top of page
Search
  • stopbchd

BCHDs Private Developer/Owner/Operator Needs to be Scrutinized like any other DEVELOPER

BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT NEEDS TO STOP SHILLING FOR PMB LLC


A letter to the Torrance and Redondo Beach Mayors, City Councils, and Planning Commissions



To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissions:


I ask the City Councils to act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the Redondo Beach and Torrance Municipal Codes on its 100% commercially developed, owned and operated Phase 1 campus expansion. BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.


Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process. Despite the Public’s call for shorter, smaller and further from the site edges, BCHD increased the height from 60-feet (6/2019) to 76-feet (6/2020) to 103-feet (3/2021) and to 107.5-feet (2/2022). BCHD also removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8-10 story parking ramp on the site’s edge.


BCHD’s advertising campaign claims to have downsized the project, yet it is now both taller and has more above ground square feet than it did in June 2019.


The recent hearing by the Redondo Beach City Council to overturn its Planning Department’s approval of the Catalina Avenue development shows that Department’s strong bias to support commercial developers – not the Public. It’s disappointing that the Redondo Beach Council had to appeal and overturn its own Planning Department’s poor decision. But thankfully, the Council sided with the Public and did correct the injustice proposed by Planning.


I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council to provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the private developer. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD. BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95-year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space.


I ask the Torrance City Council to diligently work to defend the interests of property owners under the Hillside Overlay Ordinance by actively opposing any and all BCHD or City of Redondo Beach activity that would be inconsistent with the rights that residents would have if the project were in Torrance.


Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.


Sincerely,


NAME(S)




Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department:


RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits

The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”

[1] NO ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES


RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review

The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:

[2] “ENSURE COMPATIBILITY” WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS

[3] “PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES” OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES


The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:

[4] “IMPACT OF THE USER” on “PARKING, TRAFFIC, UTILITIES, PUBLIC SERVICES, NOISE, ODOR, PRIVACY AND OTHER CONCERNS”

[5] “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flager coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.

[6] “INTEGRATED AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD”

[7] “HARMONY WITH SCALE AND BULK OF SURROUNDFING PROPERTIES”

[8] “CONSISTENT WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES”


RB Residential Design Guidelines

According to the intent of the RDGs:

[9] “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’

[10] “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.”

[11] “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood”

[12] “Respect the development in the immediate area”

[13] “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions”

[14] “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.”


TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance

Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.


TMC 91.41 contains:

[15] ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”

[16] “The development has been located, planned and designed so as to cause the least intrusion on the views, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”

[17] “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”

[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”

[19] “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”

18 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comentarios


bottom of page