by Garth Meyer
The Beach Cities Health District’s proposed Healthy Living Campus could be stopped from ever being built because of a provision in the Redondo Beach draft General Plan update.
The item, known as Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.), determines how many square feet may be built on public land.
The General Plan draft was created by a 27-member, city-appointed advisory committee (GPAC), which has submitted its recommendations to the planning commission, which later advises the city council on a final draft to go before voters.
GPAC members say they did not address the square footage issue during their work.
“It magically appeared in the product, so to speak,” said GPAC member Matt Kilroy. “It made the (BCHD) site a .75 (maximum Floor Area Ratio). This was never voted on by GPAC, it came in there in the middle of the night by city staff.”
He suggested a reason why.
“There’s obviously opposition to the Healthy Living Campus,” Kilroy said. “If (the city planning department) did that, who do they report to – the city manager. Who does he report to? City council. Could a majority of the council have gotten the bright idea to …?”
An F.A.R. of .75 refers to the density allowed on a lot. For example, on a 10,000 square-foot property with an F.A.R. of 1.25, the owner may build up to 11,250 square feet. For .75, they may build only 7,500 square feet.
“I don’t have a recollection of us being that specific about F.A.R. at the BCHD site,” said Phil Sanchez, GPAC vice chairman. “We didn’t talk about that at all.”
With these rules, as stated, BCHD’s entire Healthy Living Campus plan would not be permitted – including the six-story assisted living complex, community wellness pavilion, aquatic center, Center for Health and Fitness and a parking structure.
“Both phases of the project would be over .75,” said Tom Bakaly, BCHD chief executive officer. “We’re very concerned about it. It’s not uniform. We don’t believe it’s legal. (The .75) does seem it was targeted at us. This is downzoning the public’s ability to use its property, it’s an existential issue for us. It would hinder the modernization of our outdated campus and potentially lead to reduction of health services in the three beach cities.”
Sean Scully, Redondo Beach acting community development director, said that the city previously had no designated F.A.R. for the BCHD campus land, originally the South Bay Hospital, built in 1960.
“I’m not aware of BCHD’s comments, other than they would prefer 1.25 F.A.R.,” Scully said.
California state code requires that city land-use elements include a recommendation for building density, and population density, in each zone.
In May 2021, after a city council discussion about housing, the council voted 3-2 to recommend an F.A.R. of .75 for all Public Institutional zones, except for the Redondo Beach Civic Center (city hall, police station and library) and the police annex next to the high school.
Newly appointed Mayor Jim Light, a GPAC member from 2017 to its end in 2024, confirmed that the .75 F.A.R. appearing in the draft General Plan update did not come from the GPAC committee.
“We did not provide any zoning changes for BCHD,” he said. “The city laid out areas they wanted GPAC to address and BCHD wasn’t on it.”
So how might it have gotten into the document?
“I have my opinions, but I’ll keep my mind open in my role as mayor,” Light said. “… That site did not have any F.A.R., which is not atypical of sites like that.”
“When we received the draft, at our final GPAC meeting (Jan. 30), staff pointed it out to us. ‘Hey, this is in the document now,’” said GPAC Vice Chair Sanchez.
Placeworks, a city consultant, helped the city planning department compile and format the General Plan draft after GPAC submitted its final work.
No ‘massive skyscrapers’
Nils Nehrenheim is one of the city councilmembers who voted in favor of an F.A.R. of .75 for the majority of public land.
“I believe all parcels should have a Floor Area Ratio so government can’t build massive skyscrapers,” he told Easy Reader. “Allowing government to regulate itself can lead to a bad outcome… whether for city hall, the library, the police department, it’s all government property.”
Nehrenheim maintains that all Public Institutional lands should be at .75 F.A.R, except for the civic center area and the police annex, for which he proposed the less restrictive 1.25.
“Government buildings in Redondo never had an F.A.R..,” he said. “Now we’re just saying, here it is, a starting point. Redondo has a history of overbuilding on government property.”
The GPAC draft is now under environmental review by a consultant to the planning commission.
“(The draft) gets modified by city staff, planning commission and (ultimately) city council,” Nehrenheim said. “It’s a working document.”
“We’re a built-out community. Land is a tough commodity in Redondo Beach,” said GPAC vice chairman Sanchez. “I think (the F.A.R.) needs to be the same throughout for Public Institutional zones. That’s my opinion.”
City Councilman Zein Obagi, Jr., concurred.
“It seems like all Public Institutional should be the same, not hand-selected for reduced F.A.R.,” he said.
30-year view
The General Plan update focuses on land use, byway of housing, infrastructure, mobility, conservation, recreation and parks, open space and environmental hazards/natural hazards.
“It’s, ‘what would we like to see happen in the city over the next 30 years?’” Sanchez said.
“We’ll have multiple public hearings going forward,” said Scully. “We’ll certainly be able to review the BCHD comments and the other comments we’re going to get.”
“I hope the people don’t pass it (when it goes to a vote),” Kilroy said. “It doesn’t represent the GPAC consensus. We can do better. The GPAC was drastically changed and a number of us don’t think it should be approved by voters.”
GPAC Chairman Nick Biro was previously retained by BCHD as a consultant. In turn, he referred Sanchez to answer questions about the General Plan.
Sanchez emphasized that the GPAC’s role was solely advisory.
“We’re making recommendations. We are not making policy,” he said.
The city’s last general plan update was in 1992.
“We’re the final decision makers, as city council,” Nehrenheim said. “We take the responsibility.” ER
