that Metro bought off BCHD with Metro's $1.7M payment to BCHD for 400-feet of bike path. That $4000+ per foot BCHD bike path is the most expensive bike path cost in the United States according to repeated internet searches.
I am nauseated by BCHD's failure to protect Redondo Beach residents.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach Property Owner
Public Comment: Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, Planning Commission; Metro Board; LA County Supervisors; Supervisor Mitchell
From: Joan Davidson
To: Stop BCHD; CityClerk; Planredondo; Stop BCHD
Subject: Re: StopBCHD Public Comment to BCHD"s Letter in the Easy Reader Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 10:11:21 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
This BCHD project is so terrible there are no words to describe it.
Corruption buys a lot I guess!
Joan
On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 11:09:07 PM PDT, Stop BCHD <[email protected]> wrote:
Knowing BCHD, it's likely that the Vanessa Poster "Sand Box" letter cost tens of thousand$ of taxpayer fund$ in $alaries and consultant$ to write.
Poster's Rant
As Poster concludes her rant, she/they/them/consultants/contractors/etc wrote:
"It pains me that the City of Redondo Beach, my city, a city that I love and have called home for more than 30 years, has chosen to make a recommendation in the city’s general plan that constrains all of us in finding creative solutions to meet our community’s needs into the future." StopBCHD's Response to Poster:
It pains US that BCHD's Vanessa Poster and the rest of its errant Board and $2.3M annual executive payroll believe that BCHD is justified in using ANY REDONDO BEACH PUBLIC LAND for 80% to 95% District NON-RESIDENT BENEFITS for the proposed HLC:
Assisted Living
80% non-resident tenants in a luxury assisted living facility by a 100% private developer (per BCHD costly consultants);
allcove
91% non-resident service area from Avalon to Long Beach (per LA County SPA8 contract area) and FREE taxpayer-owned land at Beryl & Flagler to boot!
PACE
95% non-resident PACE enrollees in BCHD's planned 400 enrollee program (per BCHD investment bankers and the National PACE Assoc).
BCHD Damages
Redondo Beach and Torrance surrounding neighborhoods will suffer 100% of BCHD damages from traffic, noise, construction, and further property devaluation as BCHD HLC provides only 3% to 9% of its services to Redondo Beach residents (per BCHD MDS consultants, BCHD Cain investment bankers, LA County Health SPA8 allcove area, National PACE Assoc) Ample Land for Development for the Future if USED FOR RESIDENTS If BCHD were not hell bent on squandering Redondo Beach Public land for 80% to 95% District nonresident use, we would have generations of land available - unlike Poster's claim. BCHD is the cause of our lost Public Land. BCHD seeks to use our PUBLIC LAND (PI, P-CF) for the 80% to 95% benefit of NON-DISTRICT RESIDENTS. BCHD must return to servicing the "residents who reside" in the District.
IS FAR 0.75 TOO MUCH FOR BCHD?
BCHD plans to use 80% to 95% of the land for District Non-Resident service. Perhaps the FAR should be restructured based on a fraction of land use for Redondo Beach residents. We propose:
Base FAR 0.50 - Any PI facility with less than 50% Redondo Beach Resident services.
Enhanced FAR 0.75 - Any PI facility with at least 50% Redondo Beach Resident services Enhanced FAR 1.25 - Any PI facility with at least 75% Redondo Beach Resident services If a facility is being developed for non-residents, its development should be severely limited to protect RESIDENTS health, safety, and property values.
--
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.
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: StopBCHD Board Member Poster Question (4/9)
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 1:56:40 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment Mayor, Council
As a public service StopBCHD will ask a daily question of Member Poster regarding the loss of Resident-Taxpayer services caused by BCHD's provision of non-resident services.
Poster Question of the Day (4/9) - The ResidentTaxpayer Loss of $7.5M of Free Land Rent to allcove
Dear Ms Poster:
BCHD has stated that it will forgo the $250,000 in land rent from the $4M taxpayer-owned lot where the allcove building will be built. Since BCHD was required to accept a 30 year operations and maintenance agreement for the building as a condition of funding, it will deprive District Residents of 30 x $250,000 or at least $7.5M in services that otherwise could have been provided to them with the allcove site rent.
How will Resident Taxpayers of the District be reimbursed for BCHD's donation to the 91% District nonresident allcove service area of $7.5M in Land Rent? What services will be denied Resident Taxpayers due to the $7.5M donation to allcove of public land rent free?
--
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: Communications; CityClerk; Planredondo
Subject: StopBCHD Board Member Poster Question (4/10)
Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 2:03:53 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment Mayor, Council
As a public service StopBCHD will ask a daily question of Member Poster regarding the loss of Resident-Taxpayer services caused by BCHD's provision of non-resident services.
Poster Question of the Day (4/10) - The
Resident-Taxpayer Risk from BCHD's 30-year
allcove Building Obligation
Dear Ms Poster:
BCHD has agreed to accept approximately $6M from the State as partial payment to build an allcove building. The building will be built on the Flagler & Beryl lot and Resident-Taxpayers will receive no rent from the $4M+ site.
Additionally, BCHD was forced to accept a 30-year, unfunded obligation to operate the building. The cost of operation is unknown.
Assuming an annual cost of $1M, BCHD Resident-Taxpayers would be denied $30M of services over the 30 year period.
How will Resident Taxpayers of the District be reimbursed for BCHD's excessive risk from the 30 year, unfunded obligation of the allcove building?
What services will be denied Resident Taxpayers due to the $30M unfunded obligation of the allcove building?
