City Council on 2024-10-01 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 10-01-24 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2024-10-01 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
10-01-24
18:00
67 74 21 45 2
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2024-10-01 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 10-01-24 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
H.11. 24-1591 APPROVE AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH THE JL
GROUP, LLC TO CONDUCT INDEPENDENT WORKPLACE
INVESTIGATIONS ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS FOR A TERM OF ONE
YEAR
1 0 1 0
J.1. 24-1575 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 4 0 1 0 L.1. 24-1620 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, AND
RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT ON UPDATES TO FIVE GENERAL PLAN
ELEMENTS (LAND USE, OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION, NOISE,
AND SAFETY), ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ZONING
ORDINANCES AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND
CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROCEDURES:
1. Open the public hearing; and
2. Take public testimony; and
3. Provide policy direction to staff; and
4. Continue the public hearing to October 15, 2024
69 21 43 2
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for H.11. 24-1591 APPROVE AN ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH THE JL GROUP, LLC TO CONDUCT
INDEPENDENT WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR Overall Sentiment
Austin Carmichael
Location:
Submitted At: 11:28am 09-29-24
In addition to the typo not caught on page 2 ("...shall be provided by the IPS."; should be "ISP") this is another example of my lack of confidence in the Director of HR. Since 2015, unable to write up anti-harassment and other workplace safety policies and make them available to the public, jeopardizing a grant by waiting 18 months to post and source the Water & Economic Development Manager role, submitting a role in the last budget session for a Risk Manager with a total comp of over $200K, and now needing to outsource workplace investigations, leaving the fee schedule up to the vendor to simply send an invoice in? Why is the person that holds a title that suggests they are the go to person seem to not be the go to person for BASIC HR functions. Workplace investigations needing to be outsourced ended back in 2018 when all organizations established rules, provided training of said rules, and engaged in continuing education on how to perform effective workplace investigations.
Any matter, in 2024, can be accomplished in about 15-20 hours MAX especially in this day and age of Zoom etc.
To accept a proposal that includes reimbursement for mileage (zoom) or transcripts (again, a feature of zoom) and a host of roles (atty investigator: $350/hr; pvt investigator: $250/hr; paralegal/legal assistant: $125/hr; hearing standby fee: $450/hr min. 4 hours) leaves the city open to significant risk. I've managed an HR department of a company size of 400-1500 people by myself and have accomplished more than the current person and continue to be at a loss as to how this poor performance is allowed to continue. Mr. City Manager, City Council, Mr. City Attorney, we MUST do better.
Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 24-1575 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Executive Director StopBCHD.com
Location:
Submitted At: 10:40am 10-01-24
#1 COMMENT
BCHD accepted $175M, 30-year unfunded allcove operations liability for servicing SPA8 in exchange for a $6.3M grant. No financial analysis was done by BCHD. We don’t want the Los Medanos Health District federal BK judge outcome forced on residents.
For a $6.3M grant,
BCHD gave up control of the $5M parcel at Flagler & Beryl; and BCHD volunteered to provide allcove services to all of LA County SPA8 (1.4M population) for 30 years with no long-term funding.
Bottom line, the City and taxpayers need to put an END to this $6.3M allcove grant agreement and leave allcove in the ocean view 514 building. Next question, is this malfeasance or misfeasance? #2 COMMENT
Property values within ½-mile of BCHD are $180M lower than Market Statistical models of property values show home value depression within ½-mile of the BCHD campus. Redondo Beach property owners lost $104.7M. Torrance owners lost $73.8M. The real estate literature is full of articles on property value damages from being adjacent to Commercial/Industrial/Hospitals, etc. RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review states that its intent is to “protect property values.” It doesn’t seem to be working, and BCHD’s planned 792,520 sqft, site perimeter built, 110 foot above Beryl monolith is going to further decay values.
#3 COMMENT
The Gallup Study’s $182M in Health Savings are NOT Related to BCHD.
First off, Gallups comparison of the Beach Cities health to Honey Boo Boo’s US average makes no sense. The best weasel words that Gallup could muster as part of a $400K contract were “the savings are likely, in part, due to BCHD”. Based on a statistical analysis with LA County Health’s database of SPA8 cities, BCHD’s impact on health outcomes is statistically not significant. And if it were, it was negative – meaning that the Beach Cities UNDERPERFORM in health outcomes relative to our high income levels.
Linda Buck
Location:
Submitted At: 5:13pm 09-29-24
FAR RESTRICTIPN FOR BCHD. FAR FOR FAR FOR ALL. LOVE BCHD AND ALL THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE OUR COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY YOURH MENTAL HEALTH. THIS REDUCTION IN THE FAR ONLY IMPACTS BCHD AND WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT SERVICES.
Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 12:30pm 09-29-24
Wake up Mayor and Council. Stop giving in to the 30 people who oppose the Beach Cities health District for their own selfish reasons.
First, We here in district 4 will be taking on 650 new housing units at the mall for the benefit of the whole city. The sales revenue from an updated mall will benefit everyone, and people need to stop thinking about themselves and think about what’s best for Redondo. If you can tell the people of district 4 that we need to accept housing units, then you can tell Mark Nelson, Candy, and their little gang of 30 people over there in D3 to deal with BCHD expansion.
The residents of Redondo Beach voted back in 1955 for a community hospital and it is what it is.
Second, I’m hearing people complaining that they want more parks and here is BCHD offering to create giant open space and now those same people are saying we have too many parks? People are talking out of both sides of their mouth, and as the leaders of Redondo, it is your job to stop letting the tiny minority of 30 people From putting the city at risk for liability. BCHD has a strong case for a winnable lawsuit because you are giving them an unfair lower floor area ratio compared to everyone else which is why they are resorting to trying to pass a bond measure.
Finally, BCHD is why we have the garden at the schools, why we are a blue zone, why we have mental health services for all, why we are able to help seniors age in place, etc.
You need to do the right thing and give BCHD the same FAR as everyone else. End of story.
Marie Puterbaugh
Location:
Submitted At: 11:45am 09-29-24
I am so sad to see so many letters to the editor in the Easy Reader and Beach Reporter from the same 3 people soliciting the community to "STOP BCHD" as if BCHD were a menace. Is a boat ramp to entertain yacht club members more important to the mayor and city council versus services to combat the loneliness epidemic, youth mental health crisis, fentanyl crisis, addiction and substance abuse and the growing population of aging adults that need housing? Why are we seeing somebody who was "heartily endorsed" by City Council majority (yet failed to win an election after trying several times) so vocally speak against BCHD? Does targeting BCHD's FAR to 0.5 versus allowing city/fire/police a FAR of 1.25 invite expensive litigation when you are asking residents to approve a large bond? Is the only way to get anything done in Redondo via a lawsuit? It seems to me, yes. No wonder City Council and Bill Brand were on the front page of the LA Times 11/14/22 for "Nastiness" but how embarrassing for Redondo!
