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
NOVEMBER 5, 2024
L.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER LAND USE ELEMENT, ZONING
ORDINANCE, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS, AND CERTIFICATION
OF A PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) THAT SERVE TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY’S CERTIFIED 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT CONTACT: MARC WIENER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
From: Tom Bakaly (he/him/his)
To: CityClerk
Cc: GeneralPlanEIR
Subject: 11/5 City Council - Public Comment on agenda item #L.2 Date: Friday, November 1, 2024 4:19:27 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.
I write this short comment on behalf of Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) to agenda item number L.2 on the City Council’s upcoming meeting on November 5, 2024. In addition to the comments previously submitted by BCHD relating to the EIR for the General Plan Update, BCHD objects to the following statement on pg. 2-83 – 2-84 in the FPEIR: ‘reducing the proposed FAR from 0.75 to 0.5 would have no material effect on the FPEIR.’ As set forth in the September 30, 2024 letter from our attorney, which I incorporate into this comment by reference, the environmental impacts of a proposed 0.5 FAR was not analyzed in the EIR. As set the staff report for this item states, ‘the current EIR provides coverage for a range .85-1.0 at the BCHD site.’ The FIR did not analyze the environmental impacts of a range different than that.
In health,
Tom Bakaly
Chief Executive Officer
Beach Cities Health District
Ph: 310 374-3426, x118
Fax: 310-376-4738
www.bchd.org
www.facebook.com/beachcitieshealth
Creating a healthy beach community.
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.
BCHD’s Proposed Development Views:
Heights, Square Feet, FARs
Various other sites have been
demonstrated with increased FARs
This shows BCHD at current 0.77 FAR,
at EIR Proposed Phase 1 of 1.09 FAR,
and at 1.25 FAR
From: Richard Morse
To: CityClerk
Cc: James Light; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; [email protected] Subject: BCHD Campus Zoning EIR
Date: Monday, November 4, 2024 7:17:26 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear City Officials:
As a long time resident ( I urge you to support the proposals advanced by the BCHD to maintain a 1.25 FAR for its planned campus improvements. It is a vital facility for our community, and dilution of its ability to provide adequate space for its many important services would seriously reduce the value and appeal of residences in Redondo Beach.
Sincerely,
Richard Morse
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD FAR for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Healthy Living Campus Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 9:59:58 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
For the official record and public comment:
BCHD HLC
FACTS: Phase 1,
Phase 1+2
PHASE 1 BCHD
HLC BUILDING OWNERSHIP
STRUCTURE SIZE USE INFO SOURCE BCHD PRIVATE OWNER
New Buildings
292,170 sf PMB LLC RCFE BCHD Pre-CUP 0% 100%
510
52,000 sf Office Bldg BCHD NOP 0% 100%
512 47,700 sf Parking BCHD NOP 0% 100%
520
52,000 sf Office Bldg BCHD NOP 0% 100%
Total Phase 1 443,870 sf 0% 100%
Lot Size
406,626 City of RB
FAR 1.09 Phase 1 as Proposed in Pre-CUP
PHASE 2 BCHD
HLC BUILDING OWNERSHIP
STRUCTURE SIZE USE INFO SOURCE BCHD PRIVATE OWNER
New Buildings
292,170 sf PMB LLC RCFE BCHD Pre-CUP 0% 100%
510
52,000 sf Office Bldg BCHD NOP 0% 100%
512
47,700 sf Parking BCHD NOP 0% 100%
520
52,000 sf Office Bldg BCHD NOP 0% 100%
Undefined
348,650 sf Parking, etc BCHD EIR & FAQ (by Murdoch) Unk Unk Total Phase 1&2
792,520 sf 0% to 44% 56% to 100%
Lot Size
406,626 City of RB
FAR 1.95 Phase 1&2 as Proposed in EIR
BCHD FAR 1.09 - Phase 1
BCHD FAR 1.95 - Phase 1 + 2
--
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: Kathy McLeod
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 8:01:26 AM
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
As a 47-year resident of Redondo, I strongly OPPOSE a 1.25 FAR BCHD. The size and disruption to our City will be gravely impacted.
I do not want any more of my tax dollars going to non-residents who don’t pay our city taxes.
I respectfully urge the council to pass
a .5 FAR.
