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 14, 2024
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: LTE - BCHD Proposed Bond
Date: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:45:39 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - Mayors, Councils, Counsels, and Finance Directors ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) < >
Date: Mon, May 13, 2024 at 1:59 AM
Subject: LTE - BCHD Proposed Bond
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Kudos to TBR for getting more information out about BCHD's new tax plan. However well intended, the resident-taxpayers of the three beach cities that founded and funded the District need to reject the cost burden of allcove. The allcove project services an area of 1.4M population from Avalon to Long Beach to the LAX area. The District residents are only 9% of that broad area, yet BCHD proposes that resident-taxpayers fork over $10M of the total $17M for the allcove building and upgrades.
That doesn't even count the $4M market value taxpayer-owned lot at Flagler & Beryl that BCHD is planning to provide at no cost to the allcove building for 30 years. But taxpayers are on the hook for more than the $10M for building upgrades and the $10M in free site rent.
BCHD agreed to operate the allcove building and its mental health services for a minimum of 30 years in return for the $6M State of California BHCIP construction grant. Using BCHD's proposed 2024-25 budget, the 30 year operation will cost about $100M and that risk is borne by District taxpayers, not the 1.4M population allcove service area.
Why does BCHD believe that District taxpayers should fund $20M in building costs and free rent, along with backstopping a $100M+ 30-year operating cost that BCHD traded for only $6M in state construction funds?
District residents are only 9% of the allcove service area, so why should District taxpayers bear more than 9% of the costs and risks of the project, instead of the 90% that BCHD currently seeks?
In 1957 when the District took the Prospect Avenue campus land from a private developer, the District told the Superior Court that it was for the benefit of the "residents who reside within the District." Why does BCHD now believe that it should be operating the allcove program for 91% non-residents outside the District at all?
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
3-year BCHD HLC Community Working Group Volunteer
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt Subject: Fwd: LTE
Date: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:48:09 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - Mayors, Councils, Counsels, and Finance Directors ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) < >
Date: Mon, May 13, 2024 at 2:43 AM
Subject: LTE
To: Judy Rae <[email protected]>
BCHD now wants a $30M taxpayer bond issue after it spent $4,500 per foot on a bike path? I don't think so.. The bond is supposedly for the allcove building and demolition of the South Bay Hospital building. Neither one of those proposals is a good use of District taxpayer funds. allcove is an LA County Service Planning Area 8 program that encompasses 1.4M population.
Of that, the District is only 120,000 or 9%. Why does BCHD believe that 9% of the service area should pay $10M for the allcove building and upgrades out of the total $17M cost? And the irrationality doesn't end there. BCHD received a meager $6M state grant toward the cost of the allcove building, and that grant required BCHD agree to operate the building and its health services for at least 30 years. BCHD has no funding past mid-2025 and that leaves District taxpayers at risk for the $100M that 30 years of allcove program operations will cost. Sure, BCHD will apply for grants year after year, but District residents and taxpayers are always the backstop for that $100M risk BCHD signed us up for. If grants don't completely fund it, District taxpayers, only 9% of the allcove service area, are on the hook.
BCHD continues to pitch the fiction that the hospital building must be torn down because it doesn't meet current seismic standards. That's nonsense. BCHD's Youssef consultants told the Community Working Group in writing that no upgrades are required to continue use of the building. None. My 2015 car doesn't meet current safety standards. My 2020 refrigerator doesn't meet current energy standards. My 1966 house doesn't meet current seismic standards.
Should I landfill the car and refrigerator and demolish the house? That's what BCHD suggests is the fiscally responsible solution. No thanks. Does anyone think demolishing their house or building that doesn't meet current standards is a good idea? I doubt it.
It's only fair that 9% of the allcove service area should pay 9% of the allcove service area costs, not 25% or 50% or 95%. Just 9%. No bond funding should be authorized for allcove beyond a maximum 9% of total allcove costs.
