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
OCTOBER 15, 2024
L.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER, DISCUSS, AND RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT ON UPDATES TO FIVE (5) 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
DIRECT STAFF TO ANALYZE SETTING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO CAP FOR THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT PROPERTY AT 1.25 AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN
RELATED EIR
CONTACT: MARC WIENER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: My property values!
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 7:43:54 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD has financial issues caused by its own actions, such as expanding Allcove to 250,000 12-25 year old across LA County SPA8 for the next 30 years without requesting any operating funds. That places the entire cost burden from Long Beach to Catalina to LA to Compton on District Taxpayers only. Allowing BCHD excessive development for non-resident use is a poor solution.
BCHD's market reports still show that BCHD will have 80% non-resident use of the assisted living. The inflation adjusted income required to get into the assisted living facility is now over $200,000 per year, so it will be out of reach of most Redondo Beach seniors.Overall, the BCHD development will provide services to 80% to 95% non-taxpayers of the District on taxpayer-owned land. Sounds to me like trying to get into a California college, but we can't because you take people out of the state and country instead of helping your own.
Studies show that homes within 1/2-mile of BCHD have $170M in lower values than if they were located away from BCHD. That is at a 0.77 FAR. At 1.25 FAR, the property value declines will only rise. That's a huge amount of money that could be used for my retirement or for my inheritance to my children. I wonder what you would think if your house was now worth $170 lower than others around you. Can we build this in your back yard??
BCHD must be capped at 52-feet tall to even consider a 1.25 FAR. That is the height of over 99% of the campus. Only the PENTHOUSE, under 1000 sqft is above 52- feet.
Please, please, think of your neighbors and who will really be benefitting from this plan.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Sams
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Michael Webb; Kevin Cody; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully; Jane Diehl; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Martha Koo; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - all agencies and addressees - City Councils, RB Planning Commission, RB Attorney Office Date: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:19:50 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
We are concerned that Vanessa Poster, while in her role as an elected official of BCHD, misled the City Council while under oath during public testimony and falsely stated to the Council that the City Attorney directed the Planning Commissioners not to target BCHD in the prior Planning Commission meeting. There appears to be no such event or statement during the recorded Planning Commission meeting. This link goes to a point where the Planning Director addresses the audience, but that is CLEARLY not the City Attorney admonishing the Commissioners for targeting BCHD. https://youtu.be/iZJ11jWf4g8?t=6153 You can see below that Poster doubled down on her claim in the CPRA response below down.
She cannot refer to the location in detail, nor does it appear on the video link to best of our search.
The Redondo Beach City Council must consider if misleading it during public testimony is acceptable, especially when done by an elected official.
BCHD must also consider whether it is ethical for an elected official representing the agency and not speaking as a private citizen should be allowed to mislead another public, elected body.
Personally, I think it is abhorrent behavior for an elected official to mislead other officials while under oath.
Thank you.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 1:40 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records request received 10/3/24 that reads:
Speaking in her official capacity as an elected board member, Poster stated “your Planning Commission has demonstrated their inexplicable (thank you Dency) abhorrence for BCHD so much so that your own lawyers had to remind them during a public meeting and on the record to stop targeting BCHD in their remarks.”
Provide the documents relied upon by Board member Poster to make such an accusation regarding the Planning Commissioners.
Please see the September 19, 2024, Redondo Beach Planning Commission meeting video:
Click Here
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: Thursday, October 3, 2024 2:19 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Cc: Kevin Cody <[email protected]>; Garth Meyer
<[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - Poster's accusation at RB City Council 10-1-24
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Speaking in her official capacity as an elected board member, Poster stated “your Planning Commission has demonstrated their inexplicable (thank you Dency) abhorrence for BCHD so much so that your own lawyers had to remind them during a public meeting and on the record to stop targeting BCHD in their remarks.”
Provide the documents relied upon by Board member Poster to make such an accusation regarding the Planning Commissioners.
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: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Sean Scully
Subject: Public Comment - City Council 10/15
Date: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:28:19 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I am very concerned about Vanessa Poster's false claim under oath that the Planning Commissioners were admonished by City Counsel. That is not my recollection of the 9/19 meeting of the Commission. Nor can Poster/BCHD provide a specific detail of the event. As the Council is aware, I have already provided the video of the RB Planning Director advising the audience to focus on the General Plan. Clearly, one COULD NOT MISTAKE that for Poster's statement that Counsel directed the Planning Commissioners to stop Targeting BCHD. Her statement appears FLATLY FALSE.
Further, BCHD should not be SPOT ZONED to FAR 1.25.
BCHD has financial issues caused by its own actions, such as expanding allcove to 250,000 12-25 year old across LA County SPA8 for the next 30 years without requesting any operating funds. That places the entire cost burden from Long Beach to Catalina to LA to Compton on District Taxpayers only. Allowing BCHD excessive development for non-resident use is a poor solution.