--
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; Communications; Planredondo; Kevin Cody
Subject: StopBCHD Board Member Poster Question (4/12)
Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 3:13:52 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment Mayor, Council
As a public service, StopBCHD will ask a daily question of Member Poster regarding the loss of Resident-Taxpayer services caused by BCHD's provision of non-resident services.
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/poster-question-of-the-day-4-12-excessive-taxpayer-funding-for-allcove Poster Question of the Day (4/12) - Excessive
Taxpayer Funding for allcove
Dear Ms Poster:
The allcove service area is by legal contract all of LA County SPA8. That is 1.4M population and the District represents only 9%. Therefore only 9% of allcove expenses are the responsibility of taxpayers of the District.
BCHD has committed to build a minimum 30 year operating facility for allcove in return for only 60% of the funding needed for the allcove building.
BCHD expects District Taxpayers to pay $4M of the building's $10M cost.
BCHD has provided a Public Records Act response that it will use a $4M Taxpayer-owned land parcel for the allcove building without any compensation to District Taxpayers.
BCHD expects District Taxpayers to "donate" $7.5M in "free" land rent to allcove ($250K/yr * 30 years) BCHD has no forward funding source to operate allcove or the allcove building for the required 30 years.
BCHD has obligated District Taxpayers to pay the $60M in operating costs for the required 30 year allcove and building operation if BCHD cannot find grant funding.
BCHD has proposed a possible $30M bond fund for partial allcove funding.
BCHD wants to obligate Taxpayers to pay any and all costs of allcove.
Why is BCHD even considering ANY COSTS that are more than the pro rata 9% service area share of District Taxpayers?
Why should BCHD District Resident-Taxpayers pay even one cent of the 91% non-resident cost of allcove?
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Stop BCHD
To: Stop BCHD; CityClerk; Planredondo
Subject: StopBCHD Public Comment to BCHD"s Letter in the Easy Reader Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 11:09:29 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Knowing BCHD, it's likely that the Vanessa Poster "Sand Box" letter cost tens of thousand$ of taxpayer fund$ in $alaries and consultant$ to write.
Poster's Rant
As Poster concludes her rant, she/they/them/consultants/contractors/etc wrote:
"It pains me that the City of Redondo Beach, my city, a city that I love and have called home for more than 30 years, has chosen to make a recommendation in the city’s general plan that constrains all of us in finding creative solutions to meet our community’s needs into the future."
StopBCHD's Response to Poster:
It pains US that BCHD's Vanessa Poster and the rest of its errant Board and $2.3M annual executive payroll believe that BCHD is justified in using ANY REDONDO BEACH PUBLIC LAND for 80% to 95% District NON-RESIDENT BENEFITS for the proposed HLC:
Assisted Living
80% non-resident tenants in a luxury assisted living facility by a 100% private developer (per BCHD costly consultants);
allcove
91% non-resident service area from Avalon to Long Beach (per LA County SPA8 contract area) and FREE taxpayer-owned land at Beryl & Flagler to boot! PACE
95% non-resident PACE enrollees in BCHD's planned 400 enrollee program (per BCHD investment bankers and the National PACE Assoc).
BCHD Damages
Redondo Beach and Torrance surrounding neighborhoods will suffer 100% of BCHD damages from traffic, noise, construction, and further property devaluation as BCHD HLC provides only 3% to 9% of its services to Redondo Beach residents (per BCHD MDS consultants, BCHD Cain investment bankers, LA County Health SPA8 allcove area, National PACE Assoc)
Ample Land for Development for the Future if USED FOR RESIDENTS If BCHD were not hell bent on squandering Redondo Beach Public land for 80% to 95% District non-resident use, we would have generations of land available - unlike Poster's claim.
BCHD is the cause of our lost Public Land. BCHD seeks to use our PUBLIC LAND (PI, P-CF) for the 80% to 95% benefit of NON-DISTRICT RESIDENTS. BCHD must return to servicing the "residents who reside" in the District.
IS FAR 0.75 TOO MUCH FOR BCHD?
BCHD plans to use 80% to 95% of the land for District Non-Resident service. Perhaps the FAR should be restructured based on a fraction of land use for Redondo Beach residents. We propose:
Base FAR 0.50 - Any PI facility with less than 50% Redondo Beach Resident services.
Enhanced FAR 0.75 - Any PI facility with at least 50% Redondo Beach Resident services Enhanced FAR 1.25 - Any PI facility with at least 75% Redondo Beach Resident services If a facility is being developed for non-residents, its development should be severely limited to protect RESIDENTS health, safety, and property values. --
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: Communications
Cc: CityClerk; Planredondo; Kevin Cody
Subject: When can StopBCHD.com expect Ms. Poster to reply to public questions? Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 1:34:23 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment Mayor, Council:
It is extremely clear that BCHD's proposed HLC is over 90% NON-RESIDENTS/NONTAXPAYERS of Redondo Beach. The questions directed to Ms. Poster go directly to the question of Benefits vs Damages by the proposed HLC. Per BCHD, Census, National PACE Assoc, and MDS data, only 91% maximum of the facility will be developed for Redondo Beach residents/taxpayers. Therefore, the questions of SPECIFIC VALUE TO REDONDO BEACH must be answered by Ms. Poster following her "Sand Box" statements. allcove - 95% Redondo Beach Non-Resident/Non-Taxpayer Service Area by BCHD contract with allcove for service to LA County SPA8 (1.4M population) PACE - 97% Redondo Beach Non-Resident/Non-Taxpayer enrollees based on National PACE Association data of 1 in 1000 seniors participating in PACE and Redondo Beach's senior population of 7,000 (implying only 7 of 400 PACE participants) RCFE - 91% Redondo Beach Non-Resident/Non-Taxpayers based on BCHD's MDS analysis by zipcode of tenancy of the 100% private facility.
--
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.