It's crazy talk to suggest that every building that doesn't meet current seismic standards should be demolished. If BCHD were truly concerned about the failed Hospital building's safety, why is it occupied today and collecting rent? Shouldn't BCHD ask the City to red-tag and vacate it today? No bond funding should be authorized based on the fiction that a building should be torn down as soon as it doesn't meet new build standards.
In 1957 when the District took the Prospect Avenue campus land from a private developer, the District told the Superior Court that it was for the benefit of the "residents who reside within the District." Why does BCHD now believe that it should be operating the allcove program for 91% non-residents outside the District at all? Many good questions for BCHD, but no good answers from BCHD. Just say NO to a BCHD bond for allcove and just say no to building demolition. .
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
3-year BCHD HLC Community Working Group Volunteer
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - BCHD"s Proposed Non-Resident Benefits and Unneeded Demo Bond Measure Date: Monday, May 13, 2024 9:12:39 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Kevin Cody; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Michael Webb; Nils Nehrenheim; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Todd Loewenstein; Scott Behrendt
Subject: Public Comment all Agencies and Electeds - BCHD is withholding important information from the public Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:50:31 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD needs to increase its transparency by coming clean with the FACTS of non-resident benefits of 80% to 95% of the proposed HLC
Will BCHD come clean that allcove is 91% non-resident service area (LA County SPA8)? Nah! Will BCHD come clean that PACE is 95% non-resident enrollees based on National PACE Assoc data? Nah!
Will BCHD come clean that the 100% PRIVATE assisted living is 80% non-resident tenants based on BCHD's MDS consultant study table 3-3? Nah!
Will BCHD come clean that it wants District taxpayers to pay 40% ($4M) of the cost of the allcove building - even though allcove is 91% non-resident service area? Will BCHD come clean that it plans to give free rent to the allcove building for 30 years (about $10M) - even though allcove is 91% non-resident service area? Will BCHD come clean that it signed DISTRICT TAXPAYERS UP to backstop 30 years of REQUIRED allcove building operations and maintenance and 30 years of REQUIRED allcove services - even though allcove is 91% non-resident service area? Will BCHD come clean that the allcove program is UNFUNDED after June of 2025? Transparent truthtelling is NOT a forte of BCHD.
--
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: PRR
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ON BCHDs LACK OF TRANSPARENCY Re: CPRA - PACE Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 1:34:28 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD's level of transparency is approaching ZERO PERCENT. BCHD asserts that it is planning a PACE facility, but refuses any comment beyond that.
BCHD asserts it plans to allow privatization of 3 acres of PUBLIC land for up to 95 years for a 100% owned and operated market rate RCFE.
Bakaly has stated in the Easy Reader News that the public will see the plans when they provided to the City of Redondo Beach and not before. THAT IS NOT TRANSPARENCY IN ANY FASHION.
The District Cities continue to be looped in with a request for assistance in supporting residents with BCHD transparency problem with the HLC planning.
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:17 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s follow-up response to your public records request received 2/19/24 that reads:
Provide ALL DOCUMENTS associated with the current PACE planning.
We are revisiting this request to clarify our understanding that “current PACE planning” means current finalized plans for the PACE program, which would not include plans that are under deliberation, subject to any third-party approval or are otherwise speculative in nature. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
From: PRR <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 1:51 PM
To: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Cc: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CPRA - PACE
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records request received 2/19/24 that reads:
Provide ALL DOCUMENTS associated with the current PACE planning.
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.
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.
Please note that if records you are seeking do not exist, BCHD has no obligation to create new records, or to obtain records from other sources, unless those sources are considered “prepared, owned, used by, or retained by” by the District.
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.
Please note that the District may not respond to questions or comments included with your request that are not themselves requests for identifiable public records under the California Public Records Act. The lack of response by the District to any such questions or comments, including follow-up questions and comments, is not an indication of the District’s position on any topic or item, and should not be presented as such to any person.
