From: Gary T
To: CityClerk; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment - Forward to Mayors, Councils, Planning Commissions Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:40:59 PM
Attachments: BCHD NonCompliance May 2022 Comments.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Honorable Mayor, Councilpersons, and Planning Commissioners of Redondo Beach and Torrance:
I just wanted to pass on my concerns about the Beach Cites Health District Phase 1 Development. I live directly east of the proposed development on Redbeam Avenue between Towers and Del Amo. In addition to the concerns that Stop BCHD has compiled (see below) I also want to recommend that you drive though the neighborhood just east of the development (streets: Tom Lee, Mildred, Redbeam, Linda) and observe how many signs (objecting to the BCHD development) are posted in the neighbors front yards. It looks like “stop BCHD” is running for public office. It will give you a true feeling as to how many residents are objecting to the proposed development.
Wasn’t this property taken by eminent domain for the purpose of being a hospital? Why is there not a hospital being built on this property? Right now there is a UCLA urgent care that is available to surrounding residents. I have used this medical facility twice. It is very well equipped and an effective Urgent Care.
Thank your for attention and consideration of the concerns of the local residents, Gary
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment - Forward to Mayors, Councils, Planning Commissions
Date: May 14, 2022 at 2:05:00 PM PDT
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
FORWARD this (including attachment) to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Honorable Mayor, Councilpersons, and Planning Commissioners of Redondo Beach and Torrance:
These are non-agenda item comments to the legislative bodies above for their next general meeting as permitted by the Brown Act.
I am concerned about Beach Cities Health District’s proposed Phase 1 development plan that will be commercially
DEVELOPED/OWNED/OPERATED. Phase 1 is proposed to be 110-feet above the surrounding streets and 300,000 sqft in size. Phase 2 will bring the total BCHD site up to nearly 800,000 sqft, which is 250% its current size. That is larger than the entire adjacent Beryl Heights neighborhood’s homes' sizes all added together. BCHDs proposed plan is also 3-times the height and 150% as large as the voter-rejected CenterCal Mall-by-the-Sea.
I am also concerned that BCHD continues to spend from a $16M taxpayer fund, preparing inconsistent, incompatible, and irresponsible plans on an elevated site in the center of residential, 30-foot or lower maximum height neighborhoods.
BCHDs 2017 design committed to protecting neighborhoods with buildings in the center and surface parking around the edges buffering homes from damages.
BCHDs 2019 design (June EIR) was 60-feet tall and ringed the site on the edge.
The 2020 design (June Board) was 76-feet tall and also on the edge. The 2021 design (March EIR) was 103-feet tall and also on the edge. The current design is claimed to be 83-feet tall and also on the edge of the site and still meets NONE of the comments regarding excessive height and size from 100s of surrounding neighbors and 1000s of petitioners against the project.
The attachment specifically calls out BCHDs plan’s noncompliance with specific sections of RBMC CUP and PCDR and on TMC Hillside Overlay.
I ask that the Mayors, Councils and Planning Commissioners provide guidance to their respective Staff and lawyers to convey the public’s disapproval of the current plan that BCHD is pouring our tax funding into. Thank you. --
STOP BCHD ([email protected]) is a neighborhood community of residents concerned about the economic and quality-of-life damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict on our families for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 and the damages outweigh any benefits.
NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following is provided regarding BCHDs proposed 3rd party DEVELOPER/OWNER/ OPERATOR development project that BCHD will be filing a formal Conditional Use Permit and Planning Commission Design Review application for during the first half of 2022.
These comments are filed to agencies as non-agenda comments of the public, in the interest of the public, and under Cal Gov Code 54954.3."regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public" there is an affirmative obligation to provide these comments to the Planning Commission, City Council or other “legislative” bodies upon receipt.
Summary Table of BCHD Project Non-Compliance with Municipal Codes
PERMIT CONDITION BCHD PROJECT NON-COMPLIANCE
1. CUP “will not adversely affect
surrounding uses and
properties”
As supported by over 1,200 petition signers and 100s, if not 1,000 surrounding resident comments to BCHD, surrounding residential uses are adversely impacted in reduced privacy, property value, aesthetics, noise, traffic and toxic emissions.
2. CUP “for the proposed use …
shall be adequate in size
and shape to
accommodate such use”
Given the proposed project plan to locate buildings at the elevated site’s perimeter, the elevated site is not adequate to accommodate the proposed use.
