L.1- Comment Rcvd After 3pm — Redondo Beach City Council, October 15, 2024

From:

To: CityClerk; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi
Subject: BCHD
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 5:03:55 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To City Council,
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% nontaxpayers 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.

Please set in place reasonable building requirements.

Jeanne Sinsheimer
Resident of Redondo Beach for over 35 years.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Rosann Taylor
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully
Subject: FAR 0.5 for BCHD
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 3:45:29 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 all P/I land use would be highly damaging to the character and quality of life of the City. ”
The 0.5 FAR includes BCHD whose plans include an
enormous building on public land to benefit private
developers and would be a scourge to the
neighborhood.

Rosann Taylor
Aloha!
♀

our neighborhood character, and provides genuinely accessible services to all residents.

4. Implement stricter oversight measures to ensure BCHD operates with full transparency and fiscal responsibility.

The residents of Redondo Beach deserve better than this ill-conceived and potentially damaging project. We look to you, our city leaders, to protect our interests and preserve the character of our beloved community.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,
Anneke Blair
From: Geoff Gilbert
To: Todd Loewenstein; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Nils Nehrenheim; CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully
Subject: October 15 City Council Meeting
Date: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 10:36:01 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light, City Council members and City Staff;
I wish to apologize to you for my outburst last night at the City Council meeting.

If someone were to make a false claim or lie about facts to the Council and you knew it, I would expect you would let the speaker and audience know.

I should found a better way to do this at the meeting.

Dan Smith, BCHD Communications Director was speaking about BCHD's roll in the reduction of childhood obesity in Redondo Beach.

At that point I had had enough of the "untruths" from this agency. For some reason, no one has called them out about this (I have talked to Tom Bakaly about this and he insists BCHD is correct with its claim).

BCHD mostly attributes this achievement to its LiveWell Kids program and working with the School District.

This is a self aggrandizing claim BCHD has been telling the public for quite a long time.

The "eye opening, dramatic drop" in obesity rates at RBUSD schools is actually too good to be true.

In fact there is no scientific or verifiable statistical evidence that an outside investigator could prove this was from BCHD intervention, or actually happened.

You all studied math and science sometime in your life and you understand that hypothesis does not constitute proof, even if someone insists it's true.

Yet "proof" is what BCHD publicly promotes, and Mr. Smith was doing just that to you and the community.

As a "Health Agency" I would expect BCHD would professionally and scientifically back up its unfounded
(and some heath professionals will say, preposterous) claim. Yet BCHD continues to flout this around as one of its crowing achievements in community health.

There are many reasons for such a sudden drop in obesity; a sudden change in demographics and population, all the parents making dramatic changes in the family diets with strict exercise programs, famine and pestilence. Something that would cause a reduction of weight of the overweight children and prevent excessive weight gain in others. But these are not likely for such a quick turn around.

Perhaps, maybe there was a flaw in the data collection and analysis? We all know what happens when bad data is manipulated as fact.

Please consider Mark Twain defining three types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.

I did last night and couldn't keep it to myself.

Look up "childhood obesity" and you will find it has reached epidemic proportions, not only in this country but around the world.

It is a very serious health matter leading to very dangerous health conditions later in life.

Look up reduction of childhood obesity in Redondo Beach and you will find almost all the information comes from BCHD.

One would think BCHD by now would had worldwide notoriety because of this along with a well worn path to their door from other health agencies, schools and concerned governments to find out how they did this. At the very least you would think that BCHD themselves, as a concerned Heath Agency, would have published reams of definitive information as how to address and combat this issue. Knowing them as I do I wonder why they haven't monetized this as Dan Buettner monetized the Blue Zones. Yet there is really nothing substantial to be found as to how this was done. There's no guidebook. Why not?
This is a really big thing, if it were true.

We have been dealing with BCHD as a bad neighbor for over seven years. This is not just me and my wife and family, but all the residents on my block on Diamond street. It's a short block made up of seniors, middle age professionals, infant and children. A good representation of Redondo Beach.

The Torrance neighborhood behind us have also organized against BCHD. What BCHD has been doing and plan to do in the future is truly a threat to us.

We are all very worried and live with it everyday. What is worse is that the Board and executive staff don't really care. They don't listen to seek a "healthy" solution.

They are one of the best examples of "talk to the hand". This FAR issue and Measure BC only exacerbates the situation for the neighborhood who sees it as another shifty attack by BCHD.

People can take only some much.

Again, i am sorry for my disruption.

Sincerely,
Geoff Gilbert
Redondo Beach
.

From: Rosann Taylor
To: CityClerk
Cc: Geoff Gilbert
Subject: Property values
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 4:03:28 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

As a homeowner across the street fro BCHD, I ask that the City of Redondo preserve and protect our property values. I believe it is part of the City’s objectives to protect the quality, character and neighborhood.

