City Council on 2026-01-20 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 01-20-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2026-01-20 6:00 PM -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
01-20-26
18:00
66 43 18 24 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2026-01-20 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 01-20-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
H.8. 25-1665 APPROVE A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH WGJ
ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA PCI STRIPING, TO PROVIDE CITYWIDE
STREET STRIPING SERVICES FOR A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $700,000
1 0 1 0
H.9. 25-1717 APPROVE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ON-CALL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. TO EXTEND THE TERM THROUGH JANUARY 22, 2028 AND INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $100,000 FOR A NEW NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL OF $350,000
1 0 1 0
N.1. 26-0096 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE
GENERAL PLAN-LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE WITH A FOCUS ON
THE BUILDING INTENSITY (FLOOR AREA RATIO) LIMITS FOR THE PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL (PI) AND "OTHER" NON-RESIDENTIAL
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
39 16 22 0
P.1. 26-0097 APPROVE LETTER TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO)
REGARDING THE CITY'S SUPPORT OF THE HAWTHORNE
ALTERNATIVE FOR THE PROPOSED C LINE EXTENSION TO
TORRANCE PROJECT
2 2 0 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for H.8. 25-1665 APPROVE A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH WGJ ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA PCI STRIPING, TO PROVIDE CITYWIDE STREET STRIPING SERVICES FOR A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED $700,000 Overall Sentiment
Darryl Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 9:51pm 01-19-26
I oppose the waste of $700,000 for an outsourced striping company when we have a Public Works Department and Public Works employees to do jobs like this.
The Residents of 500-600 N Prospect Ave. could sure use funds like this cure the problems that we live through on a daily and nightly basis. Yet we are constantly denied safety, noise, and privacy upgrades and remedy of real public safety and noise nuisance issues. This is a slap in the face to tax paying Residents like us.
Agenda Item: eComments for H.9. 25-1717 APPROVE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ON-CALL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO EXTEND THE TERM THROUGH JANUARY 22, 2028 AND INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $100,000 FOR A NEW NOT TO EXCEED TOTAL OF $350,000 Overall Sentiment
Darryl Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 9:55pm 01-19-26
It seems real easy for you people to just throw another $100K out there. The City is supposedly broke yet we continue to witness this Mayor and City Council and high ranking City Employees constantly advocating for more spending and waste that don't resolve problems for tax paying Residents.
The Residents of 500-600 N Prospect Ave. could sure use funds like this cure the problems that we live through on a daily and nightly basis. Yet we are constantly denied safety, noise, and privacy upgrades and remedy of real public safety and noise nuisance issues. This is a slap in the face to tax paying Residents like us.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 26-0096 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE GENERAL PLAN-LAND USE
ELEMENT UPDATE WITH A FOCUS ON THE BUILDING INTENSITY (FLOOR AREA RATIO) LIMITS FOR THE PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL (PI) AND "OTHER" NON-RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Overall Sentiment
Maricela Guillermo
Location:
Submitted At: 8:32pm 01-20-26
Please consider the City Planning Commission’s recommended FAR of 0.5 for BCHD and surplus school district properties. BCHD’s planned overdevelopment with 100% private developers should not be supersized. BCHD is a public agency, while the Artesia Corridor is a business corridor; they do not share the same goals. Our city needs more canopy trees and open space.
Dianne Curwick
Location:
Submitted At: 6:03pm 01-20-26
I support a 0.5 to .075 maximum FAR for ANY public land use. We need more open space and less development.
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED.
Do not allow BCHD to create and profit from a private-partnership on what is also PUBLIC land. A Health District that ignores the needs and desires of their constituents in the community for the sake of private corporate profits should be restricted and put on notice.
The council has the opportunity to limit the size of the building on the BCHD property, which would allow the property to fit in with the neighborhood, not over tower the neighboring buildings.
BCHD’s planned over development is a threat to safety, health and property values of ajoining homeowners.
Increased traffic is not safe for children walking and biking across Prospect Ave. Lower home values, noise and pollution are just a few of the negative impacts on local residents.
BCHD cannot be trusted to preserve neighborhood safety, character or value. BCHD must have a Floor Area Ratio cap of 0.5 (preferred) or 0.75 (maximum)
Marie Puterbaugh
Location:
Submitted At: 5:10pm 01-20-26
FAR FOR ONE, FAR FOR ALL! Come on RBCC, BCHD is a wonderful organization. It is really strange City Council cannot work with BCHD to get something done. I know there are "a lot" of things being done, but meaningful capital upgrades seem to take so long and get so bogged down in Redondo. BCHD offers services from cradle to grave to so many people. I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.