Thank you.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 12:28 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - PACE
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
BCHD is asserting in its January email that PACE is "next" after allcove.
Provide ALL DOCUMENTS associated with the current PACE planning.
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. PLEASE NOTE THAT
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT, ALONG WITH
ALL ATTACHMENTS OR OTHER ITEMS, MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. THE BEACH
CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CLAIMS,
LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE DISCLOSURE OR USE OF ANY
INFORMATION, DATA OR OTHER ITEMS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE.
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Subject: Public Comment to Public Agencies and Electeds, including but not limited to, Mayors, City Councils, City Counsels, Boards, Supervisors, Executive Directors, Executive Officers Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 7:43:27 PM
Attachments: bchd hosptial truth.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Public Officials and Electeds:
RESIDENT-TAXPAYERS DESERVE FULL DISCLOSURE FROM BCHD REGARDING ITS PROPOSED BOND MEASURE BCHD propagandists can have their own opinions, but NOT THEIR OWN FACTS. Resident-Taxpayers deserve FULL DISCLOSURE from BCHD on its voluntary retrofit/demolition, expensive cost of open space, and $150M risk obligation from allcove - a 91% non-resident program.
Please use the power of your offices and help Resident-Taxpayers get the truth. --
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; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment: BCHD"s misrepresentations of allcove cost responsibility Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 6:52:53 PM
Attachments: BCHD bond measure.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment to Public Agencies and Electeds, including but not limited to, Mayors, City Councils, City Counsels, Boards, Supervisors, Executive Directors, Executive Officers Dear Public Officials and Electeds:
BCHD REFUSES TO DISCLOSE THAT ALLCOVE BEACH CITIES IS 91% DISTRICT NONRESIDENT SERVICE AREA BCHD REFUSES TO DISCLOSE THAT THE 30 YEAR SERVICE AND BUILDING OBLIGATION TO RESIDENT TAXPAYERS IS ABOUT $150M
allcove Beach Cities is a creation of BCHD with a service area of 91% non-residents of BCHD. The service area is LA County SPA8, which has a 1.4M population. The District is only 120,000 of that 1.4M, or 9%.
However, in BCHD's public pitch for a bond measure to fund allcove and other costs, BCHD ignores disclosure of the massive non-resident cost risk to Residents for only 9% of the service area.
BCHD agreed to operate the allcove building and services for 30 years, and to add a deed restriction on the District taxpayer owned $4M+ market value land parcel. That agreement encumbers District taxpayers for a potential 30-year cost stream as the funders of last resort. That would be approximately $100M to operate the allcove service; $10M to operate the allcove building; $10M in donated land rent for the Taxpayer-owned parcel; and other miscellaneous cost categories.
This is unacceptable and unfair to District residents and we need LA County to step in, take over the funding and operation of allcove.
The Real Issues to District Taxpayers
Analysis References:
Resident Taxpayer Financial Risk
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/152m-allcove-beach-cities-30-year-cost-risk-obligation-to-district-taxpayers-fora-6-3m-state allcove 91% Non-resident
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/ending-the-bchd-doublespeak-on-phase-1-use-11-of-the-usage-benefit-will-be- resident-taxpayers
BCHD's PROPAGANDA DOCUMENT WITHOUT FULL DISCLOSURE
--
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; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment: BCHD"s misrepresentations of seismic retrofit obligation Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 7:18:27 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment to Public Agencies and Electeds, including but not limited to, Mayors, City Councils, City Counsels, Boards, Supervisors, Executive Directors, Executive Officers
Dear Public Officials and Electeds:
BCHD USES MISDIRECTION AND INNUENDO TO MISLEAD VOTERS INTO BELIEVING THERE IS A CURRENT SEISMIC ISSUE AT BCHD The following is from the Youssef & Assoc presentation to the Community Working Group of BCHD and the BCHD Board.
