It is my understanding that Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) is about to approve an "assignment" of its design-build authority to its development partner.

However, let me take this opportunity to remind you that the whole BCHD development project has serious legal problems.

In particular, the 514 N. Prospect property was obtained via eminent domain in 1957. That status has never changed. But once property is obtained through eminent domain, the rule is that the property must forever remain in "public use." California law does permit a change in use pursuant to CCP SECTION 1245.245, but BCHD has never followed that procedure even after the hospital was closed over two decades ago and new uses were established under the law.

To me, if officials now allow BCHD to assign its design-build auth for facilities that are not "public uses," those officials are responsible for a miscarriage of the law. So I ask that you intervene as best you can.

Secondly, be aware that BCHD apparently expects to allow a residential facility on its property through a private developer. However, the relevant rule in the Principal Act is this:

(j) To establish, maintain, and operate, or provide assistance in the

operation of, one or more health facilities or health services, including,

but not limited to, outpatient programs, services, and facilities;

retirement programs, services, and facilities; chemical dependency

programs, services, and facilities; or other health care programs,

services, and facilities and activities at any location within or without the

district for the benefit of the district and the people served by the district.

“Health care facilities,” as used in this subdivision, means those facilities

defined in subdivision (b) of Section 32000.1 and specifically includes

freestanding chemical dependency recovery units. “Health facilities,” as

used in this subdivision, may also include those facilities defined in

subdivision (d) of Section 15432 of the Government Code.

(emphasis added)

I ask you to examine all of the direct and indirect references to what is a health care facility. I have looked many times, and the sort of residential facility proposed by BCHD is not allowed in the statute. I invite you to show me I am wrong. But if you find no statutory rule that allows BCHD to enable sort of RCFE it proposes, then I would hope you would deny any steps to make this the BCHD redevelopment plan centerpiece. Does the statute language mean nothing? I understand that BCHD has often quoted only the first part of (j) here, but it leaves out the bolded text. Doing so omits a key provision of the law.

BCHD is clearly incompetent and the private company, PMB LLC, like any firm, is an improvement over BCHD attempting any project.