Agenda Item: eComments for L.1. 24-1620 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, AND RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT ON
UPDATES TO FIVE GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (LAND USE, OPEN SPACE & CONSERVATION, NOISE, AND SAFETY),
ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCES AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, AND CERTIFICATION
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROCEDURES:
1. Open the public hearing; and
2. Take public testimony; and
3. Provide policy direction to staff; and
4. Continue the public hearing to October 15, 2024
Overall Sentiment
Lara Duke
Location:
Submitted At: 5:59pm 10-01-24
The General Plan I know covers many things, and was inspired by the hard work of residents on the GPAC, who met for several years to hammer out this plan. I thank them and those on the Planning Commission for what has led us here today and I thank you on the Council for the work you're about to embark on this evening and in coming meetings.
A .5 FAR on public zoned land is more than reasonable. It's what the Planning Commission has recommended and I hope you will concur with them. They also felt that a 1.25 FAR should apply to emergency services like Fire and Police, the way it currently is for the Civic Center. But having seen what 1.25 looks like, thanks to Chair Hazeltine for asking the city staff to show what various FARs around town look like, even 1.25 allows for collosal structures. I challenge you to propose an even lower FAR for them. Just because it's fire and police doesn't mean a successful facility must bulk out every square inch of the property with structures. I know especially if their bond passes their dream may be to have a 4.0 FAR, but the reality is that these zones should be made to adhere to the specific purposes and standards of a public zone. They are: Maintain a high level of quality and character in the city's residential neighborhoods. Ensure the public buildings and uses are designed to be compatible with other buildings and uses on the site and with the neighborhood in which they are located.
Our own Planning Manager Sean Scully has commented on the built out and park poor nature of Redondo Beach. This is not a made up notion. We must try to preserve Redondo's land, especially the public zoned land.
There are only 5 or 6 of these parcels in the entire city and they are special. We should even consider re-wilding efforts on these properties since they are so rare. Open space should not be treated as a bad term. It actually keeps us from going crazy.
Vish Chatterji
Location:
Submitted At: 5:59pm 10-01-24
Redondo Beach's approach to city planning seems to be severely hindered by a local out-of-touch retired generation that is both loud and unwilling to let go of their outdated ways. To try to relive their glory days of 1980's Redondo Beach, they just cannot allow a youthful and modern-minded approach to our planning ordinances. As some grandparents can be with their grandkids, a ridiculous nostalgia for the way things used to be 40 years ago is preventing us from moving into the current century, and thus we are saddled with broken and failing infrastructure from our pier, to our police station, to our malls to our health district. Property developers who would invest to develop our city are scared away from investing in Redondo due to the this loud and anti-progress faction that influences our local politics. Anyone observing this multiple reduction in FAR can easily see the heartburn of any developer who would dare to try to improve our infrastructure or invest in our city.
As our neighboring towns prosper with new, compelling and vibrant, development, we instead stagnate, argue and prevent anything new from happening. And now here we are attacking a Jewel of the South Bay, The Beach Cities Health District. When I arrived in Redondo Beach as a young parent 16 years ago, part of my pride of living here was all that BCHD provided, so much so that I volunteered to run and serve as a Board Director. I then experienced firsthand, this odd out-of-touch retitired group, yell and verbally attack me just because I wanted our Health District to catch up with current times. Now I see this same faction of 60-plus locals trying to destroy BCHD through this FAR adjustment. If only the "kids" such as me in the neighbourhood had a louder voice to be as active in shaping local politics as the retired folk - what a town we would have. But alas we are in the time of our lives building careers and raising kids, so here we are being drowned out by the retired and grumpy old men, and women of yester years.
Vish Chatterji; Former Board Director, Beach Cities Health District Alisa Dodds
Location:
Submitted At: 5:59pm 10-01-24
The voices of Redondo Beach residents have made it clear that we support the city’s planning commission and approve their recommendations which includes the 0.5 FAR on public institutional property.
Wendy Vinzant
Location:
Submitted At: 5:58pm 10-01-24
I strongly oppose the reduction of FAR to 0.5.
Robert Dodds
Location:
Submitted At: 5:57pm 10-01-24
I approve the general plan recommendations as made by the planning commission which includes the 0.5 FAR on public institutional property.
Jennifer Goldstein
Location:
Submitted At: 5:53pm 10-01-24
I strongly OPPOSE the newly proposed FAR on 0.5 for BCHD. _Keep Public Institutional Use Levels the Same for the Health District and City - Support a 1.25 FAR!! Initially, a 0.75 FAR was considered for BCHD’s campus by the Planning Commission, but it was recently reduced – without being studied – even further to 0.50, while select City of Redondo Beach properties, which have the same land use designation, are allowed a 1.25 FAR.
Cheryl Hartzell
Location:
Submitted At: 5:43pm 10-01-24
I cannot do anything but oppose any measure that hinders, let alone jeopardizes, the wonderful services that the BCHD provides. I speak from personal experience & from what I have been told by others in the same situation as I have been. My wife began showing dementia signs in late 2018. It accelerated quickly & by 2022 she had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I was at a loss when a dear friend introduced me to a BCHD representative & I became a BCHD client. Immediately, we were assigned a care manager & doors opened for me. She came to our house, talked with my wife & with me, did a short assessment, & realized again, I'm sure that she was taking on two clients, not one: my wife with her Alzheimer's & me struggling to accept & accommodate the reality of the situation & its inevitable course. We were straight away informed of seemingly innumerable resources. One group aimed at making the unfolding events understandable & how to deal with them; another with support resources which I clearly needed. She was always concerned about both of us on our separate but linked journies & monitored each of us as we responded to the unfolding inevitable course we were on. When it reached the point where I was unable to care for my wife alone, she found us sources for reliable in-home caregivers; a boon to both me & my wife. As it became clear that I was succumbing to stress, she set me down for one of those dreaded conversations that begins, "Gary, we need to talk ..." She pulled no punches, but all of them were delivered with obvious concern & compassion. My wife now lives in an assisted living and memory care residence. That move put me in touch with other spouses who were trying to find their way through this excruciating experience. I also helped create a very informal support group through the MB Community Church; 6 of us whose wives were slipping away - another chance to share our stories. I tell you all this because I found that many of these men, perhaps most, had sought out & received many BCHD services. I, & they, have a vested interest in seeing such services endure. I strongly urge you NOT to endorse a measure that could possibly reduce or eliminate any of them.