Kathy McLeod
Redondo Beach
Sent from my iPhone
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Kevin Cody; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Garth Meyer; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully; Michael Webb
Subject: Fwd: INFO ONLY - NO ACTION NEEDED - StopBCHD Comments to RB Council for 11-5-24 Meeting Date: Monday, November 4, 2024 8:02:34 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment: At 7:11 PM on Sunday 11/3/24, StopBCHD notified BCHD via a number of its volunteers that we were not planning any organized comments at the 11/5 Council Meeting, consistent with the Mayor and Council's request at the 10/29 meeting. It appears that BCHD couldn't resist attempting to fill the Council Chambers with taxpayer-funded t-shirts, employees, and volunteers. Hopefully BCHD will at least not disrupt the Council meeting or attempt another Board Member Poster action to mislead the Council. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 7:11 PM
Subject: INFO ONLY - NO ACTION NEEDED - StopBCHD Comments to RB Council for 11-5-24 Meeting
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
The Mayor and Council asked for some mercy for this upcoming meeting regarding the BCHD 1.25 FAR spot upzoning issue. They assured the public, on the record (and yes, we have the transcript) that they would take no action on the BCHD issue at the 11-5-24 meeting.
The Agenda Packet confirms that.
We are providing this relatively short letter as a comment.
BCHD shares the same law firm as the AES builder's remedy developer Pustilnikov, the law firm of Rutan & Tucker LLP. Law firms are addicted to billable hours, so they will undoubtedly appear Tuesday night, even without BCHD being on the agenda. They can further piss off the Mayor and Council all by themselves, and in the process, help make our case for us.
If you haven't voted NO on BC yet, please do so.
Here's our comment for Tuesday -
Honorable Mayor and Council:
We provide these public comments in headline summary format to respect your time.
MINIMAL COMMENTS - StopBCHD heard the Mayor and Council’s assurance at the October 29, 2024 Council meeting that it would not take any action on the 1.25 FAR issue associated with the BCHD spot upzoning in the draft General Plan at the November 5, 2024 meeting. As a result, we will accept the City’s word and provide only minimal comments.
BCHD TESTIMONY HAS ATTEMPTED TO MISLEAD THE COUNCIL - Unlike BCHD which apparently sent Board Member Poster to the October 1, 2024 Council meeting to misrepresent the City Attorney’s action at the September 19, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, we believe in truthful testimony and honest exchange with the City. To date, BCHD has condoned Board Member Poster’s behavior by failing to condemn it.
BCHD HAS SPENT OVER $3M OF TAXPAYER FUNDS ON LAWYERS - Unlike BCHD, we have not spent $377,378.73 of taxpayer funds on legal fees during 2024 year-to-date. Nor have we spent $2,821,927 of taxpayer funds on legal fees for the Healthy Living Campus commercial real estate development project. We are very disappointed in BCHD’s weaponizing of taxpayer funds against neighbors and residents. We see BCHD’s attack on residents with taxpayer funds intended for Health Services as highly unethical.
WE SUPPORT CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND ADOPTION OF NEEDED RESOLUTIONS – We support the City taking the minimum actions needed to ensure that the Redondo Beach Housing Element is lawful and prevents Builder’s Remedy claims. BCHD has chosen to attempt to block the City’s needed actions as noted by its law firm Rutan & Tucker LLP. BCHD shares Rutan & Tucker LLP with fellow real estate developer Pustilnikov at the former AES site. Unlike BCHD, StopBCHD supports residents and the City’s actions to block Builder’s Remedy and maintain local character, quality-of-life, and property values.
ANY ANALYSIS OF 1.25 FAR MUST INCLUDE ALL PUBLIC LAND – We do not support any upzoning and reaffirm support of the Planning Commission's proposal. Further we can only support the analysis for the EIR of a fair and equitable upzoning and we oppose any spot upzoning of the BCHD site. For EIR analysis, all City and RBUSD sites must receive 1.25 FAR. The full impact of the potential of millions of square feet of Public Land development must be analyzed.
RBUSD MUST BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ON ITS PUBLIC LAND IF BCHD IS ALLOWED – It is objectively discriminatory for BCHD to be allowed to lease Public land to a Private developer and still utilize Public land use and zoning. In the case of Kensington, the City did not allow equal treatment to RBUSD. Unlike the proposed BCHD 100% privately owned, developed, and operated market-rate development (currently PMB LLC), RBUSD was forced to declare its land surplus, suffer a Measure DD for rezoning, and then allow a long term developer contract. This is identical in outcome to BCHD’s proposal (commercial developer uses public land) and it would be discriminatory to deny RBUSD the same land use, FAR, etc. as BCHD in the event of a spot upzoning. There can be no spot upzoning on BCHD.
