From: Support Far50
To: CityClerk
Subject: I support for a 0.5 FAR to general Public/Institutional (P/I) use Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 9:35:51 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
See below
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Razavi
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 6:36 PM
Subject: I support for a 0.5 FAR to general Public/Institutional (P/I) use To: <[email protected]>
I support 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. Thank you.
From: Lara Duke
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim Subject: L1 Public Hearing
Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 6:09:15 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
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 some of these properties since they are so rare. Open space should not be treated as a bad term. It actually keeps us from going crazy. So, please consider implementing the .5 FAR on non-emergency service public zones, and perhaps a .75 for emergency services areas.
Sincerely,
Lara Duke
Redondo Beach
From: Support Far50
To: Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - SUPPORT 0.5FAR for P/I. OPPOSE 1.25FAR for all P/I.
Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 3:35:12 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
PUBLIC COMMENT - SUPPORT 0.5FAR for P/I. OPPOSE 1.25FAR for all P/I.
See below for StopBCHD supporter comment.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Carl Paquette
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 3:28 PM
Subject: 0.5 FAR
To: <[email protected]>
I support 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.
The BCHD “improvement” building does not take the welfare of the community into consideration. The traffic it will generate is not supported by Beryl which is already subject to backups during the morning and afternoon hours especially. It will also greatly increase the cut-through traffic on Redbeam, Towers and Flagler that our neighborhood already experiences.
Please maintain the 0.5 FAR and do everything to discourage this poorly planned expansion.
Respectively submitted,
Carl Paquette
Torrance 90503
From: Support Far50
To: Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - SUPPORT 0.5FAR for P/I. OPPOSE 1.25FAR for all P/I.
Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 3:35:56 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
See below.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Geoff Gilbert
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: BCHD Comment: One Last Chance
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> I support 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. Thank you.
--
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: Support Far50
To: Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; CityClerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - SUPPORT 0.5FAR for P/I. OPPOSE 1.25FAR for all P/I.
Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 3:36:38 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: M. Nava
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: BCHD Comment: One Last Chance
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> I support 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. Thank you.
Marcio
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 8:00 PM
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: BCHD Comment: One Last Chance
Hit Reply All to this email (or send an email to [email protected]) and we'll file the comment below on your behalf:
I support 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. Thank you. --
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years.
Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment on the 10-1-24 Council Meeting
Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 12:27:53 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dency Nelson - Dency's comments were simply incorrect. Surrounding residents don't want BCHD proposed 110-foot above Beryl St, 800,000 sqft facility. Dency probably doesn't intend to cast misinformation, but his hearsay about what concerns residents have is simply gobbledygook.
Tom Bakaly - Started with an off color joke that bombed. Threatened to sue the City, yet again. Bakaly also spouted nonsense about fear and no project being proposed. BCHD is like a serial killer, it finds project proposals, kills them, and finds more. The current BCHD proposal on the table is 792,520 sqft, 83-feet above the BCHD mesa and 113-feet above Beryl street. BCHD cannot continue to propose enormous projects, file pre-CUP filings, and claim that the City doesn't know what the project is. BCHD has spent roughly $1M on architects.
Were they composing music? According to BCHD, they weren't proposing projects.
Vanessa Poster - BCHD has no proof that its program reduced childhood obesity as Poster claimed. In fact, the County stated that due to BCHDs failure to put a control group in place, no analysis of Livewell Kids is possible. Poster also defends that she's running unopposed - and apparently that's why BCHD spent $400,000 on a November election? For three unopposed directors? Ugh.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gma l)
To: C tyCler
Subject: Public Comment: BCHD Structural Def cit
Date: Tuesday October 1 2024 10:44:50 PM
Attachments: image ng
CAUTION Email is from an external source Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD's own audited financials show a declining asset balance. That's the definition of a structural deficit. Expenditures exceed revenues and require tapping the net postion.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Communications
Subject: Public Comment: BCHD
Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 12:52:48 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
From the ER
Cold high ground
Dear ER:
The burgeoning of Vanessa Poster’s “United Against Hate” signs is such a relief, in contrast to those yard signs supporting “Hate.”Oh wait. There are no “Hate” signs (“Sandbox,” ER September 26, 2024). Excuse my faux surprise, but the “United…” signs should come with their own Klieg lights and amplifiers to trumpet at all hours of the day and night the sign owner’s virtue. Poster inadvertently admits the irony of her blind spot: the signs have been posted in yards for nearly four years, but “hate” crimes and all those phobias continue to rise.
How is that possible? We have signs! We must need bigger signs? Maybe if the virtue signalers could tear themselves away from their latest vanity project/ad campaign and actually do the work — practice color blindness, getting kids off social media, foster resiliency, stop SEL, promote curriculum based learning, reduce psych therapies, read Abigail Shrier, stop confusing children with gender questions, and get rid of their ridiculous yard signs, hate might reduce. But, then folks like Vanessa Poster would have no drum to bang. There is a question from the Dowager character of “Downton Abbey” Maggie Smith, who just passed, I think is appropriate for Vanessa Poster and her cadres of feckless crusaders: “Do you need a coat? Because, it must be awfully chilly up there on that moral high ground?”
CWU
Manhattan Beach
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk
Subject: SUPPORT 0.5 FAR for P/I Land Use (Oct 1, 2024 City Council Meeting) Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 4:24:31 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
See comment below.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: jonathan cole
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 10:19 AM
Subject: Fw: I SUPPORT 0.5 FAR for P/I Land Use (Oct 1, 2024 City Council Meeting) To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Sean Scully <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Zein Obagi <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
I support the Planning Commission's recommendation for 0.5 FAR for P/I land use in order to match the density of surrounding light commercial and residential land uses. An increase to 1.25 FAR for all P/I land use would be highly damaging to the character and quality of life of the City.
To keep this easy, your can forward (with or without any personalization) THIS EMAIL to:
thank you
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk
Subject: SUPPORT 0.5FAR, OPPOSE UPZONE OF P/I to 1.25FAR Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 6:08:51 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I support 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. Thank you. sender below
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From:
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: BCHD Comment: One Last Chance
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> On Monday, September 30, 2024 at 08:08:29 PM PDT, Stop BCHD <[email protected]> wrote:
Hit Reply All to this email (or send an email to [email protected]) and we'll file the comment below on your behalf:
I support 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. Thank you.
--
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: Support Far50
To: CityClerk
Subject: Support for Planning Commission’s 0.5 FAR
Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 9:36:54 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
see below
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Zahn
Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 4:41 PM
Subject: Support for Planning Commission’s 0.5 FAR
To: <[email protected]>
I support 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 the/a neighborhood character and would not protect property values.
Laura Zahn
Redondo Beach 90278
Beneficiary of the Kay T Zahn Revocable Trust
Sent from my iPhone