Viera Shetty
Location:
Submitted At: 5:41pm 10-01-24
I approve the general plan recommendations as made by the planning commission which includes the 0.5 FAR on public institutional property.
Niki Negrete-Mitchell
Location:
Submitted At: 5:35pm 10-01-24
I support the Planning Commission’s recommendation for amendments to land use, open space, etc. Let’s keep Redondo Redondo and not try to be something we’re not.
Gloria Cox
Location:
Submitted At: 5:32pm 10-01-24
By Michael Martin
Support
Public Comments regarding city council item L1, October 01, 2024 at 1:59pm PDT I attended the latest planning commission meeting, and concur with their recommemdations. Deliberations were based on objective data covering all PI sites, the majority of which are currently zoned with undefined FAR (which the state no longer allows). The main motivation for a large FAR is to increase incentive to convert public land to private development, which is no a desirable public policy goal. kimberly Quihuis
Location:
Submitted At: 5:29pm 10-01-24
I support BCHD plan to move forward with their healthy living campus development.
John Cox
Location:
Submitted At: 5:28pm 10-01-24
Mark Miodovski
Support
Public Comments regarding city council item L1, September 30, 2024 at 9:11pm PDT "The City’s Planning Commission should be congratulated for its excellent recommendation for a 0.5 FAR to general Public/Institutional (P/I) use. I do not support an increase to 1.25 FAR for all P/I use, since it would "upzone" every P/I parcel and create the potential for reckless development that is not consistent with neighborhood character and would not protect property values. Please support the work of our citizen commission, and do not bow to the special interests supporting a 1.25 FAR. Thank you." Doris Donlou-Richmond
Location:
Submitted At: 5:27pm 10-01-24
This will have negative implications on our school district who owns many pieces of land in our city. The right to develop those pieces of land has always allowed our school district to be in a far better fiscal situation than our surrounding schools districts. Lowering the FAR for public spaces which includes our public schools will significantly affect their options in the future which will ultimately have a negative impact on the students of the Redondo Beach Unified. School District. Please vote NO! Cee-Cee Murphy
Location:
Submitted At: 5:22pm 10-01-24
I oppose, and have lost all faith in the integrity of our city leadership.
Nainsi Skiba
Location:
Submitted At: 5:17pm 10-01-24
I agree with the General Plan recommendations as made by the Planning Commission, especially as regards the
0.5 FAR on public institutional property.
~ Nancy Skiba
Maricela Guillermo
Location:
Submitted At: 5:14pm 10-01-24
We STRONGLY support the recommendation of the Planning Commission for a 0.5 FAR for P/I land use to match the density of the surrounding light commercial and residential land uses. Their recommendation is well thought out and considers the residents of our beloved city. An increase to a 1.25 FAR for all P/I land use, without regard for the surroundings, would be highly damaging to the character and quality of life in the city.
Additionally, we would greatly appreciate it if the Council considered the PCH corridor in its entirety and developed a solid plan that better integrates its existing zoning and character with future land use. With the current narrow, congested lanes and lack of a median, it’s more critical than ever to take a comprehensive approach, as much as possible, to improve safety and accessibility.
Jeep Suddeth
Location:
Submitted At: 5:08pm 10-01-24
I agree with the General Plan recommendations as made by the Planning Commission, especially as regards the
0.5 FAR on public institutional property.
G P Suddeth
Laura Zahn
Location:
Submitted At: 5:07pm 10-01-24
I support the .05 FAR for Public Institutional (P/I) land m. The Planning Commission is taking important steps to protect Public Institutional (P/I) land and resident’s quality of life. I support the proposed 0.5 FAR for P/I land use to ensure reasonable development levels. I also support the 1.25 FAR for Public Safety ( Fire and Police) land uses, as they service the mandatory emergency services to Redondo Beach. Please support the Planning Commission’s recommendations for P/I (0.5) and Public Safety (1.25) FARS. Laura Zahn 2308 and 2306 Grant Avenue Redondo Beach,90278… Beneficiary of the Kay T. Zahn Revokable Trust Kari Chatterji
Location:
Submitted At: 5:06pm 10-01-24
Please do not target BCHD’s ability to grow by targeting BCHD’s FAR! As a community leader I support BCHD and everyone I know does to. Don’t listen to these people stuck in the past and preventing our community to develop and grow!
Yash Jha
Location:
Submitted At: 4:56pm 10-01-24
I strongly oppose the reduction of FAR to 0.5.
I serve as a youth representative for the BCHD — meaning I know first-hand how helpful programs like allcove, LiveWell Kids, and our numerous other programs targeted towards youth are. I know how much effort we put in to create a healthy and safe environment for the children that will soon be the adults of our communities. Reducing the FAR to 0.5 would prove a huge detriment to that.
By effectively shutting down several of our initiatives — our Center for Health & Fitness, our social workers, our projects designated specifically to help youth struggling with mental health or substance abuse (a issue I’ve seen in tremendous quantity, and one on the rise all throughout our communities), — we are effectively crippling our communities. I personally know too many students who struggle everyday in school, too many older adults neglected, and too many people who unfortunately never got the chance to seek help. BCHD has the power to and has supported our community in a myriad of ways. allcove — giving youth a place to talk, learn, grow, exist in a way that teachers so much more than that of the classroom. Blue Zones, improving biking, walking, physical and mental health. Our Center for Health & Fitness, giving everyone a chance to decompress, work out, and stay physically fit. These are just a few examples, food programs for elementary schoolers, substance abuse for middle schoolers, etc.
I implore you to reconsider this action. The amount of people that would be hurt by this decision far outweigh any possibility of good that could come of this decision. The amount of youth that wouldn’t have access to resources that could change the course of their lives far outweighs any good that could come of this decision. The amount of elders, of toddlers, of elementary schoolers, the list goes on.
The bottom line is this: The BCHD simply cannot operate with a FAR of 0.5. Our programs would be cut, we wouldn’t have enough funding to maintain our sites, we wouldn’t be able to help people — and definitely not those who need it. This would be a catastrophic disservice to our communities. Public health must come first. Thank you.
Tory Lehrer
Location:
Submitted At: 4:50pm 10-01-24
The planning commission held multiple meetings to discuss the General Plan work of the GPAC. I know because I watched them on cable! The .50 recommended FAR makes total sense and to not approve it is against wellreasoned discussion and thought. People saying anything other than it was discussed at length are not being honest.
I have noticed some of them making e-comments here that should know this because THEY MADE COMMENTS AT THE PRIOR COMMISSION MEETINGS!