Travis Miller
Location:
Submitted At: 5:05pm 01-20-26
I am opposed to your assigning a FAR cap to the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) property that is less than the FAR applied to City property and other public uses. The BCHD is a public agency just as is the city fire and police departments, the city library and other departments.
Jessica Gonzales
Location:
Submitted At: 3:58pm 01-20-26
BCHD and the school district should not be allowed to force high density zoning on residents. Keep the proposed FAR at 0.5. We don’t need to ruin neighborhoods and eliminate open space just so they can make a buck at the expense of destroying neighborhoods.
Tory Lehrer
Location:
Submitted At: 3:56pm 01-20-26
There is no reason to go against the 0.5 FAR proposed by the planning commission. Keep it in place in the general plan do not allow it to be larger. If you don’t you will not like it when it comes time to be reelected.
JB Abrahams
Location:
Submitted At: 3:54pm 01-20-26
The planning commission carefully reviewed the FAR and arrived at a limit that makes sense. Do not allow the FAR to be raised above 0.5.
Monica Suua
Location:
Submitted At: 2:14pm 01-20-26
On behalf of Beach Cities Health District (“BCHD”), we have submitted, for background and context, the letter dated September 30, 2024, which was previously provided to the City Council in advance of its October 1, 2024 meeting to the city clerk as a public comment. This correspondence relates directly to Agenda Item N.1 on the City Council’s January 20, 2026 agenda, entitled “Discussion and Possible Action on the General Plan–Land Use Element Update with a Focus on the Building Intensity (Floor Area Ratio) Limits for the Public/Institutional (PI) and ‘Other’ Non-Residential General Plan Land Use Designations,” including the FAR applicable to the BCHD campus.
Given the passage of time since the Council last considered this issue, and recognizing that the Council and Planning Commission now include new members who were not involved in the 2024 deliberations, BCHD believed it would be helpful to provide this prior correspondence to assist the Council’s review and to provide continuity and context as deliberations resume. The enclosed letter also reflects the procedural history and considerations that informed earlier Council direction.
BCHD appreciates the City Council’s continued consideration of this matter and respectfully submits this correspondence to ensure a complete and informed record.
Theresa Cannon
Location:
Submitted At: 1:30pm 01-20-26
Honorable City Council and Mayor:
I am opposed to your assigning a FAR cap to the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) property that is less than the FAR applied to City property and other public uses. The BCHD is a public agency just as is the city fire and police departments, the city library and other departments.
To best serve the community, flexibility in a FAR cap is important to ensure public-serving facilities can adapt over time, make efficient use of existing land and continue meeting the evolving needs of Beach Cities residents. The City of Redondo Beach formally studied a 1.25 FAR for BCHD and recently found that it would result in no significant environmental impacts for the city.
The current proposal would apply lower FAR limits to BCHD than to select City of Redondo Beach properties with the same land use designation, resulting in unequal treatment of BCHD. This could limit BCHD's ability to sustain and expand vital community programs and services, including:
• The Center for Health & Fitness
• Social Workers for disabled and older adults
• Allcove Beach Cities - youth wellness center
• Blue Zones Project
• LiveWell Kids Garden and Nutrition
• Summer Free Fitness and BCHD's numerous other free programs and services In regard to Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.” Theresa Cannon
2819 May Avenue
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
krista allen
Location:
Submitted At: 1:16pm 01-20-26
Please keep this special district at a lower FAR to ensure our public use instead of leasing it to a private developer
Jennifer Goldstein
Location:
Submitted At: 1:04pm 01-20-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.
BCHD Health and Fitness are very important to me.
Mark Ford
Location:
Submitted At: 12:37pm 01-20-26
Comment on Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutions. It seems unfair. I do SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD and other institutions.
Mary Drummer
Location:
Submitted At: 12:35pm 01-20-26
Agenda Item N1: I oppose a restriction of a FAR for BCHD and support a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall, the Annex, and all other agencies that support the Citizens of Redondo Beach. Citing catastrophic repercussions in the neighborhood and surrounding areas is fear mongering, inaccurate and misleading.
Les Leigh
Location:
Submitted At: 11:39am 01-20-26
I support approval of the General Plan. I participated for years in the process and I trust the values and opinions of the GPAC and the Planning Commissioners. I'm sorry that BCHD has made this all about their development. I don't think we should be allowing heavy development at that site anyway.
This process is cumbersome and confusing for the public. I can't imagine how many residents were turned away from commenting because of the account setup and other impediments to commenting.
Terry Evans
Location:
Submitted At: 11:09am 01-20-26
I support the Redondo Beach Planning Commission proposal in total, including the floor area ratio limits on the Public zoning at the previously South Bay Hospital.