3. CUP “no adverse effect on
abutting property”
The properties on the 1400 Block of Diamond are subjected to the storage of explosive liquid fuels, a 2,000 kW
combustion power plant, and a 16,000 to 4,000 V substation.
These mechanical and explosion hazards adversely impact safety, safe air, local emissions, noise, and vibration.
4. PCDR “ensure compatibility …
in the community”
Based on the City of Redondo Beach’s finding that the
design of The Kensington was consistent and compatible
with the surrounding residential uses, the 110-foot above Beryl St., Miami Beach commercial styled facility cannot also be deemed compatible with similar, 30-foot and under residential uses in the community.
5. PCDR “protect property values
… of neighborhoods”
Statistical modeling demonstrates that neighborhoods nearer to BCHD have reduced property values compared to
neighborhoods further from BCHD. BCHD is proposing to
increase height from 99% under 52-feet to 103-feet and to increase over building size from 312,000 sqft to nearly 800,000 sqft.
6. PCDR “shall consider the impact
… of the user in respect to
circulation, parking,
traffic, etc.”
BCHD proposed design will require the 8-10 story parking ramp at Prospect and Diamond to enter/exit on Prospect
northbound. Further, the proposed height of the RCFE and location on the perimeter damages the privacy, aesthetics, excess nighttime lighting, noise impacts and other basic attributes of the surrounding uses and properties.
7. PCDR “location of buildings and
structures shall respect the
natural terrain of the site”
The elevated site has from 30-feet to 70-feet elevation gain over surrounding residential uses. As a result, creation of a 110-foot rise over Beryl St., a 10-story parking ramp over Tomlee and Diamond Sts, and a 4-story, flat wall toward Prospect fails to respect the natural elevated terrain. The original 52-foot, 4 story building and its 0.3%, 968 sqft penthouse were nearly centered in the site, thereby respecting the natural terrain.
8. PCDR “overall design shall be
integrated and compatible
with the neighborhood
and shall strive to be in
harmony with the scale
and bulk of surrounding
properties”
A 300,000 sqft, 110-foot above the street concrete and glass commercial building makes no attempt to integrate and be compatible with the neighborhood in scale or bulk. Further, unlike The Kensington and its Santa Barbara style, the
Miami Beach condominium/hotel style proposed, when
coupled with the excessive height and mass is thoroughly non-compatible with surrounding properties.
9. PCDR “shall be consistent with
the intent of residential
design guidelines”
The residential design guidelines are intended to increase the quality of life of the neighborhood of the construction. It is very clear from the 1,200 petition signatories regarding the height and size of the project that it does not increase the quality of life. Further, there have been 100s, if not 1,000s of comments and concerns regarding the impacts of noise,
emissions, traffic, glare, lighting, excess non-directed nighttime lighting, nighttime elevated signage and other factors that diminish quality of life.
10. RDG “to improve the quality of
life in residential
neighborhoods … [t]hese
design guidelines are
intended to help
accomplish this
objective”
The BCHD project reduces the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods. The BCHD commercial
Developer/Owner/Operator is targeting 90% non-Redondo
Beach residents and 80% non-residents of the 3 beach cities (HB/RB/MB). The PACE facility is scaled for 400
participants with only 17 expected to be from the 3 beach cites according to National PACE Assoc. statistics. The BCHD project nearly triples the size of campus buildings from 312,000 sqft to 800,000 sqft and more than doubles the effective height from 99% less than 52-feet to 109.7-ft. The quality of life of surrounding neighborhoods will be reduced by the commercial, non-resident services as all damages will accrue to the neighborhoods.
11. THO “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”
The adjoining Torrance neighborhoods are in the Hillside Overlay. The BCHD would not be allowed in overlay, and
the City of Torrance has an obligation to protect its residents.
The BCHD project is located to maximize damages to views, light, air and privacy based on height, size and perimeter location.
12. THO “the design will not have
a harmful impact upon the
land value and investment
of other properties in the
vicinity”
Statistical analysis demonstrates that surrounding property values are lower, the closer the properties are to the BCHD site. Peer-reviewed research demonstrates that larger, taller developments, such as BCHDs proposal, will have equal or larger negative impacts on property values.
RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review (PCDR) Redondo Beach Residential Design Guidelines (RDG)
Redondo Beach Beryl Heights Neighborhood Specific Guidelines (BH RDG) TMC 91.41.6 Planning and Design (Torrance Hillside Overlay, THO)