Seriously people do you think we are too out of touch to know when you are not telling the truth! Peter Aziz
Location:
Submitted At: 4:36pm 10-01-24
I oppose the limiting of the FAR on public buildings in our city. The planning commission failed to acknowledge many aspects of the work that went into the general plan in previous sessions and again rammed this down without properly agendizing this item in previous meetings.
The BCHD is an asset to our community for many reasons. One of which in how I was able to tend to my job while also balancing the chemo treatments of my late father simply because a BCHD program that provided the resources for additional assistance for a care giver to come to my home twice a week.
Please do the right thing and assess this objectively. We've had too much corruption in council as it is as well as unequipped individuals who sit on the planning commission making very subjective decisions not in the best interest of all of the residents who benefit from such an institution..infact BCHD also assists a neighbor of mine and his son who where both also diagnosed with cancer in transportation and prescription costs.
BCHD does good work, allow them to continue to do this good work instead of limiting their abilities to execute, and opening the city to another frivolous lawsuit because of anti development sentiments.
Tim Ryan
Location:
Submitted At: 4:34pm 10-01-24
I totally agree with the planning commission on the 0.5 FAR . Makes sense and I support it 100%. Not sure what these other people who obviously work for BCHD are all on about. This reduced FAR choice is the best option for ALL the city not just for a small group that is scaring people into writing an email to the city council.
Gianna Mitchell
Location:
Submitted At: 4:31pm 10-01-24
As a stakeholder in another project experiencing the bullying and gaslighting of corporate shills, I strongly denounce tactics used by BCHD and in no way should we allow any entity to set up our community for this kind of overdevelopment in any part of it. We need to care for our land which can easily be overburdened and open to disastrous consequences. Therefore, as a 43 year resident, I am IN FULL SUPPORT of the Planning Commission's recommendation for a 0.5 FAR to general Public/Institutional (P/I) use. I do not support an increase to 1.25 FAR for all P/I use, since it would "upzone" every P/I parcel and create the potential for reckless development that is not consistent with neighborhood character and would not protect property values. This is something I am very familiar with due to the position I am in in my side of town.
Qiong Lei
Location:
Submitted At: 4:16pm 10-01-24
I oppose the reduction of FAR to 0.5, at least it should remain the same 0.77 as is. With the current 0.77 FAR of BCHD, it barely meets the needs of residents especially for seniors and teens. The construction planning should aim for the future at least 50 years' needs, therefore, with limited land area, FAR should be increased.
Heidi Yao
Location:
Submitted At: 4:12pm 10-01-24
I oppose the .50 FAR allocation and support the 1.25 FAR for the BCHD because reducing it threatens vital services that are essential for our community, especially for our youth. Having moved to the South Bay from other parts of LA, I have come to appreciate the friendly, "safe" environment and the exceptional educational opportunities, community events and a variety of programs we have along the South Bay Beach Cities. As an educator, a parent, a mental health advocate, a counselor in training, a volunteer for BCHD and a BCHD Parent Health and Wellness Liaison for my kids' school, I see firsthand how important BCHD programs are for prevention and support; cutting this would undermine crucial public health initiatives, making it harder for our community to address rising mental health crises and other pressing health needs.. and maybe without this the Beach Cities won't be as safe or a highly rated community anymore.
JB Abrahams
Location:
Submitted At: 4:07pm 10-01-24
I support the Planning Commission recommendation of 0.5 FAR for Public Institutional properties and public safety sites are not included in that restriction. For those properties used by Fire and Police they should be higher at 1.25 as they service the community daily!
Jessica Gonzales
Location:
Submitted At: 3:59pm 10-01-24
The Planning Commission made the correct recommendation on creating a category for Public Safety properties (Fire Stations and Police HQ). Also for restricting the FAR to 0.5 for all other Public Institutional properties. This makes the most sense for Redondo Beach.
El Puterbaugh
Location:
Submitted At: 3:32pm 10-01-24
I support BCHD.
Jill Klausen
Location:
Submitted At: 3:10pm 10-01-24
I fully support the 0.5 FAR as recommended by the Planning Commission, who spent months reviewing all of the data and fielding questions and comments from the public before coming to their recommendation.
Brian Wolfson
Location:
Submitted At: 3:07pm 10-01-24
Public Comments regarding city council item L1, October 1, 2024.
It’s clear the BCHD is "fronting" for developers and a school district that wants to be a developer. Now on top of that, the Redondo Beach city council is considering increasing the amount of development to be permitted in parks, on school grounds and in other public sites like the beach cities prospect campus. The city, which was committed to carefully managing development, is now considering an expansion to the floor area ratio for public spaces. Could this lead to the development of every city park and public school site? Far fetched? Yes, no, maybe. Rather than safeguard rare open space for future generations, the city council will consider adopting density increases the state of California isn’t asking cities to adopt. How weird is that? The city and the BCHD are acting like proxies for developers. It’s shocking, and short sighted. On the other hand, the city’s planning commission should be applauded for its efforts to protect public property and adopt a .5 FAR. As this item works its way through the process, we’ll see whether the city council shares the commission’s insight and shows they too are committed to good governance and are unfazed by developers who seek to build bigger regardless of the impacts to the community.
Adopt a Public Institution zoned FAR of either 0.5 (as recommended), or less; BUT, DO NOT DISCUSS OR APPROVE A FAR OF MORE THAN 0.84 (because the EIR does not support any greater FAR, and there is no benefit to or possiblity of simply "starting over" with a new or recirculated EIR).
Amy Huh
Location:
Submitted At: 2:53pm 10-01-24
Beach Cities Health District is an important resource to the people of Redondo Beach.
Please support a 1.25 FAR and fair treatment and save BCHD's programs:
Andy Shelby
Location:
Submitted At: 2:46pm 10-01-24
I oppose the .50 FAR for the BCHD. This is way too low. It just does not make sense for the needs of the BCHD, what they offer, what they bring to the community, and the impact they have on the South Bay. I appreciate having such a unique entity in my backyard and want to support them as they make changes for the future.
Compared to other sites and what they will bring to the community, a FAR of 1.0 to 1.25 would make sense.
Jane Bell
Location:
Submitted At: 2:16pm 10-01-24
I am writing to oppose cutting the FAR allocation for the property currently in use by the Beach Cities Health District. Doing so would severely reduce the income available to support and implement the many BCHD programs, one of which is the Beach Cities Gym.
