StopBCHD's Public Response to Poster's ER Rant

Knowing BCHD, it's likely that the Vanessa Poster "Sand Box" letter cost tens of thousand$ of taxpayer fund$ in $alaries and consultant$ to write. 

Poster's Rant

As Poster concludes her rant, she/they/them/consultants/contractors/etc wrote:

"It pains me that the City of Redondo Beach, my city, a city that I love and have called home for more than 30 years, has chosen to make a recommendation in the city’s general plan that constrains all of us in finding creative solutions to meet our community’s needs into the future."

StopBCHD's Response to Poster:

It pains US that BCHD's Vanessa Poster and the rest of its errant Board and $2.3M annual executive payroll believe that BCHD is justified in using ANY REDONDO BEACH PUBLIC LAND for 80% to 95% District NON-RESIDENT BENEFITS for the proposed HLC: 

Assisted Living

80% non-resident tenants in a luxury assisted living facility by a 100% private developer (per BCHD costly consultants);

allcove

91% non-resident service area from Avalon to Long Beach (per LA County SPA8 contract area) and FREE taxpayer-owned land at Beryl & Flagler to boot!

PACE

95% non-resident PACE enrollees in BCHD's planned 400 enrollee program (per BCHD investment bankers and the National PACE Assoc).

BCHD Damages

Redondo Beach and Torrance surrounding neighborhoods will suffer 100% of BCHD damages from traffic, noise, construction, and further property devaluation as BCHD HLC provides only 3% to 9% of its services to Redondo Beach residents (per BCHD MDS consultants, BCHD Cain investment bankers, LA County Health SPA8 allcove area, National PACE Assoc)

Ample Land for Development for the Future if USED FOR RESIDENTS

If BCHD were not hell bent on squandering Redondo Beach Public land for 80% to 95% District non-resident use, we would have generations of land available - unlike Poster's claim. BCHD is the cause of our lost Public Land. BCHD seeks to use our PUBLIC LAND (PI, P-CF) for the 80% to 95% benefit of NON-DISTRICT RESIDENTS. BCHD must return to servicing the "residents who reside" in the District.

IS FAR 0.75 TOO MUCH FOR BCHD?

BCHD plans to use 80% to 95% of the land for District Non-Resident service.  Perhaps the FAR should be restructured based on a fraction of land use for Redondo Beach residents.

We propose:

Base FAR 0.50 - Any PI facility with less than 50% Redondo Beach Resident services.

Enhanced FAR 0.75 - Any PI facility with at least 50% Redondo Beach Resident services

Enhanced FAR 1.25 - Any PI facility with at least 75% Redondo Beach Resident services

If a facility is being developed for non-residents, its development should be severely limited to protect RESIDENTS health, safety, and property values.

--

StopBCHD.com (StopBCHD@gmail.com) 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.