top of page

Help out the local neighborhoods and send an email today!


We realize that your time is precious and that we don't have BCHD's $10M taxpayer funded budget for advertising and letters and $300,000+ annual management salaries like BCHD does. You are welcome to write your own comment letter and use all or part of the letter below as you like.

However, in the interest of time and in recognition of the complex issues, we hope that you are able to find time TODAY to support your friends and neighbors by forwarding this email to:

Please include a very short note in your forward, such as "Public Comment from John Doe".  That will be sufficient to make it a valid comment.

Thank you for your continued support, and together we will continue to work to save our local neighborhoods and refocus BCHD.

******THANK YOU!*******

By Email to:

To the Redondo Beach and Torrance Mayors, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

I ask the City Councils to act on behalf of the Public to force BCHD to adhere to the letter of the law of the Redondo Beach and Torrance Municipal Codes on its 100% commercially developed, owned and operated Phase 1 campus expansion.  BCHD has 0% ownership of this Phase 1 private project (PMB is 100% owner) and the project should receive the same diligence as any other commercial project.

Since June of 2019 when BCHD proposed the 60-foot tall, 800,000 square foot design without any Public review, the Public has been shut out of the process. Despite the Public’s call for shorter, smaller and further from the site edges, BCHD increased the height from 60-feet (6/2019) to 76-feet (6/2020) to 103-feet (3/2021) and to 107.5-feet (2/2022). BCHD also removed 160,000 square feet of underground parking and added an 8-10 story parking ramp on the site’s edge. The proposed building sits on the edge of the site along Beryl & Flagler at least 30-feet above surrounding residential neighborhoods.

BCHD’s advertising campaign cleverly claims to have downsized the project, yet it is now both taller and has more above ground square feet than it did in June 2019 despite public outrage to reduce the size since June 2019.

The recent hearing by the Redondo Beach City Council to overturn its Planning Department’s approval of the Catalina Avenue development shows the Department’s strong bias to support commercial developers – not the Public. It’s disappointing that the Redondo Beach City Council had to appeal and overturn its own Planning Department’s poor decision. But thankfully, the Council sided with the Public and did correct the injustice proposed by Planning.

I ask that the Redondo Beach City Council provide its Planning Department with guidance to support the Public, not the developers. This will hopefully avoid a private, commercial overdevelopment from being approved on the Public land at BCHD (BCHD has given PMB LLC a 95-year lease for private operations of an assisted living and commercial rental space).

I ask the Torrance City Council to diligently work to defend the interests of property owners under the Hillside Overlay Ordinance by actively opposing any and all BCHD or City of Redondo Beach activity that would be inconsistent with the rights that residents would have if the project were in Torrance.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and support to avoid another Redondo Beach Planning Department error, such as approval of the Catalina project that the Council was forced to appeal and overturn. Please provide the information at the end of my letter to the Planning Department with guidance to act in the best interest of the impacted surrounding residents and property.


Based on the purpose and letter of the law in the RBMC and TMC, please reinforce the following with the Redondo Beach Planning Department to avoid another erroneous approval of this commercial project. Based on objective analysis in the detailed document at  

the privately developed/owned/operated PMB project of roughly 300,000 square feet and at least 110-feet above surrounding neighborhoods does not meet the requirements of either Redondo Beach or Torrance Municipal Codes.

RBMC 10-2.2506 Conditional Use Permits

The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2506 includes “…insure that the establishment or significant alteration of those uses will not adversely affect surrounding uses and properties…”


RBMC 10-2.2502 Planning Commission Design Review

The purpose stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:



The criteria stated in RBMC 10-2.2502 includes the following:


[5]  “RESPECT THE NATURAL TERRAIN OF THE SITE” – the 30-foot height of the site along Beryl & Flagler coupled with BCHD’s proposed 80+ feet yields 110+ feet above homes and is incompatible.




RB Residential Design Guidelines

According to the intent of the RDGs:

[9]     “Compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development’

[10]  “Preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods.” 

[11]  “Be compatible with the character of the neighborhood”

[12]  “Respect the development in the immediate area”

[13]  “Avoidance of overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions”

[14]  “Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk.”

TMC Section 91.41 Hillside Overlay Ordinance

Surrounding properties in Torrance are subject to the Hillside Overlay Ordinance. While the project is outside the Ordinance, the City of Torrance should aggressively protect the property rights of its residents by opposing any action by BCHD or the City of Redondo Beach that results in impacts on Torrance residents.

TMC 91.41 contains:

[15]  ”The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the view, light, air and privacy of other properties in the vicinity”

[16]  “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”

[17]  “The design will not have a harmful impact upon the land values and investment of other properties in the vicinity”

[18] “Granting such application would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare and to other properties in the vicinity”

[19]  “The proposed development will not cause or result in an adverse cumulative impact on other properties in the vicinity.”

Send a Letter: Text

Yes, send the email on my behalf to the Cities asking that they support RESDIENTS - NOT DEVELOPERS

Thanks for your feedback!

Send a Letter: Feedback Form

Letter to the City

Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and Planning Commissioners:

The public learned for the first time on Thursday 11/10/22 that BCHD is going to pay $300,000 or more to reimburse the City of Redondo Beach for consultants. The consultants will review BCHDs private, 107-1/2 foot tall, 275,000 square foot Phase 1 building by PMB, the developer/owner/operator of the facility.

The City Council Agenda Packet does not indicate any public involvement in the process. In fact there are all sort of omnious terms of agreement between BCHD and the City, such as “joint defense agreement” and “work product privilege” and others that are aimed at stopping the public’s ability to gain information during the $300K+ process.

Until such time as the City has a public participation plan in place for the duration of this consultant activity, the agreements between the City and all parties should remain unsigned. At a minimum, the public needs full access to all work product, review and comment rights on all materials provided by BCHD to the City or its consultants, and review and comment rights of the final work products before they are published.  Any other action continues to blindside the public, especially surrounding property owners.

Tuesday night is NOT the time to execute these agreements. Notwithstanding the claim that “time is of the essence” clause in the agreement, time is NOT of the ESSENCE.

BCHD is proposing a 95-year lease to a private company that services 80% non-residents of the District and BCHD is signing 20-year rental agreements for 91% District non-residents in the allcove mental health program and 95% District non-residents in PACE.

When reviewing Redondo Beach non-residents, the numbers are worse yet. 91% of the assisted living residents will be non-residents of Redondo, 95% of the allcove participants and 98% of the PACE enrollees.  In short, there is no hurry for Redondo Beach residents to suffer 100% of the District damages of this project for only 2% to 9% of the benefits.  There is no way this project can have any NET BENEFITS to Redondo Beach residents.  Adjacent Torrance residents will also be damaged, and Torrance is not even a jurisdiction in BCHD.

We urge the Council to open the first meeting in December to public comment and discussion instead of signing this ill conceived agreements and silencing public input even further than BCHD has. It should take as long as it takes to keep Redondo Beach residents and surrounding Torrance residents safe and whole during this process.

Thank you.

Send a Letter: Text
bottom of page