As a Medicare recipient, I joined the Beach Cities Gym when my AARP United Healthcare supplement offered a no-additional charge membership as a benefit. Since joining the gym in March, 2023, I have been attending classes or using the equipment 5-6 days per week when I’m not traveling out of the area. Not only has participation in the gym programs benefitted my physical health, but it has been a great boon to my mental health as well. Since retiring, it has been much harder to maintain social interaction without the structure and built-in daily social interaction of the workplace. The gym (much to my surprise) has become an important part of my day and my social life; I look forward to seeing friendly faces each day when I attend class and appreciate the sense of wellbeing after a good cardio or strength workout. I would be much more isolated without it, even if I found other ways to exercise!
The Beach Cities Gym is a special place. Not only is it a clean, well-maintained facility with well-qualified teachers and staff who provide a wide variety of class options, but it attracts a community of people committed to wellness. It is a gift to the South Bay that should be valued, not cut back or eliminated! Michael Martin
Location:
Submitted At: 1:59pm 10-01-24
I attended the latest planning commission meeting, and concur with their recommemdations. Deliberations were based on objective data covering all PI sites, the majority of which are currently zoned with undefined FAR (which the state no longer allows). The main motivation for a large FAR is to increase incentive to convert public land to private development, which is no a desirable public policy goal.
Angela Wilson
Location:
Submitted At: 1:56pm 10-01-24
As the Director of Mental Health at South Bay Children's Health Center, I unequivocally oppose the .50 FAR on BCHD. For over 75 years, our non-profit agency has been a cornerstone of the Redondo Beach community, thriving through deep-rooted partnerships with organizations like BCHD. With more than 20 years of experience working directly with youth and families and overseeing a dedicated team of 50 therapists across the South Bay, I can state with conviction that we cannot afford to jeopardize the essential mental health services that BCHD allcove provides. This resource is vital for individuals who summon the courage to seek help and support.
BCHD allcove is not just a service; it is a lifeline for our community—one that local non-profits, school districts, community colleges, and families rely on, especially in this critical time of heightened mental health needs. We have worked tirelessly to dismantle the stigma surrounding mental health, and we now witness teens actively supporting their friends in seeking help. We must not send a message of abandonment or defeat. Instead, let us unite in our commitment to foster a supportive environment for those in need. Together, we can ensure that our community remains a safe haven for all who seek help. Now is the time to stand firm and advocate for the mental health resources that our community deserves.
Angela Wilson, LMFT
Director of Mental Health
South Bay Children's Health Center
Teri Neustaedter
Location:
Submitted At: 1:33pm 10-01-24
I write to oppose the .50 FAR and to support the 1.25 FAR for all public institutions in Redondo Beach, including the Beach Cities Health District’s (BCHD) property. This is especially true for BCHD since it is SHARED with two other cities: Hermosa and Manhattan Beaches. Reduction of the FAR would impact vital and enriching services and programs that would effect all residents of the 3 cities.
Over my 9 years as a Hermosa Beach resident, I have had the opportunity to observe the quality of the work provided by the staff and volunteers of BCHD. They truly support the health of our community and improve the quality of our lives! Examples of the excellent work of BCHD include: school fitness and nutrition programs, mindful classroom lessons, substance abuse prevention programs, community services for elderly residents, walking groups, the Blue Zones project and more. The BCHD volunteer program creates a strong sense of community as well as opportunities for youth. The Center for Health and Fitness provides excellent classes and a gym where people are able to gather. I personally volunteered for the Blue Zones Program for several years and the influence it has on our communities makes them healthier and happier! The opening of allcove Beach Cities has greatly improved access to a range of needed youth services, including mental health, physical health, substance use counseling and grief support. The center serves the entire area, including the Beach Cities, Torrance, El Segundo, Hawthorn, Lawndale and all of Service Planning Area 8.
At this time, I am asking that the Redondo Beach City Council support the work of BCHD in developing the Healthy Living Campus so that BCHD can continue its excellent work that benefits 3 beach cities. This would mean approving the 1.25 FAR.
Thank you
Teri Mufic Neustaedter
Hermosa Beach resident and BCHD Frequent User
Laura McIntire
Location:
Submitted At: 1:23pm 10-01-24
As the founder of South Bay Families Connected, a BCHD community partner in youth wellness since 2016, I have personally seen the positive impact of BCHD’s youth mental health programs on students in the Beach Cities. Over the past eight years, the volume and quality of free youth-wellness education events, as well as the many effective support groups provided to families are directly due to BCHD’s efforts, and have resulted in demonstrable improvements in youth mental health and a corresponding decrease in youth substance use.
Perhaps most compelling for me are the individual stories from parents sharing the challenges that their children are facing, and expressing deep appreciation that they have somewhere to turn for effective support and resources. Many have said the programs have been life-saving. And, now, with the addition of allcove and the state and county funding that BCHD’s staff were able to obtain, Beach Cities families can access free mental health counseling services that were previously unavailable, including suicide prevention and early detection of significant mental health issues. The long-term impact of these programs, and the need for these services in our community cannot be overstated.
Andy Dellenbach
Location:
Submitted At: 1:02pm 10-01-24
I oppose the proposed .50 FAR for BCHD that was recommended by the Planning Commission. BCHD provides valuable services to our community, just like our police, fire and city hall. Create a FAR that is commensurate with these other city services.
Laurie McLean
Location:
Submitted At: 12:30pm 10-01-24
I oppose the proposed reduction of the FAR for BCHD that was recommended by the Planning Commission. It appears to be a politically motivated barrier designed to sabotage BCHD’s proposed Healthy Living Campus.
What justifies city owned Redondo Beach properties to have a 1.25 FAR and prevent BCHD from the same public institution FAR standard? This change is unjust and heavily biased against BCHD.
I am a member of the Center for Health and Fitness. I attend excellent classes, I’m staying fit, and have met a whole community of wonderful, motivated individuals. I am also a volunteer “Conversation Companion” meeting with a lovely elderly woman each week. I can’t imagine my life without BCHD. The daily exercise, socialization and volunteer opportunities BCHD offers has improved my life and helps me maintain my stamina.
Please do the right thing and oppose the 0.50 FAR and grant BCHD the same exception proposed for the city’s police, fire department and city hall properties.
Executive Director StopBCHD.com
Location:
Submitted At: 10:48am 10-01-24
SUPPORT 0.5 FAR for P/I and the Planning Commission's recommendations OPPOSE upzoning P/I to 1.25 except for Police and Fire which should not be in P/I anyway.
BCHD is planning 100% commercially owned and operated development, just like Kensington, and every PRIVATE DEVELOPER wants more density. That is no reason to destroy neighborhood character.
If BCHD has created financial problems for itself, the surrounding residents are under NO OBLIGATION to suffer with BCHD's excessive development plan. Until this bold move by the Planning Commission, BCHD was proposing FAR 1.95 with a 792,520 sqft development.