We look forward to engaging with the Council at a future meeting to learn more about the specifics of the City’s analysis of what looks to be a spot upzoning of the BCHD parcel – an action we oppose.
StopBCHD.com
--
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; Sean Scully; Marc Wiener
Subject: Public comment - examples of BCHD current .77 FAR, Proposed Phase 1 1.09 FAR and 1.25 FAR Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 4:58:01 PM
Attachments: BCHD at 77 to 125 FAR.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
In a perfect world, I'd like to screen share and show the slides in public comment.
From: Support Far50
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment L1 from M Nava
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 5:48:36 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
See below
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: M. Nava
Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 5:13 PM
Subject: OPPOSE FAR 1.25 FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS LAND USE; SUPPORT FAR
0.5 FOR P/I; SUPPORT FAR 1.25 FOR CITY PUBLIC SAFETY (PD/FD) LAND USE AS NEEDED
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
To: Redondo Beach Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, Planning Director From: StopBCHD.com Supporters
SUBJECT: OPPOSE FAR 1.25 FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS LAND USE; SUPPORT FAR
0.5 FOR P/I; SUPPORT FAR 1.25 FOR CITY PUBLIC SAFETY (PD/FD) LAND USE AS NEEDED
BCHD continues to send out emails trying to whip its base into a frenzy with claims of a shut down.
In truth, BCHD's spending on services for non-residents is more likely causing its financial difficulties.
Those BCHD emails support a FAR 1.25 increase uniformly for all P/l land uses. That increase will add millions of square feet of development potential to our already crowded city. We oppose FAR
1.25 and support the Planning Commission’s FAR 0.5 proposal.
According to the Redondo Beach Planning Commission Design Review Code, the intent of the City Policy is to:
Purpose. Planning Commission Design Review “is established to ensure compatibility, originality, variety, and innovation in the architecture, design, landscaping, and site planning of developments in the community. The provisions of this section will serve to protect property values, prevent the blight and deterioration of neighborhoods, promote sound land use, encourage design excellence, and protect the overall health, safety, and welfare of the City.
PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES
It is common for property values around large developments to fall. The existing FAR 0.77 BCHD site has deteriorated local property values within one-half mile by over $170M. An increase to FAR
1.25, especially with BCHD’s proposed high-rise, edge-of-the-site construction will further deteriorate property values. See references at: https://www.stopbchd.com/post/redondo-beachproperty-value-impacts-within-1-2-mile-of-bchd-104-7m-loss and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/torrance-property-value-impacts-within-1-2-mile-of-bchd-73-8mloss and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/the-loss-of-neighborhood-value-adjacent-to-new-medicalcommercial-development
PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR THE CITY
BCHD’s proposed development project is a FAR 1.95, 800,000 square foot, 100+ foot tall commercial rental development for non-resident use. The 300,000 square foot private assisted living (RCFE) is for 80% non-resident use according to BCHD’s own MDS study. The allcove building is for 91% non-resident use by all LA County SPA8, and that use and comes with no long-term 30-year funding to match the required BCHD-funded operation. The PACE facility is 95% non-resident use according to the National PACE Association’s data. The 5% to 10% Redondo Beach resident use will not offset the HEALTH AND SAFETY damages to residents. See references at:
https://www.stopbchd.com/post/step-by-step-95-of-bchd-s-hlc-pace-enrollees-will-be-nonresidents and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/step-by-step-bchd-s-91-3-non-resident-spa8-allcoveservice-area and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/step-by-step-bchd-s-80-6-non-resident-assistedliving-plan
BCHD MAY NOT BE PROVIDING ANY NET HEALTH BENEFITS TO THE DISTRICT BCHD's GALLUP consultants (paid $400,000 in taxpayer funds) were unable to state if BCHD provided any health benefits. In its public relations release, Gallup could only say that it was "The good health exhibited by many adults in the Beach Cities area is likely in part the result of efforts of the Beach Cities Health District." LIKELY, IN PART is not a ringing endorsement from a large national consultant paid $400K by BCHD. According to other statistical analysis, BCHD provides no net health benefits beyond those enjoyed by other Californians and SPA8 residents based on California Policy and local income levels. See reference at: https://www.stopbchd.com/post/bchdhas-no-impact-on-health-outcomes-using-spa8-wide-health-data-from-lacdph and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/bchds-allcove-a-6-3m-grant-with-a-172m-cost Please protect property values and local health by limiting Public Institutional land use to FAR
0.5 and REJECTING FAR 1.25 with its millions of square feet of over development potential.
