Just like the majority City Council rightly opposes the one-size-fits-all, oppressive State housing mandates, so, too, should you apply the same logic to one-size-fits-all FAR within the City. BCHD's arrogance to imply an equal importance to our Police, Fire, and the City government is appalling. The services this Health District is supposed to provide can be accommodated "equitably" within a campus on a property that does not exceed a 0.75 FAR. That they wish to go beyond those services, and establish a quasi-private-partnership on what is also PUBLIC land, is an ego and management problem of their overpaid executive staff. Don't make their inability to stay within their scope of taxpayer-defined authority become a much bigger problem. There's plenty of room for the BCHD to fulfill their obligations within the 0.75 FAR. I support the recommendation to limit the BCHD property to a FAR of 0.75. Thanks for your careful consideration.

BCHD must have a Floor Area Ratio cap of 0.5. Nobody in the area wants this monstrosity built. We have been fighting against this (and winning) for years. As OUR elected representatives on the council, it is your OBLIGATION to abide by the wishes of your constituents, not the graft or influence of private, for-profit corporations, which is what BCHD is advocating for with this project.

BCHD's doubling of the campus would lead to catastrophic negative impacts on the surrounding thousands of residents' health and welfare with traffic, noise, pollution, and a heavier burden on services, including 911 emergency calls.

Here are the facts: "According to a new AARP 'Home and Community Preferences Survey.' Data shows that 77 percent of adults 50 and older want to remain in their homes for the long term — a number that has been consistent for more than a decade. …

"Respondents said they value communities that provide access to clean water, healthy foods, quality health care and safe outdoor spaces."

https://www.aarp.org/home-living/home-and-community-preferences-survey-2021/

"A growing body of evidence shows that access to green space in urban areas can bring considerable benefits to the health and well-being of city residents. These benefits may include improved cognitive development and functioning, reduced symptom severity of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reduced obesity, and positive impacts on mental health."

https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2021/04/27/denver-community-health-green-space

A Health District that ignores the needs and desires of their constituents in the community for the sake of private corporate profits must be reined in by those we put in place to be our voices. That's you, by the way.

We are asking you to do the right thing for the community and LIMIT the FAR for BCHD to 0.5.

Thank you

Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex. BCHD is an important "Third Place" for citizens to come to receive the benifts provided for healthy bodies, healthy minds and healthy spirits! As important as any of the public institutions and should be granted equal opprtunities to thrive, including an equal FAR!

I oppose any increase in FAR for BCHD. Any increase would be excessive for their non-emergency services and out of scale with the character of the City and surrounding areas.

Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex. I am so proud of the work BCHD does to support residents in all age groups from birth to death, helping people to live longer, happier lives with vitality until the end.

I support limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or .75 FAR ONLY. Overdeveloping the BCHD site is not conducive with our beach town. The city council made mistakes in years past that changed the character of our city, such as condos along the oceanfront blocking the ocean view, 2 and 4 on a lots in North Redondo that congested the area and took away properties with yards, and an upper story to the pier that was a failure. The council has the opportunity to limit the size of the building on the BCHD property, which would allow the property to fit in with the neighborhood, not over tower the neighboring buildings.

We live about 1 mile east of the BCHD campus. The large buildings are already a problem, and allowing increased size and desity using FAR relaxation will make matters even worse.
Does BCHD acknowdlge the detrimental effect it's land use will have on local residents?

I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED.”
Joan Davidson

Regarding Agenda Item N1, I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED. Note: It appears that many of those that chose 'oppose' for this Agenda Item may have meant 'support'. Political jargon is awfully good at confusing constituents!

Regarding Agenda Item N1, I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED.”

Mom is very disappointed in the the BCHD's dogged pursuit of over-building on Public land for private gain, for purposes never intended to be part of the district they were formed to be and who to serve. Over-building to mainly accommodate the private partnership for an assisted-living facility most of us can't afford and by their own data would be inhabited by over 80% of seniors not from the district they're supposed to serve is wrong. Flat out wrong. And these people have lied to us over and over.