Paul Moses
Location:
Submitted At: 9:45am 10-01-24
I oppose any arbitrary FAR limitation on our public lands. The FAR on public land should a uniform 1.25. Placing an arbitrary limit on public lands will sabotage the future safety and well-being of Redondo residents. The City Council should not engage in illegal spot zoning that invites costly unwinnable litigation. The Redondo City Council should not be influenced by a handful of NIMBYs who are mostly non-residents.
Maggie Healy
Location:
Submitted At: 9:22am 10-01-24
I strongly oppose the reduction in the FAR. It is long past time for the majority members on Council and the appointed Mayor to stop being so short-sighted and focused on their own self-serving agendas. Time for our City Council to support our City and our residents by encouraging beloved partner institutions like the Beach Cities Health District to thrive. Stop throwing up road blocks to healthy progress and sustainable growth.
Paula Steinhoff
Location:
Submitted At: 8:22am 10-01-24
I am a recent transplant to California and the south Bay Area but was eager to volunteer with the BCHD older adult assistance program. I have participated in this wonderful support group for two years now and have seen the beneficial impact it has on this community.
I have been made aware of the many other services provided by this organization and am so impressed and proud to be a part of it.
I am strongly opposed to any attempt to curtail their plans for future development. I have attended meetings where these plans have been outlined and can only support their efforts. I look forward to more years of connection to this worthwhile organization both as a volunteer and a participant.
JOAN FORMAN
Location:
Submitted At: 11:23pm 09-30-24
I have been a resident of Redondo Beach since 1979, previously, Hermosa Beach. My husband has lived in Redondo Beach all his life. The BCHD has been especially important to me, since I was in my mid-40s.
Depending on stage of life, I have been helped by experts in exercise, healing, meditation, massage, the Blue Zones and Moai project,and even bone density assessment/techniques. Now in my late 8os, I am in the Silver Sneakers program.
The proposal to minimize the Floor Area Ration of the BCHD is puzzling, especially when so many residents are served by its many different services. Please do not ignore the need. The FAR needs to be at least 1.25.
Margaret Willers
Location:
Submitted At: 10:25pm 09-30-24
I have never understood the vision of the BCHD. But I use the gym and would value its expansion. If the Council requires more for-profit ventures at the site to warrant the gym than I would be for it. It would be criminal to loose the current mental health programs also. And the land could include the cities wonderful pallet home program as it too is health related. Is it not possible to continue the best programs while keeping the site consistent with the neighborhood. Even though that was clearly not a consideration in the past.
Mark Miodovski
Location:
Submitted At: 9:11pm 09-30-24
The City’s Planning Commission should be congratulated for its excellent recommendation for a 0.5 FAR to general Public/Institutional (P/I) use. I do not support an increase to 1.25 FAR for all P/I use, since it would "upzone" every P/I parcel and create the potential for reckless development that is not consistent with neighborhood character and would not protect property values. Please support the work of our citizen commission, and do not bow to the special interests supporting a 1.25 FAR. Thank you.
James Vita
Location:
Submitted At: 7:56pm 09-30-24
How can a reduction in FAR to .50 be justified? It seems arbitrary and vindictive. Unless the goal is wasting taxpayer dollars on litigation again. Beach Cities Health District has benefited the community way more than those agencies against everything. The project has been discussed with the public and modifications have been made. It will be a beautiful community park in addition to the building improvements. I constantly hear the cry for more parks from certain factions in Redondo Beach. I personally use the Center For Health and Fitness. It provides a low cost option for hundreds of seniors. Hard to believe the pettiness of the Planning Commission and hope the City Council corrects this travesty.
Matt Puterbaugh
Location:
Submitted At: 7:15pm 09-30-24
I have lived in the southbay my entire life.
As a middle school math teacher, I am on the front lines of the mental health crisis children face. Without intervention, the path is bleak. We are lucky to have BCHD. It is unbelievable there is literally a group trying to stop it.
I thought city council was supposed to help the community. How is reducing the health services helping? What is the objection? The only thing I find on the weird “Stop BCHD” site is complaints about the noise and traffic from temporary construction. Imagine if we lived in a world or nothing got done because a few people were temporarily inconvenienced. Do the right thing, do not target BCHD FAR.
Matt Puterbaugh
Donna Southwood
Location:
Submitted At: 6:50pm 09-30-24
BCHD is an extremely valuable community resource. I learned about the BCHD programs for seniors through my local older adults program when I was searching for help with my mother. We were connected with a social worker and for the past 4 years have benefitted from volunteer programs, social connection with other home bound, elderly, via zoom meetings, in person conversation groups with the social worker facilitating the group.
The social worker at BCHD helped identify subsidies my mother is eligible for; care giving, incontinence supplies, LifeLine— which we would never have know about if not for BCHD. The social worker coordinates activities that help elderly like my mom have connection to other elderly in similar life circumstances. We have learned about educational programs and support opportunities that help us understand memory issues. Every community needs a BCHD! As a family caregiver, we need these resources, support and MORE help and gathering opportunities for families supporting youth and aging parents. . It has made a world of difference in my family’s life. I am so very grateful for BCHD programs and look forward to their expansion of services-I don’t know what I would have done without the support they offer the beach cities communities.
Katie Conlon
Location:
Submitted At: 5:27pm 09-30-24
Beach Cities Heath District offers tremendous services for the community. I do not understand why anyone would want to reduce their FAR. The therapists at allcove may have literally saved my child's life. Please, do not limit BCHD's ability to support the people of the beach cities by limiting their FAR to .50.
Lisa Rodriguez
Location:
Submitted At: 5:01pm 09-30-24
I oppose the reduction in FAR from 1.25 to .50
It is disheartening and not at all surprising to learn that the Planning Commission reduced the ratio arbitrarily and without proper study. The City of Redondo Beach has a reputation for perpetual litigations and poor working relationships with partnerships in this community. If our City were given a report card ...it would receive a Failing Grade (and is so on many levels).
In contract BCHD has done an outstanding job, winning awards and earns A+ ratings for bringing the community together and proactively serving the Beach Cities for over 25 years. Here are a few of the successful programs I have been volunteering and participating through the years:
LiveWell Gardening Program
Safe Streets for All Initiative (community focus groups) Walking School Bus
Tasting Fairs at School sites
Blue Zone Restaurants - supporting local business
Wine @ 5 - an initiative of Blue Zones
Zumba in the Park
Yoga on the Beach
Mindfulness Training
Covid Vaccination coordination
Holiday Gift Deliveries to homebound seniors
CERT Classes held on Campus (free for qualifying nonprofits) CPR First Aid Courses offered
Team Building at Adventures Plex - Leadership Redondo
CHF membership
Hosted Telephone Call connections during pandemic - to prevent isolation and priceless other activities in which they support (RB Fire Dept. MB Hometown, Keep the Esplanade Beautiful, Woman's Club)
BCHD is a great partnership for our community and since 2017 has been taking input about a Healthy Living Campus. Imagine what might be accomplished if we focused collective energies on achieving greater good and solutions to our problems instead of having everything land in court.