BCHD's market reports still show that BCHD will have 80% non-resident use of the assisted living. The inflation adjusted income required to get into the assisted living facility is now over $200,000 per year, so it will be out of reach of most Redondo Beach seniors.Overall, the BCHD development will provide services to 80% to 95% non-taxpayers of the District on taxpayer-owned land.
Studies show that homes within 1/2-mile of BCHD have $170M in lower values than if they were located away from BCHD. That is at a 0.77 FAR. At 1.25 FAR, the property value declines will only rise.
BCHD must be capped at 52-feet tall to even consider a 1.25 FAR. That is the height of over 99% of the campus. Only the PENTHOUSE, under 1000 sqft is above 52-feet.
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - City Council and Planning Commission Date: Sunday, October 13, 2024 3:23:39 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
StopBCHD.com continues to support the Planning Commission's recommendation of 0.5 FAR for P/I. As we have demonstrated to the Council, property values within 1/2-mile of BCHD have been damaged by $180M. That is in direct violation of the PCDR requirement to protect property values.
Further we have demonstrated to the City Council that BCHD's Gallup claim of $182M in health savings does not support that BCHD played any role in the savings, if they even exist.
Based on the Gallup $182M savings, the cost of insurance and total household health care should be $4000 lower per household in the three beach cities than the national average.
However, as we have also demonstrated, the US BLS's Consumer Expenditure Survey does not show any such $4000 per HH in savings. Therefore, even BCHD's $400K contracted Gallup savings are likely invalid and are unsupported.
We urge the Redondo Beach Council and Commission to hold their ground and protect the City residents property values and community character with a 0.5 FAR. --
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
Subject: Public Comment L1 City Council
Date: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:23:47 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD has financial issues caused by its own actions, such as expanding allcove to 250,000 12-25 year old across LA County SPA8 for the next 30 years without requesting any operating funds. That places the entire cost burden from Long Beach to Catalina to LA to Compton on District Taxpayers only. Allowing BCHD excessive development for non-resident use is a poor solution.
BCHD's market reports still show that BCHD will have 80% non-resident use of the assisted living. The inflation adjusted income required to get into the assisted living facility is now over $200,000 per year, so it will be out of reach of most Redondo Beach seniors.Overall, the BCHD development will provide services to 80% to 95% non-taxpayers of the District on taxpayer-owned land.
Studies show that homes within 1/2-mile of BCHD have $170M in lower values than if they were located away from BCHD. That is at a 0.77 FAR. At 1.25 FAR, the property value declines will only rise.
BCHD must be capped at 52-feet tall to even consider a 1.25 FAR. That is the height of over 99% of the campus. Only the PENTHOUSE, under 1000 sqft is above 52-feet.
Executive Director
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years.
Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment
Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 3:35:58 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - All Agencies
Poster plaster
Dear ER:
At the October 1, 2024 Redondo Beach City Council meeting, Beach Cities Health District Board member Vanessa Poster attacked the Redondo Beach Planning Commissioner with a claim that seems 100% contradicted by the City’s audio recording of the September 19 meeting. Board member Poster stated, “Your Planning Commission has demonstrated their inexplicable abhorrence for BCHD, so much so that your own lawyers had to remind them during a public meeting and on the record to stop targeting BCHD in their remarks.” The recording of the September 19 meeting indicates that immediately after BCHD CEO Tom Bakaly spoke, the City Counsel reminded the audience, not the Commission, that the meeting wasn’t about BCHD; the meeting was about the broader General Plan. There was also no reference to the Commission targeting BCHD. The Planning Director delivered this message: “Before we continue I’ve been reminded by the City Attorney to make a statement to the audience just to remind the audience the purpose of tonight’s hearing is about the General Plan update.
It’s not about the Beach Cities Health District, so really the focus is more broad, on the entire city and this policy document that we’re working on.
So I just would like everybody to keep that in mind, thank you.” If this wasn’t hate speech against the Planning Commissioners by the BCHD Board member, then what exactly was it?
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment: City Council Meeting
Date: Friday, October 11, 2024 7:00:47 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
At the last Council Meeting, BCHD Board Member Vanessa Poster directly stated that the City Attorney had admonished the Planning Commissioners to stop "targeting" BCHD. I can find no record of such an occurrence as Poster stated. Further, I have found record of the 9/19/24 Planning Commission meeting that shows the Planning Director passing a message to the audience that the meeting is more general than just BCHD. That occurred immediately after CEO Bakaly spoke for 3 minutes on BCHD as the BCHD CEO in official capacity.
Therefore, all indications are that Board Member Poster deliberately misled the Council.
Please initiate a formal investigation of the incident. As a public official under oath, Poster should be sanctioned at a minimum unless she provides evidence of her position.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully; Kevin Cody; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Tyler Evains
Subject: Public Comment: When is BCHD Board Member Poster going to apologize for misleading the Redondo Beach City Council?
Date: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:14:54 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
To date, there has been no evidence support to BCHD Board Member Poster's accusation that the RB Planning Commission is targeting BCHD because, as she claims, the RB City Attorney warned the Planning Commission on the record to stop targeting BCHD.