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 values will have an even more seriously decline.

Rosann Taylor
Aloha!
♀
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; Sean Scully; Marc Wiener; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer
Subject: Public Comment - 10/15/24 - Group Letter from 40 StopBCHD Participants - Support 0.50 FAR for P/I, Oppose "Upzoning" of FAR for P/I
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 5:12:55 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comments from StopBCHD group. Individual Signers Below. (Note: at advice of a Council Member, we have consolidated our comments and signatories to one single emailed document for each of handling)
There are 40 signatories to these public comments, and we have received numerous other notifications of individual comments filed independently as well. At this time, we estimate 75-100 total comments in opposition to 1.25 FAR and in support of 0.50 FAR for P/I See specific details below.

Item H – Non-Agenda Comments
We cannot support elected officials (Vanessa Poster) seemingly misleading the Council while she was under oath. The full record from 10/1/24 City Council meeting is below, both transcript and video.

Elected official and BCHD Board member Poster clearly states that the City Attorney admonished the Planning Commissioners for targeting BCHD. That is clearly NOT TRUE based on the record of the 9-19-24 Planning Commission meeting. Further, CEO Bakaly has spoken for 3 minutes about BCHD in his official role as CEO immediately prior to the Planning Director’s statement to the audience.

THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY – POSTER MISLED THE COUNCIL WITH HER

STATEMENT
At a minimum, her testimony must be struck.

It now seems reasonable that all BCHD board member and employee testimony should be FACT CHECKED prior to admittance into the record.

Here's the record from the City's YouTube along with transcripts of Poster seemingly attempting to Mislead the Council.
1 During the RB Council Meeting, BCHD Board Member Poster made a claim against the RB Planning Commission - https://youtu.be/5uxFc9rONWc?t=14695 1a Synopsis-Poster claimed City Attorney admonished Planning Commission for targeting BCHD. 1b Poster Transcript - "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." 1c FACT CHECK: The Poster claim is not true based on the actual statement made at the 9-19-24 Commission Meeting.
2 During the Planning Commission Meeting on 9-19-24, Planning Director Marc Wiener spoke after Tom Bakaly to emphasize that the meeting wasn't about BCHD. https://youtu.be/iZJ11jWf4g8? t=6152
2a Synopsis - The City Attorney asked the Planning Director to advise the audience (Bakaly being a member) that the meeting was about the General Plan, not BCHD. There was NO FOCUS on the Planning Commissioners and NO MENTION of TARGETING.
3 Wiener Transcript (after Bakaly spoke) - "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 on 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 every everybody to keep that in mind thank you"
3aCEO Bakaly's testimony about BCHD caused the need that Poster appears to have misrepresented. NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS!
Item L – General Plan
REGARDING UPZONING THE FAR FOR P/I TO 1.25 FAR – THAT WILL ALLOW FOR 2M+ SQFT OF DEVELOPMENT
While we do not currently have data, and will expect it from the City Planning Director, we expect that there is 20-40 acres of P/I land in the City, including RBUSD, BCHD, and City of RB. If FAR is to be increased to 1.25, then that policy should apply to all P/I land, not just BCHD and City.

At 1.25 FAR, an additional 1M to 2M SQFT of development that would need a full analysis in CEQA.

There is NO SUPPORT for selective SPOT UPZONING to 1.25 FAR for BCHD alone.

REGARDING BCHD’S SPECIFIC 1.25 FAR UPZONING REQUEST – IT IS NOT

SUPPORTED BY FACTS
BCHD has financial issues caused by its own actions, such as expanding allcove to 250,000 12-25 year olds 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 to fund non-resident uses is a poor solution.

BCHD's market reports still show that BCHD will have 80% non-resident (non 90254, 90266, 90277, 90278) use of the private assisted living facility. The inflation adjusted income required to get into the assisted living facility is now over $200,000 per year (pre-tax), 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 100% taxpayer-funded and 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 become worse.

BCHD must be capped at 52-feet tall with deep setbacks to even consider a 1.25 FAR. That is the

Pam Absher
R Fujinaga
Paul Schlichting
D Takamoto
Joyce Field
Gen Pupa
P Wickens
Greg Podegracz
M Nava
Geoff Gilbert
Glen Yokoe
Michelle Wachtfogel
(name withheld for Privacy)
Marianne Teola
Barry Sinsheimer
Carol Friedman
--
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: Rosann Taylor
To: Geoff Gilbert
Cc: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully; James Light; CHARLENE GILBERT
Subject: Re: Support of 0.5FAR
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 6:36:25 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Thank you Geoff for your clear and excellent letter. I totally concur.