City Council, please adopt these 4 principled values while serving as our representatives before you think, speak or act:
1. Is it truthful?
2. Is it fair to all concerned?
3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
Please work on improving your grades and earning public trust.
Lisa Rodriguez
Redondo Beach resident - District 2
Anita Caplan
Location:
Submitted At: 4:23pm 09-30-24
I oppose a .50 FAR. I support keeping public institutional land uses the same for BCHD and the City with a 1.25 FAR in the General Plan update.
BCHD is very important to me.I use the Center for Health and Fitness regularly. It is a source of exercise as well as social support. I have made many friends there as well. I also have used BCHD referral services and follow the Blue Zones projects.
I have lived in Redondo Beach for 47 of my 82 years. BCHD services continue to improve and to be relevant to me and my family.
Anita Harrison Caplan
Redondo Beach
Eugenie Lewis
Location:
Submitted At: 4:13pm 09-30-24
I am writing in opposition of a .50 FAR and support for a 1.25 FAR and for all public institutions in Redondo Beach, including the Beach Cities Health District’s (BCHD) property.
Over the years, as a parent of two Redondo students, PTA leader, former Redondo school counselor and mental health advocate, I have had the opportunity to observe the quality of the work provided by the staff and volunteers of BCHD. They have truly supported the health of our community and improved the quality of our lives! Examples of the excellent work of BCHD include: school fitness and nutrition programs, mindful classroom lessons, substance abuse prevention programs, community services for elderly residents, walking groups, the Blue Zones project and more. The BCHD volunteer program creates a strong sense of community as well as opportunities for youth. The Center for Health and Fitness provides excellent classes and a gym where people are able to gather.
The opening of allcove Beach Cities has greatly improved access to a range of needed youth services, including mental health, physical health, substance use counseling and grief support. The center serves the entire area, including the Beach Cities, Torrance, El Segundo, Hawthorn, Lawndale and all of Service Planning Area 8.
At this time, I am asking that the Redondo Beach City Council support the work of BCHD in developing the Healthy Living Campus so that BCHD can continue its excellent work. This would mean approving the 1.25 FAR.
Sincerely,
Eugenie Lewis, LCSW Redondo Beach resident for 28 years Mark Korsmo
Location:
Submitted At: 3:55pm 09-30-24
Question: What's the eventual fate of buildings 510 and 520, (e.g., retrofit, leave as-is, demo, estimated cost and funding sources)?
Paul Stansbury
Location:
Submitted At: 3:55pm 09-30-24
Redondo Beach City Council
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
RE: Agenda Item 24-1620 October 1, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
Recent reports from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) indicate that the crisis in youth mental health is only getting worse. As President of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) South Bay Chapter serving Redondo Beach and all the South Bay I want to express the concern that the allcove Youth Wellness Center of the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) will be adversely impacted by the changes in zoning ordinances impacting the BCHD.
We know that 1 in 6 youth are affected by mental health conditions, that symptoms of mental health show up in the by the age of 14 and unfortunately because of stigma and lack of understanding youth don’t get treatment for an average of 8 or more years. Early treatment is critical to a better prognosis and quality of life. Youth and young adults unfortunately often self-medicate with substances because of stigma and the lack of understanding. The stigma and lack of understanding are tremendous barriers that the allcove Youth Wellness Center is critical to overcoming.
The allcove Youth WellnessCenter with its youth-oriented philosophy is a much more receptive environment for youth and young adults to learn about mental health and treatment. I receive many inquiries from family members in Redondo Beach and across the South Bay on how to help the child deal with mental health issues.
We sought and became a partner with the allcove Youth Wellness Center because it is such an invaluable resource for our communities to which I refer families and youth.
Please do not make any zoning ordinance changes that impact the plans for the allcove Youth Wellness Center of the BCHD. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or phone 310- 892-8046.
Respectfully,
Paul Stansbury, Ed. D,
President
NAMI South Bay
krista allen
Location:
Submitted At: 3:26pm 09-30-24
Keep FAR at 0.50 for Institutions of public service. This prevents a give away of property bought with taxpayer money. I applaud this move in the interests of all residents. It should not be a parcel for private real estate development.
Steve Goldstein
Location:
Submitted At: 3:10pm 09-30-24
I strongly OPPOSE the newly proposed FAR on 0.5 for BCHD. _Keep Public Institutional Use Levels the Same for the Health District and City - Support a 1.25 FAR!! Initially, a 0.75 FAR was considered for BCHD’s campus by the Planning Commission, but it was recently reduced – without being studied – even further to 0.50, while select City of Redondo Beach properties, which have the same land use designation, are allowed a 1.25 FAR.
Kelley Daily
Location:
Submitted At: 2:45pm 09-30-24
Oppose a 0.50 FAR required for Beach cities health District. BCHD Is vital to this community.
Please do not limit its growth or future. A healthy, happy enriched place to live is what we all deserve. The services provided at BCHD are a huge part of this being my reality.
Thank you, Kelley Daily
Brenda Garcia
Location:
Submitted At: 2:34pm 09-30-24
Oppose a 0.50 FAR required for Beach cities health District. BCHD provides vital services for the communities of the Southbay.
Melissa Cunningham
Location:
Submitted At: 2:13pm 09-30-24
Shocked & disappointed our city would even entertain reducing resources for such an INNOVATIVE, INTEGRAL and IMPACTFUL asset to the community. BCHD is a substantive and remarkable asset to our family directly, our school communities (elementary thru high school), as well as to our individual ability to show up as productive, whole and well neighbors, students, employees, parents and friends. The quality of life impact ripples through our entire network of fellow residents and is a marquee asset to our area. From mommy & me yoga, garden & nutrition docent volunteering that connected us to numerous new friends & supported our school children, to our annual holiday bag drop tradition to support the elderly in our community, to the absolutely LIFE-SAVING work of allcove, our family has benefitted from the benefits of BCHD in more ways than we could begin to name. The work being done at allcove provided our child with a pathway through acute mental health crisis, created a productive and positive outlet for her talents which are now being featured on college apps and job apps -- all of which reflect directly on our Redondo Beach area and add value to the city's reputation, contribution to the county and state, and to society at large. We have consistently been cited both in-state and out-of-state for the thought leadership and active contribution to addressing the youth mental health crisis, with TANGIBLE benefits. Both personally, as well as among our friends in the city are now actively carrying Narcan as a DIRECT RESULT of the work at allcove. That is a POWERFUL life-saving benefit that protects & safeguards every family in the area and school district in a way that absolutely no other organization has manifested so explicitly.
