Redo redux
Dear ER:
This story is so sad (“Gallery redo delayed,” ER March 28, 2024). No start up date after nearly eight years have passed since this project was first discussed.
Ray Bennning
Redondo Beach
Not again
Dear ER:
I join earlier voices protesting the Hermosa Beach city manager forcing the local residents to again vote on an increase in city sales tax. The employees working in Hermosa Beach restaurants and local businesses are facing an extraordinary increase in parking fees in order to go to work. We are not making enough money to cover parking let alone an added increase in sales tax. Is the Hermosa Beach city manager and council actually trying to close down small businesses?
Claire Evans
Hermosa Beach
What’s wrong with Redondo
Dear ER:
El Segundo has The Pointe, Manhattan Beach has Metlox and Manhattan Village, Hermosa has Pier Avenue, and Redondo has the outdated Galleria. I don’t completely believe the lack of funding for the project is all because of the economy/COVID/interest rates etc. Lenders loathe risk. Unfortunately, Redondo’s reputation must be a hard sell for those who could fund this project, given our financial ranking relative to our neighbors and our “nasty” politics making the front page of the Los Angeles Times. Most recently, our City Council made the news for making it difficult for Beach Cities Health District to proceed with the Healthy Living Campus. Perhaps it would be wise for our City Council to work with the Beach Cities Health District to show lenders Redondo Beach is capable of working with those who want to invest in Redondo. If Redondo can’t work with BCHD, who can they work with? Would residents rather have the project completed with housing, or see the mall stay vacant, or perhaps see Amazon use the space for a warehouse? I guess the voters will ultimately decide.
Marie Walsh Puterbaugh
Redondo Beach
Let those who pay play
Dear ER:
As a matter of policy, Redondo Beach public/institutional land should be used for the benefit of residents and taxpayers of Redondo Beach. The simplest explanation being that Redondo Beach residents suffer the damages of noise, traffic, pollution, crime, excess lighting, overdevelopment and property value decline associated with the development and operation. As a result, it is plainly nonsensical to assume that an agency that has been granted public land should be using it for the benefit of 91% to 97% non-resident/non-taxpayers of Redondo Beach. That is what the Beach Cities Health District proposes for its non-resident focused Health Living Campus
Neither BCHD, nor any other agency with public land should be allowed to export services and import damages using public land. We need a firm Redondo Beach policy that requires parcels, such as those used by the City for the predominant value of Redondo Beach residents, be granted a bonus Floor Area Ratio. So long as 51% of the facility is built to benefit Redondo Beach residents, it can have an FAR of 1.25 for public/institutional land. Other public parcels should be rezoned commercial and taxable if the intent is for non-resident benefit. Redondo Beach residents and taxpayers suffer the damages of development. The quid pro quo must be the majority of the development’s benefits are for residents..
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Don’t wait for the quake
Dear ER:
What we have been reading in the press sounds like a plot by a few people to torpedo the plan and force BCHD to modify its proposed Health Living Campus to such an extent as to make it inadequate to serve the residents (“Beach Cities plan at risk,” Easy Reader March 28, 2024). The most unnerving part of the unfolding drama is that it seems to have changed the course of the project almost overnight when a change of FAR (Floor Area Ratio), from 1.25 to 0.75 for the BCHD site “magically appeared” in the final draft of the plan. All the city’s business is required by state laws to be conducted in a transparent, ethical and fair manner. If that is the case, how can such developments be explained and justified?
Easy Reader quotes one council member as saying, “We are the final decision makers as city council. We take the responsibility.” They are indeed the decision-makers. However, they must remember that accountability goes hand-in-hand with responsibility, followed by consequences, when they are elected to represent the voting public.
BCHD serves two rapidly growing segments of the population – youth and seniors. Its youth programs have benefitted over 16,000 boys and girls while the Center for Fitness draws more than 2,000 members, many of them seniors, almost daily. Its “Blue Zones” project has been supported by 22,000 residents and has led to a 42% decrease in smoking, a 19% increase in exercise, and a 29% decline in obesity. BCHD’s activities will be severely curtailed or even dropped if the drastic change to reduce the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) by a whopping 40% is approved. There is no doubt it will lead to lawsuits that will drag the project out for many years. In the meantime, if the unthinkable happens and we are struck by a major earthquake, BCHD’s 63-year-old building is not likely to survive. That will result in enormous costs and loss of life. Are our elected council members willing to acknowledge the risks and take responsibility for such calamity?
It is not a question of if but when such a quake strikes us and has a devastating effect on the buildings and those inside it if they are not updated as soon as possible. In the last few days, a 7.4-magnitude earthquake rocked Taiwan while a 4.8-magnitude earthquake shook more than 42 million people on the East Coast. L.A. County has a very high probability of experiencing a strong earthquake. According to the United States Geological Survey, there is a more than 75% chance of one or more earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.0 or greater striking Southern California within the next 20 years. Do we want to let BCHD go ahead with the project or wait until the existing buildings collapse?
The “Stop BCHD” movement is endorsed by very few people. A great majority of the Beach Cities’ residents overwhelmingly support the project. The movement is painting a doomsday scenario by projecting loss of property value should the project proceed as planned. It is not based on any verifiable data. It is reminiscent of the fear-mongering that tried to stop Prop 13 in 1978. The property owners bought their homes when the BCHD building was already there. I predict that their property values will significantly appreciate once the project is completed.
The management of BCHD has had numerous meetings with the residents and has pared down the project, which now includes 48% fewer Residential Care units, a 40% reduction in building sizes (reducing the square footage from 423,000 to 253,700), with plans to shift them farther away from adjacent homes and less construction time (from nine to five years).
The most responsible, prudent, and sensible thing to do is for the Redondo City Council to approve the project so BCHD can proceed without any further delays. I urge the Redondo Beach City Council to comply with the state laws on transparency and fairness, and not force an exception to the F.A.R. on the BCHD project in the interest of a few but to the detriment of a majority of residents of the beach cities.
Vijay Jeste
Redondo Beach
