top of page
Search
  • stopbchd

August 2022 Letter to RB Planning Commissioners

BCHD has been ignoring the RB Municipal Code for YEARS on its overall 800,000 sqft, 110-foot above the street commercial development. While BCHD continues to negotiate with the commercial project's Developer/Owner/Operator - we need to engage the Planning Commissioners on all the current plan's failures to meet the law.


You can cut and paste the letter below - or - sign up at

and we'll add you to a group letter to the Planning Commissioners.


As always, thank you for your support!


Subject: Public Comment to Redondo Beach Planning Commission regarding BCHD


Dear Redondo Beach Planning Commissioners:


I oppose BCHD’s current plan to build a 300,000 sqft, 108-ft, 8-in tall building along Beryl & Flagler streets and the overall 800,000 sqft build-out with more buildings on the south and west site edges along with the locomotive sized power plant and thousands of gallons of fuel storage adjacent to Diamond Street. I request that the Commission execute its obligations to protect residents and use its powers to require the BCHD project to conform with the Municipal Code.


BCHD’s PROJECT HAS NET DAMAGES TO DISTRICT RESIDENTS, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND REDONDO BEACH

The BCHD building is proposed to service 80% District non-resident assisted living tenants (RCFE), 91% non-resident “allcove” clients (“allcove”), and up to 96% non-resident adult daycare enrollees (PACE). The benefits to Redondo Beach residents are even worse, with BCHD massive building servicing non-Redondo Beach residents for 92% of the RCFE, 95% of “allcove” and up to 98% of PACE. Surrounding neighborhoods will suffer further property value declines, traffic, noise, emissions and other damages for a small fraction of the services BCHD’s commercial facility will provide to non-residents of the District and Redondo Beach.


From a legal view, BCHD is even operating outside of its Sphere of Influence and without activation of latent powers from the Local Area Formation Commission. Both issues likely violate State law.


TOO TALL – TOO BIG – TOO CLOSE TO OTHER PROPERTIES

The message has been clear since 2019, and BCHD has ignored it. The proposal is too tall, too large, and too close to surrounding properties. BCHD has increased the height of the project (a project built on a 30-foot elevated site) from 60-feet (2019) to 76-feet (2020) to 103-feet (2021). The project design documents now show 108’-8” above Beryl & Flagler.


At 300,000 sqft for Phase 1, the proposed building is the same size as all current BCHD buildings combined. Phase 1 + 2 will be 800,000 sqft, and that is larger than all the properties in Beryl Heights added together.


The hospital was built in 1960 and centered on the site. That way, it did not dominate the surrounding area as BCHD plans by building Phase 1 on the north and east edges and Phase 2 on the south and west edges. In 2017 BCHD committed to using parking and greenspace buffering surrounding the campus to reduce its damages to surrounding neighborhoods. BCHD reneged on its promise and instead, has maximized its intended damages on surrounding properties and uses through taller, edge-located buildings.

THE MUNICIPAL CODE MUST BE ENFORCED TO PROTECT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES

Working with surrounding neighborhoods, an analysis was prepared demonstrating BCHD’s non-compliance with Code in over 100 pages graphical, detailed pages. The presentation will be updated as needed if and when the Developer/Owner/Operator of the project steps forward to own the CUP, PCDR and RDG review process. It is clear that BCHD has failed to comply and that BCHD has ignored surrounding neighborhoods. The municipal code requirements and design guidelines that BCHD project is REQUIRED to meet are clear and reproduced below.


Planning Commission Design Review Requirements

  • Ensure compatibility

  • Protect property values

  • Protect health and safety

  • Consistent with the intent of residential design guidelines

  • Consider the impact of the user in respect to circulation, parking, traffic, utilities, public services, noise and odor, privacy, private and common open spaces, trash collection, security and crime deterrence, energy consumption, physical barriers, and other design concerns.

  • The location of buildings and structures shall respect the natural terrain of the site

  • Balanced and integrated with the neighborhood

  • Design shall be integrated and compatible with the neighborhood

  • Be in harmony with the scale and bulk of surrounding properties


Conditional Use Permit Requirements

  • Not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties


Residential Design Guidelines Intent

  • Improve the quality of life in residential neighborhoods

  • Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development

  • Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods

  • Respect the development in the immediate area

  • Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions

BCHD’s non-compliance with the Code is presented in the report at: https://www.stopbchd.com/post/analysis-of-bchd-s-non-conforming-project-design-8-8-2022


The Redondo Beach Planning Commission has the obligation to require conformance by BCHD, and the Commission has the powers to require any and all conditions on the BCHD development to protect surrounding neighborhoods from the enumerated damages and impacts in the Code. The Commission can reduce the height and size of the development and force buffers consistent with the 30-foot maximum height zoning that surrounds the site.


We rely on the Planning Commissioners as appointed representatives of City government to enforce the existing laws and protect surrounding neighborhoods from non-compliance by BCHD’s planned project. This is not a popularity contest as BCHD seeks to make it, it is a matter of compliance with existing law and the obligation of the City to enforce the law to protect surrounding properties and uses.


Thank you.


Cc: Local Area Formation Commission Board and Alternates

23 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page