The record shows that the City Attorney asked the Planning Director to address the audience immediately after Tom Bakaly of BCHD spoke about BCHD. That appears to be the trigger for the City Attorney action, and furthermore, it had NO MENTION of targeting or of the Planning Commissioners actions.
This appears to be a deliberate act by Poster to mislead the City Council in an attempt to influence their decision making through false testimony.
4. The existing site is not due for earthquake retro-fitting, or tear down, for another 25 years If BCHD plows ahead with their plans, the tear down and reconstruction would take upwards of ten years! What would happen with all these advantageous programs in the meantime? Why can’t BCHD put their efforts into acquiring additional beneficial tenants instead?
5. To add insult to injury, the BCHD board is asking the Beach Cities residents to PAY via Bond BC for this plan which would not only create havoc to the surrounding neighborhoods and schools but also deprive them of the benefits they currently enjoy.
Thank you for your time and attention to this crucial matter.
Sincerely, L. Zelik
From: Tim Ozenne
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully
Subject: Redondo Development Plan Agenda Item L1 (October 15, 2024) Date: Monday, October 14, 2024 1:37:46 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Redondo City Council:
My wife and I live near the proposed BCHD development project which has been in the works for years. As we see it, the project as now envisioned would plainly harm neighbors, despite Redondo's official policies that demand that new developments be "compatible" with surrounding neighborhoods. Further, the BCHD project would reduce land values for most adjacent properties, but we see no evidence that BCHD has estimated the loss or means of limiting it.Accordingly, we support the 0.50 FAR for Public Institutional land as recommended by the Redondo Beach Planning Commission. Likewise, we oppose any alternative that would allow a FAR as high as 1.25 as that would damage nearby neighborhoods. The BCHD project, as now contemplated, would open up public land for private development, not to benefit Redondo and other neighbors, but to make the project more attractive for private developers working with BCHD.
It is also our understanding that Redondo Planners have completed a comprehensive analysis of development consistent with the Planning Commission's rules. (Focused General Plan, Zoning Ordinance & Local Coastal Program Update: Draft Focused General Plan Update (Jan 2024).
In other words, the plan now before the council has been in the works for some time and there have been many opportunities for BCHD or other organizations to challenge the analysis in that update. Instead, BCHD appears to want the RB Council to overrule the plan for BCHD's benefit.
Let me also mention that I don't find BCHD's claim--that it needs more development in order to fund local health care--remotely factual. BCHD has never offered public documentation of how its programs benefit anyone. In my opinion. the programs benefit only BCHD staff while "health" in the area is little affected.
This is a wealthy area with healthy residents; BCHD wants to take credit for that but has no evidence. I have looked extensively, but I find no evidence that BCHD actually improves area health. Thus, I suspect BCHD wants Redondo to permit more extensive development by threatening loss of health benefits.
Thank you.
Thank you,
Tim Ozenne with Virginia Ozenne
From: Abbes Khani
To: CityClerk
Subject: Supporting Commission’s .0 FAR
Date: Monday, October 14, 2024 7:36:25 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 0.5 FAR for P/I land use in order to be compatible with surrounding residential and light commercial land uses. An increase to 1.25 FAR for P/I land use would be highly damaging to the character and quality of life of the City.
City of Redondo Beach Council should not Intimidated or influenced by BCHD board members, specifically, Vanessa Poster and its conniving and liar CEO Tom Bakaly. These two characters have been falsely claiming that BCHD buildings are in need of seismic renovation and since that is costly, therefore, they have to be replaced with new buildings four times the size of existing floor footage. They are trying to force Redondo Beach Planning Commission and City Council to abandon the governing rules of urban developments and are asking for 1.25 FAR which is 2.5 times larger than Commissioner’s recommendations.
I am begging Redondo Beach City Council to adheres to the .5 FAR, as recommended by Planning Commissioner.
Respectfully,
Abbes G Khani
BCHD must be capped at 52-feet tall to even consider a 1.25 FAR. That is the height of over 99% of the campus. Only the PENTHOUSE, under 1000 sqft is above 52-feet.
Melanie Cohen
DIS 2
I SUPPORT the Staff recommendation to analyze a 1.25 FAR for BCHD and all public institutions in the EIR.
Beach Cities Health District has been a leader in the support of seniors and residents with disabilities, in addition to the many other community programs they have. For Redondo Beach, BCHD is a feather in your cap and should be celebrated for all the good they do. I hope the City Council recognizes the value of this and supports them.
Sincerely,
Jan Neal Burkhard
From: luv2wcsdance
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully
Cc: luv2wcsdance
Subject: Subj: Public Comments on agenda item L1 - I support 0.50 FAR for Public Institutional land Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 2:19:34 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 0.5 FAR for P/I land use in order to be compatible with surrounding residential and light commercial land uses.
An increase to 1.25 FAR for P/I land use would be highly damaging to the character and quality of life of the City.
Thank you,
Suzanne McCune
District 1 resident