Thank you.
Marcio Pinto
We the undersigned SUPPORT FAR 0.5 and OPPOSE FAR 1.25 FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE:
From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment L1 OPPOSING HIGH DEVELOPMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 3:24:33 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Darryl Boyd
Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: PLEASE REPLY ALL TO SIGN OUR LETTER OPPOSING HIGH
DEVELOPMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Cc: Support FAR 0.50 <[email protected]>
Darryl Boyd
To: Redondo Beach Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, Planning Director From: StopBCHD.com Supporters
SUBJECT: OPPOSE FAR 1.25 FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS LAND USE; SUPPORT FAR 0.5 FOR P/I; SUPPORT FAR 1.25 FOR CITY PUBLIC SAFETY (PD/FD) LAND USE
AS NEEDED
BCHD continues to send out emails trying to whip its base into a frenzy with claims of a shut down. In truth, BCHD's spending on services for non-residents is more likely causing its financial difficulties.
Those BCHD emails support a FAR 1.25 increase uniformly for all P/l land uses. That increase will add millions of square feet of development potential to our already crowded city. We oppose FAR 1.25 and support the Planning Commission’s FAR 0.5 proposal.
According to the Redondo Beach Planning Commission Design Review Code, the intent of the City Policy is to:
Purpose. Planning Commission Design Review “is established to ensure compatibility, originality, variety, and innovation in the architecture, design, landscaping, and site planning of developments in the community. The provisions of this section will serve to protect property values, prevent the blight and deterioration of neighborhoods, promote sound land use, encourage design excellence, and protect the overall health, safety, and welfare of the City.
PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES
It is common for property values around large developments to fall. The existing FAR 0.77 BCHD site has deteriorated local property values within one-half mile by over $170M. An increase to FAR 1.25, especially with BCHD’s proposed high-rise, edge-of-the-site construction will further deteriorate property values. See references at: https://www.stopbchd.com/post/redondo-beachproperty-value-impacts-within-1-2-mile-of-bchd-104-7m-loss and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/torrance-property-value-impacts-within-1-2-mile-of-bchd-73-8mloss and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/the-loss-of-neighborhood-value-adjacent-to-newmedical-commercial-development
PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR THE CITY
BCHD’s proposed development project is a FAR 1.95, 800,000 square foot, 100+ foot tall commercial rental development for non-resident use. The 300,000 square foot private assisted living (RCFE) is for 80% non-resident use according to BCHD’s own MDS study. The allcove building is for 91% non-resident use by all LA County SPA8, and that use and comes with no long-term 30-year funding to match the required BCHD-funded operation. The PACE facility is 95% non-resident use according to the National PACE Association’s data. The 5% to 10% Redondo Beach resident use will not offset the HEALTH AND SAFETY damages to residents.
See references at: https://www.stopbchd.com/post/step-by-step-95-of-bchd-s-hlc-pace-enrolleeswill-be-non-residents and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/step-by-step-bchd-s-91-3-non-residentspa8-allcove-service-area and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/step-by-step-bchd-s-80-6-nonresident-assisted-living-plan
BCHD MAY NOT BE PROVIDING ANY NET HEALTH BENEFITS TO THE DISTRICT BCHD's GALLUP consultants (paid $400,000 in taxpayer funds) were unable to state if BCHD provided any health benefits. In its public relations release, Gallup could only say that it was "The good health exhibited by many adults in the Beach Cities area is likely in part the result of efforts of the Beach Cities Health District." LIKELY, IN PART is not a ringing endorsement from a large national consultant paid $400K by BCHD. According to other statistical analysis, BCHD provides no net health benefits beyond those enjoyed by other Californians and SPA8 residents based on California Policy and local income levels. See reference at: https://www.stopbchd.com/post/bchd-has-no-impact-on-health-outcomes-using-spa8-widehealth-data-from-lacdph and https://www.stopbchd.com/post/bchds-allcove-a-6-3m-grant-with-a172m-cost Please protect property values and local health by limiting Public Institutional land use to FAR 0.5 and REJECTING FAR 1.25 with its millions of square feet of over development potential.
