top of page
  • stopbchd

LAFCO Failed the Public with BCHD's Hearing

Updated: Sep 21, 2022

Last week, BCHD had a hearing at the LA Local Area Formation Commission. BCHD misrepresented that it provided "indirect services" through EVERY BUSINESS AND DOCTOR in the 510, 514 and 520 N Prospect buildings. That's an outrageous claim!

Court documents state that Districts "provide indirect services to residents through

third party healthcare providers; for example, providing funds to support

community based organizations." The tenants in ALL 3 BUILDINGS that we spoke to confirmed - THEY GET NOTHING FROM BCHD!

We need YOU to send a quick email to the LA District Attorney, the LA County Counsel and the State Attorney General to help spark an investigation.

BCHD doesn't even OWN 510 or 520! Tenants there lease from a private Developer/Owner/Operator and the leasing agent confirmed BCHD has no part in the lease. And TENANTS in 510 and 520 confirm that they have no relationship with BCHD and they wrote that to LAFCO as well.

BCHD owns 514 N Prospect (the failed hospital building) and the tenants that we talked to told us that they have ORDINARY LEASES with BCHD and that they have NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP with BCHD otherwise that could be considered an "indirect service". We provided those letters to LAFCO as well.

Plain and simple - it appears that LAFCO SCREWED UP! And it cost the public its RIGHT to stop LAFCO from allowing BCHD to "activate" services that will serve 95% non-residents of the 3 Beach Cities!

Please copy the information below into an email TODAY and send it off! YOU CAN HELP!

SUBJECT: Please Investigate LALAFCO's Failure on Agenda Item 7b from its 9/14/22 Meeting


In its Municipal Service Review of BCHD, LALAFCO accepted as fact that BCHD provides a number of "indirect services" to the community. LALAFCO relied on that finding in order to waive LAFCO's statutory obligation to analyze and determine if BCHD's latent powers should be activated to support BCHD's proposed PACE program.

According to its own tenants that filed comments, BCHD misrepresented to LALAFCO that it provides "indirect services" through its tenants in the 514 N Prospect Ave, Redondo Beach, CA building. BCHD's assertions were that UCLA Health and others provide services to the community indirectly for BCHD, even though no tenant that was contacted has any services agreements with BCHD. Further, all contacted parties have asserted that they only have ordinary lease agreements and have no other business relationships with BCHD that constitutes a quid pro quo for "indirect services" provision.

Additionally according to other businesses that filed comments, BCHD also misrepresented to LALAFCO that it provides indirect services through the tenants of other developer/owner/operators in the 510 and 520 N Prospect Ave, Redondo Beach, CA buildings. The buildings are not owned, leased or managed by BCHD, and BCHD has no lease agreements with any of the tenants based on both tenants contacted and the leasing company (Dunn Companies) for 510 and 520 N Prospect Ave.

Based on any reasonable definition of "indirect services" BCHD would at a minimum require a quid pro quo with each provider of those services. In the case of the 510 and 520 N Prospect Ave tenants, those businesses commented that they have NO RELATIONSHIP with BCHD. In the case of the 514 building, the tenants have ordinary lease agreements and BCHD provides no pay for services provision.

If BCHD alleges to be providing some form of non-contract, in-kind services, then the tax liabilities of those services must be determined. Otherwise, no "indirect services" appear to be provided to the overwhelming majority of businesses claimed by BCHD.

LALAFCOs decision on September 14, 2022 in Agenda Item 7b erred by relying on BCHDs assertions. As a result, the public was denied its protections and rights under §56133 requiring LALAFCO to conduct proper analysis and public input on the activation of the many latent powers that BCHD falsely claims to provide "indirectly" through providers with which BCHD has no contracts providing a quid pro quo for the business to provide services to the community on behalf of BCHD.

As a member of the public denied protections and rights intended by the Legislature under §56133, I ask the California Attorney General, the Los Angeles County District Attorney and Los Angeles County Counsel offices to examine and rectify this error by LALAFCO.


56 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page