What is healthy about blocking much needed sunshine from the neighbors in an adjacent city? Nothing! What is healthy about adding more assisted living units to a property that results in MORE EMT services blaring 24 x 7 sirens? Nothing! What is healthy about adding more daily traffic to an already congested area? Nothing. What is healthy for Redondo residents to suffer years of construction noise and pollution to build a campus that doesn't add to benefit their neighborhood? Nothing!

And what about all the upgrades to our city streets and sewers? Do Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach pay for that? No, only Redondo Beach taxpayers get that and all the other negative impacts.

When CEO Bakaly gives numbers of all the Redondo Beach youth and young people "visits" for BCHD services, doesn't anyone find it odd that the metric he uses is VISITS? Not RESIDENTS? Residents using those service are more likely than not to have multiple VISITS! But Bakaly frames that and a lot of other things deceptively.

But the biggest thing that has mom really ticked about all this is: Who the heck (wasn't the word she used) is Tom Bakaly to put BCHD at the same level as the needs of FIRST RESPONDER PROPERTIES? We voted for a bond measure to upgrade those facilities which are all part of the city government facilities so the people have all said YES to that, while at the same time, they struck down another 'pie in the sky' wish from BCHD on the same ballot.

Can't support BCHD on this as their mission for the future is to expand that which they were never chartered to do to begin with.

And P.S. to city council - the number of eComments here opposing isn't a proper measurement.

Regarding Agenda Item N1, I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED. I OPPOSE Overdevelopment on the BCHD Site and you support 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY in the General Plan update.

Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.

Like the City of Redondo Beach, Beach Cities Health District’s (BCHD) mission is to serve the community’s evolving needs. Public institutions like the City and BCHD have remained responsive to changing demographics, service delivery models and community priorities.

As the Council deliberates on the General Plan update, I’d like to share the following perspective on public institutional uses and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) caps. As you know, state law calls for general plans to address land use for public buildings and grounds and include standards related to population density and building intensity (California Government Code § 65302(a)). While state law requires building intensity, it does not require a FAR to meet this obligation. FAR is one commonly used measure, but the Code provides flexibility for cities to use a range of standards to address scale and intensity and satisfy section 65302(a).

To best serve the community, flexibility has relevance for the General Plan and public institutional uses, which must remain adaptable to ensure public-serving facilities can meet both current and future community needs. BCHD recommends that the City not include FAR caps in the General Plan for public institutional uses, as compliance can be achieved with general development standards. BCHD notes that public institutions are already accountable through elections. FAR caps could duplicate oversight, limit future governing bodies’ responsiveness to changing community needs or treat institutions unequally.

If the Council nonetheless chooses to proceed with a FAR cap, BCHD respectfully requests that it be consistent with the FAR applied to City Hall, the City’s other large public institutional property. The City adopted an addendum to the EIR concluding that maintaining the same FAR level (1.25) for these large public institutional properties would result in no significant impacts. Lowering FAR for BCHD could appear inconsistent and target a single property.

As the City considers these issues, BCHD looks forward to continued collaboration. Our shared goal is to ensure that public institutions remain able to meet the community’s needs today and in the future.

Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.

Re: Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR (while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall). I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex... Once again, this feels targeted at BCHD - please use the same rules for everyone. This targeting is deeply sad considering the hundreds and hundreds of families (and lives) that BCHD supports, serves, and saves. I see firsthand the young teen lives that are impacted by the amazing work the BCHD/allcove staff tirelessly serve. Now more than ever, it's about time we support those who serve to make our community, better. Please do the right thing - because our community supports and votes for those who do the right thing.

Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.”

BCHD has many excellent programs for Seniors. My wife & I use the BCHD Gym which is the only Gym in the South Bay area geared for Senior use. Restricting BCHD to a a FAR of 0.75 would negatively impact the many programs BCHD offers for the Community. Tony Chavez, RB resident since 1985.