Thank you.
We the undersigned SUPPORT FAR 0.5 and OPPOSE FAR 1.25 FOR PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
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: luv2wcsdance
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully
Cc: luv2wcsdance
Subject: Public Comment to L1 - Keep FAR at recommended 0.5 to 0.75 for P/I land Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 4:26:32 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 BCHD and all P/I land use would be highly damaging to the character of the City and quality of life of residents.
Suzanne McCune
District 1
The broad purposes of the Zoning Ordinance are to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to implement the policies and the land use plan map of the City of Redondo Beach General Plan, ...
(b) Maintain a high level of quality and character in the City's residential neighborhoods;
(d)Promote the economic stability of existing land uses that are From: Tim Ozenne
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully
Subject: Public Land and FAR Limits
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 7:05:24 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
To: RB City Council and Planners:
My wife and I own a home just east of the BCHD land development project in Redondo. From our windows, we can clearly see how the existing buildings dominate the hilltop. Since BCHD has deliberately withheld updated plans from the public, we can't be sure how bad the new development might be, but it is clear it will be intrusive--more intrusive than the existing buildings.
Accordinglhy, we SUPPORT keeping the FAR for Public Institutional (P/I) land at 0.75 as stated in the updated General Plan, or at 0.50 as the Planning Commission recommended. Public land use should be compatible with surrounding residential areas. An increase to 1.25 FAR for BCHD or ALL P/I land use would be highly damaging to the character and quality of life of residents in the City.
In particular, we must conclude that the development plan, though it might bring more money into BCHD, will violate the RB building code, especially this quote from the City Zoninf ordinance:
(a)
Achieve progressively the arrangement of land uses described in the General Plan;
(c) Ensure compatibility between land uses;
consistent with the General Plan; ...
Accordingly, we disapprove of any accommodation for BCHD to increase its profits through destruction of the neighborhood.
Thank you,
Tim Ozenne, Ph.D.
Resident since 1978
From: Judith B Ward
To: CityClerk
Subject: Certify EIR & Support BCHD’s FAR 1.25
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 1:56:10 PM
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
To all members of the CityCouncil,
I am a senior who depends upon the excellent services provided by the BCHD and am impressed with their service to all age groups. BCHD facilities are in need of updating and their plans require the same FAR as afforded other institutions in the Beach Cities, which is a FAR of 1.25. The proposed FAR is too restrictive and would not allow their thoughtful and publicly responsive plan a new campus to proceed.
Please reinstate the 1.25 FAR.
Thank you,
Judith Ward
Redondo Beach
Sent from my iPhone
From: Sara Martin
To: CityClerk; Nils Nehrenheim
Subject: Public Comment to L2 - Keep FAR at 0.50 to 0.75 for P/I Zone Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 1:17:06 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Comment:
“ I SUPPORT keeping the FAR for Public Institutional (P/I) land at 0.75 as stated in the updated General Plan, or at 0.50 as the Planning Commission recommended. Public land use should be compatible with surrounding residential areas. An increase to 1.25 FAR for BCHD or ALL P/I land use would be highly damaging to the character and quality of life of residents in the City. “
Sara Martin
From: LINDA Zelik
To: CityClerk; Scott Behrendt; Todd Loewenstein; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Nils Nehrenheim; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully
Subject: Tonight"s Council Meeting - BCHD"s EIR & FAR
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 2:55:22 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Council members:
Please do the right thing when it comes to voting on the EIR and FAR.
1. The residents are vehemently opposed to BCHD Board’s plan to allow a private developer to use Beach City’s property for profit. It would not only destroy our neighborhoods but also put school children and the elderly at grave physical risk.
The contaminants in the air, noise, traffic congestion, safety of bikers, walkers, etc. are all reasons to deny it.
2. Tom Backely has been misinforming the public saying that the EIR had been approved.
3. Increasing the FAR would be a very bad trend for all of the South Bay building in the future and destroy the look and feel of Redondo Beach.
4. PLEASE DO NOT LET BCHD board bully you into voting their way on these issues!!
Respectfully, Joe and Linda Zelik