In addition, our immediate neighbors have increased their well being through the senior services ranging from Zumba classes to other social services — making them safer, healthier, and happier — in turn making them better friends and neighbors who have been able to support us and build more engaged community on our direct street/block. More ripple effects of positive impact as a result of all the consistent & holistic work coming of BCHD.
Martha Koo
Location:
Submitted At: 1:31pm 09-30-24
The City of Redondo Beach and BCHD have worked for years, collaboratively, to ensure the residents of Redondo Beach have access to exceptional wellness and preventative medicine programs as well as reside in an environment that promotes healthy living (Blue Zones, bike access, Center for Health and Fitness for seniors, allcove for early intervention for mental illness and substance use disorders). It is crucial that this collaboration for a healthy beach community continue. Lowering the FAR to 0.5 is not only unjust and inequitable, based on other public institution zoning, but it will greatly jeopardize BCHD's ability to provide healthy programs and services. I encourage the City Council and Planning Commission to deeply consider the negative impacts and grave consequences of limiting the BCHD to a 0.5 FAR.
Aditi Crosby
Location:
Submitted At: 1:19pm 09-30-24
I oppose a 0.50 FAR! I want to keep Public Institutional Use Levels the Same for the Health District and City and support a 1.25 FAR. We need BCHD to keep providing the same services as before like the Center for Health & Fitness and especially allcove! It's CRITICAL that their services continue as is or improve! My entire family uses these services and it would be detrimental to reduce them, not just for my family for youth and elderly - the most vulnerable in our community.
Karan Millan
Location:
Submitted At: 11:36am 09-30-24
Why are we, here again, begging the council to do the right thing for the community? Why is BCHD even a question? BCHD is access to health care in Redondo Beach a community that reflects 44% of its population age is 45 and older and 20% is under the age of 20. Not to mention access to health care for our neighbors in Hermosa. Have you all forgotten how important BCHD was during the pandemic with the availability to testing and other resources? Urging you to exercise your basic fiduciary responsibility for our community.
Colleen Otash
Location:
Submitted At: 11:12am 09-30-24
It is blatantly unfair and illegal to restrict the BCHD upgrades and allow other buildings to exceed the FAR. “FAR for one, FAR for all!” BCHD has a right to legally fight this and if you vote yes on this, you’ll be putting our strapped, Redondo Beach funds into another drawn-out legal battle.
Jane Diehl
Location:
Submitted At: 7:30pm 09-29-24
Public institutions zoning should be the same for all public institutions. It seems the city has a higher FAR than other public institution. BCHD and the city have partnered in the past to improve the health of its citizens. You also use the property for your drones. Why would the city limit BCDH to .5 FAR which makes it so the 11 acres that sits up on a hill (no where near a regular neighborhood) can not use the property to help fund free health services for its residents? BCHD serves 30,000 residents not to mention this would affect services for Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach.
As a representative for your residents you should request an equal zoning for all public institutions so those 30,000 continue to receive services and we continue to have a healthy beach community.
Vanessa Poster
Location:
Submitted At: 5:21pm 09-29-24
BCHD’s historic and remarkable partnership with Redondo Beach has meant our community has, up until now, met the challenges of an aging population and an aging infrastructure. We as a community must be ready to meet the challenges of the next 20-30 years.
Collaborations, such as the Silverado CUP, allcove, Workplace Wellness Programs, School Gardens, Walking School Bus, and bike paths happen when we, as municipalities and special districts work together to solve problems, find solutions, and build infrastructure.
Safeguards are already in place to provide the city with a voice in concerns about design during the CUP process.
The current RB General Plan already contains the wisdom that a supportive, healthy partnership between BCHD and the City is in the best interest of the community.
It pains me the City of Redondo Beach, my city, a city I love and have called home for more than 30 years, choses to recommend that the city’s general plan constrain ALL OF US in finding creative solutions to meet our communities’ needs into the future.
I urge the City Council and the Planning Commission to make the FAR limitation on the BCHD Campus equal to and commensurate with the FAR cap on the RB Civic Center at 1.25. It is the healthy choice.
Mariam Butler
Location:
Submitted At: 4:32pm 09-29-24
DONE!
Wake up Mayor and Council. Stop giving in to the 30 people who oppose the Beach Cities health District for their own selfish reasons.
First, We here in district 4 will be taking on 650 new housing units at the mall for the benefit of the whole city. The sales revenue from an updated mall will benefit everyone, and people need to stop thinking about themselves and think about what’s best for Redondo. If you can tell the people of district 4 that we need to accept housing units, then you can tell Mark Nelson, Candy, and their little gang of 30 people over there in D3 to deal with BCHD expansion.
The residents of Redondo Beach voted back in 1955 for a community hospital and it is what it is.
Second, I’m hearing people complaining that they want more parks and here is BCHD offering to create giant open space and now those same people are saying we have too many parks? People are talking out of both sides of their mouth, and as the leaders of Redondo, it is your job to stop letting the tiny minority of 30 people From putting the city at risk for liability. BCHD has a strong case for a winnable lawsuit because you are giving them an unfair lower floor area ratio compared to everyone else which is why they are resorting to trying to pass a bond measure.
Finally, BCHD is why we have the garden at the schools, why we are a blue zone, why we have mental health services for all, why we are able to help seniors age in place, etc.
You need to do the right thing and give BCHD the same FAR as everyone else. End of story.
Marie Puterbaugh
Location:
Submitted At: 4:07pm 09-29-24
Who in their right mind would want to "Stop BCHD" during a teen mental health crisis, loneliness and drug epidemic? Who is on, and who has been removed, from this commission that is working with "Stop BCHD" and should recuse themself? Can anything get done in Redondo Beach without a lawsuit? FAR for One, FAR for All! BCHD should enjoy the same FAR as fire, police and city council.
I will remind you Paige was elected versus a city council majority endorsed candidate with far more experience in no small part because Paige supported BCHD while that candidate is still writing LTE in the Easy Reader/Beach Reporter to "stop" BCHD. What does that tell you? If you truly care about this community, don't given to those advocating only for their own selfish reasons. Show you care about all residents, especially our kids, our seniors and all residents who benefit from BCHD. Only in Redondo do residents have to "fight" constantly not to lose things dear to them.