Rosann Taylor
Aloha!
♀
On Oct 15, 2024, at 5:29 PM, Geoff Gilbert wrote:

Dear Redondo Beach City Council;
We have been Redondo Beach residents for 32 years. All of our children attended and graduated RBUSD primary, middle and high schools.

Two of our children and a grandchild are still Redondo Beach residents. We have seen what unbridled grown can do to our home town, and the pressure it puts on the City for maintenance and services. Developers are unconcerned about these issues as they are focused on dollars and cents and what profit they might make on their investments. Zoning laws and building restrictions are put in place to maintain control and order to keep over development in check. The Planning Commission and long term Planning Committee have spent years looking towards the future of Redondo Beach to ensure the City can effectively operate and keep on being "Redondo Beach" as we know it now. Change of course is inevitable, but it is necessary to have a planned direction to follow.

A 0.5FAR has been proposed by the Planning Commission for Public Institutional land and there is good, sound and historical reasoning for this.

We and our adult children resident children support the 0.5FAR.

The Planning Commission and the committee who have spent years working on the new City Plan are trying to look ahead to plan a course to follow.

They have no crystal ball, but they do look back in hindsight to see what was good and not so good, what was missed where we can improve.

Development certainly on their minds when they recommended the 0.5FAR in the first place. This was not done on a whim but rather with some critical historic reasoning.

The Beach Cities Health District has been aggressively lobbying its members and the Council against this proposal stating that the reduced FAR will reduce or greatly limit BCHD's services to the community. Targeted services include the popular Fitness Center and BCHD allcove, all of which have a strong, committed following. The majority of the letters and comments from BCHD proponents cite these already provided services as the reason against the proposed 0.5FAR.

BCHD's handouts and flyers "suggest" that these popular and sometimes needed services will be gone and BCHD's ability to provide other services will be in jeopardy. In fact, these services will continue with the reduced FAR. BCHD has provided no factual evidence to the contrary (they have none).

What is really at risk is Phase 1, the core of the Healthy Living Campus (HLC) project.

Phase 1, and BCHD's primary focus of concern, is a private, for profit commercial Resident Care Facility for the Elderly development to be controlled and operated by PMB LLC, a "business partner" of BCHD. This is much like the Kensington or Sunrise elder care facilities. They are not developed for the community (as the original Beach Cities hospital was). BCHD is hoping the "expected" revenue it gets from PMB LLC. will bolster its fast depleting funds. But like any investment, there are no guarantees, EXCEPT, BCHD will have leased our public land out to this developer for some 99 years, for a project the District residents have never approved.

The HLC has had at least three major architectural design changes in the last seven odd years that we, the Redondo Beach residents of Diamond have been following. None of the designs have been resident and neighborhood friendly. We have seen plans that include turning our street into a heavy vehicle delivery driveway to the HLC, the loss of our green space (that has existed since before the neighborhood was built in '65) to be replaced by a massive multi story care facility, then to a six level above ground parking structure to a S.C. Edison power substation complete with a locomotive size emergency diesel generator and an above ground 15,000 to 20,000 gallon diesel fuel tank less than 100 feet from our living rooms (details strangely omitted from the EIR) and the new Diamond to Flagler pedestrian walk/bike way. This is what mobilized thousands of Torrance residents to fight this development next door to their homes.

This is exactly the type of "care"-less development the Planning Commission was thinking about when it made it's FAR recommendation to the Council.

This is just another commercial development trying to get around limits that will limit it's bottom line.

Please vote to approve the 0.5FAR as recommended.

Sincerely,
Geoff and Charlene Gilbert
Diamond Street,
Redondo Beach
,
From: Patty Bellas
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt
Subject: Regarding Agenda item L1
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 5:17:54 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

To: Eleanor and Scott
Good evening,
I have lived more than 40 years in Redondo Beach and I am a home owner. I am very impressed with the programing that the BCHD offers to our community.

My children and grandchildren have benefitted from the Livewell Kids programs.

My church has also utilized BCHD resources to help us in our offerings to our older parishioners.

As a volunteer member of the community health committee I have seen the priorities of our community for many of the programs and applaud the special focus on the most vulnerable members of our community. (Children, Mental health issues, and the elderly.)
It is clear that this type of programming also has a beneficial impact on those who work and visit the Beach Cities, and the surrounding communities.

It is also clear that the building needs to be replaced. I therefore oppose the suggested FAR restriction of 0.5 and

0.75, and encourage the planners to evaluate increasing this to 1.25.

I believe the BCHD has tried to work with the community to address overdevelopment concerns and they have done careful planning to ensure financial security to continue their valuable programming and expand what they are able to offer.

Thank you for your time,
Sincerely,
Patricia Bellas
Redondo Beach
From: Geoff Gilbert
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully; James Light
Cc: CHARLENE GILBERT
Subject: Support of 0.5FAR
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 5:29:21 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.