Youssef clearly states:
1) Best Practice is represented by the LA Seismic Retrofit Ordinance 2) The ordinance DOES NOT apply to Redondo Beach or BCHD 3) The ordinance allows for 25 years to complete all retrofit or demolition work 4) ANY SEISMIC WORK AT BCHD IS VOLUNTARY
Clearly there is no imminent risk to life or structure based on a 25-year BEST PRACTICE to Retrofit
BCHD IS INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING VOTERS AND THE PUBLIC - HERE'S WHAT YOUSSEF PRESENTED AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE RETROFIT NOR DEMOLITION FOR DECADES!
BCHD's MISLEADING PROPAGANDA
BCHD can WANT to demo the building, but there is NO NEED to do so. And surely any competent reading of Youssef above shows that the building does not require demolition for decades - AND NEVER REQUIRES ANY RETROFIT. BCHD MUST FULLY DISCLOSE TO VOTERS AND RESIDENTTAXPAYERS --
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: PRR
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: CPRA - Updated HLC Projections
Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 11:36:39 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Thank you.
BCHD continues to refuse to provide PACE information, despite the fact that it is proposed on Taxpayer-owned land and the planning is being done with Taxpayer funding.
Otherwise, the 2019 Report, Exhibit 3-3 demonstrates that the RCFE is expected to be 20% District Tenants and only 9% Redondo Beach Tenants.
The allcove SPA8 definition demonstrates that 91% of the service area are non-residents and only 9% are District residents and only 5% are Redondo Beach residents.
In the absence of BCHD providing any PACE data, the National PACE Association statistics show that a 400 enrollee PACE facility would have only 5% District enrollees, and only 3% Redondo Beach enrollees.
This is a very low usage fraction of Resident Usage of facilities on land that was condemned for the benefit of "residents who reside within the District." cc: Mayors, Councils, City Counsels of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:54 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:
Provide documents for the following as of 4/30/24:
1) Most current publicly available RCFE projections for resident-tenants from 90254, 90266, 90277, 90278 in the proposed HLC RCFE
2) Most current publicly available PACE projections for resident-enrollees from 90254, 90266, 90277, 90278 in the proposed BCHD PACE facility
3) Changes, if any, to the publicly allcove LA County SPA8 service area.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: CPRA - Updated HLC Projections
Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 12:25:53 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment Update, Mayors, Councils, Counsels of District Cities While all recipients of the Public Comment likely know this already - the Public Records Act does not REQUIRE BCHD to withhold documents such as the PACE planning materials and correspondence. It may allow BCHD to be non-Transparent, but the law does not REQUIRE BCHDs LACK OF TRANSPARENCY on PACE planning correspondence and materials.
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:35 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:
Thank you.
BCHD continues to refuse to provide PACE information, despite the fact that it is proposed on Taxpayer-owned land and the planning is being done with Taxpayer funding.
Otherwise, the 2019 Report, Exhibit 3-3 demonstrates that the RCFE is expected to be 20% District Tenants and only 9% Redondo Beach Tenants.
The allcove SPA8 definition demonstrates that 91% of the service area are non-residents and only 9% are District residents and only 5% are Redondo Beach residents.
In the absence of BCHD providing any PACE data, the National PACE Association statistics show that a 400 enrollee PACE facility would have only 5% District enrollees, and only 3% Redondo Beach enrollees.
This is a very low usage fraction of Resident Usage of facilities on land that was condemned for the benefit of "residents who reside within the District." cc: Mayors, Councils, City Counsels of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:54 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) wrote:
Provide documents for the following as of 4/30/24:
1) Most current publicly available RCFE projections for resident-tenants from 90254, 90266, 90277, 90278 in the proposed HLC RCFE
2) Most current publicly available PACE projections for resident-enrollees from 90254, 90266, 90277, 90278 in the proposed BCHD PACE facility
3) Changes, if any, to the publicly allcove LA County SPA8 service area.