Stephanie Ishioka
Location:
Submitted At: 11:01am 01-20-26
I SUPPORT a 0.5 to 0.75 FAR cap for BCHD and oppose any increase in FAR for BCHD. Any increase in FAR would lead to catastrophic negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. We would be subject to traffic, noise, pollution and other negative impacts. No increase in FAR, period.
George Broatch
Location:
Submitted At: 10:47am 01-20-26
I strongly support BCHD and their programs to make the Beach Cities more livable, and the lives of all residents healthier and more enjoyable.
Therefore: Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
George Broatch
Dennis McLean
Location:
Submitted At: 4:33am 01-20-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.
If the Council chooses to proceed with a FAR cap, it must be consistent with the FAR applied to City Hall, the City’s other large public institutional property. The City adopted an addendum to the EIR concluding that maintaining the same FAR level (1.25) for these large public institutional properties would result in no significant impacts. Lowering FAR for BCHD could appear inconsistent and target a single property.
Having been a Director of Finance & IT in a neighboring City, I’ve watched costly litigation occur as a result of decisions with such inconsistencies.
Darryl Boyd
Location:
Submitted At: 9:34pm 01-19-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED.
Tom Bakaly and BCHD do not care about what they are already putting Residents at 500-600 N Prospect Ave and the Beryl Heights community through on a daily and nightly basis. BCHD has been a terrible neighbor for years and needs to be stopped NOW. The Residents of Redondo Beach voted with Measure BC, we said NO to Tom Bakaly and his Board of Directors that is nothing more than a crew of crony Corporate profiteers. They need to respect our wishes and they need to be stopped. The Mayor and City Council especially District 3 Council Member Kaluderovic need to start standing up for their constituents and tax paying Residents.
Is this the Beach Cities Health District or the Inner Cities Health District? We said NO! NO to Tom Bakaly, NO to BCHD, NO to BCHD's OVERDEVELOPMENT profiteering scheme at the expense of Redodno Beach Residents Quality Of Life!
Dan Elder
Location:
Submitted At: 9:05pm 01-19-26
I appreciate that the Planning Commission rightfully recognized that RBUSD property are incorrectly zoned Parks and Open Space and should be Public/Institutional as this corrects a longstanding misclassification. I’m however still very concerned about the City giving itself a higher FAR for properties it uses (even when it doesn’t own them) versus a much lower FAR for every other PI zone. A consistent FAR across all PI zoned properties supports the uniformity requirements of the Planning & Zoning Law such as Government Code § 65852.
Equitable treatment of all properties of the same zoning eliminates potential challenges for land swaps between RBUSD and the City (e.g., Anderson Park Senior Center). The Planning Commission even correctly identified this challenge as a recital, "the FAR upon School District properties only applies in the event that a School District property becomes a “surplus” property or otherwise is not used by the School District for educational purposes”.
Applying a higher FAR to "The Annex site on Northeast Corner of PCH and Vincent St” is particularly concerning as this is property owned by RBUSD and leased to the City. Please rectify the spot zoning for PI properties and apply a consistent, non-discriminatory FAR.
Executive Director StopBCHD.com
Location:
Submitted At: 6:29pm 01-19-26
On behalf of the hundreds of participants in StopBCHD.com, we support the FAR of 0.5 to 0.75 for ALL public land uses. Passage AS IS of the Planning Commission document will accomplish that codification of density for Public use.
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 6:25pm 01-19-26
To be clear, I support a 0.5 to .075 maximum FAR for ANY public land use. We need more open space and less development. BCHD especially needs to be contained with hard, quantitative restriction. BCHD lies to the public and the Council and cannot be trusted. Recall Board Member Poster claiming that the City Attorney admonished the Planning Commission to stop targeting BCHD. That was a 100% LIE according to the record. And the sad thing is, both the BCHD Board and the Council ALLOWED POSTER'S LIE.
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:
Submitted At: 5:16pm 01-19-26
Just like the majority City Council rightly opposes the one-size-fits-all, oppressive State housing mandates, so, too, should you apply the same logic to one-size-fits-all FAR within the City. BCHD's arrogance to imply an equal importance to our Police, Fire, and the City government is appalling. The services this Health District is supposed to provide can be accommodated "equitably" within a campus on a property that does not exceed a 0.75 FAR.
That they wish to go beyond those services, and establish a quasi-private-partnership on what is also PUBLIC land, is an ego and management problem of their overpaid executive staff. Don't make their inability to stay within their scope of taxpayer-defined authority become a much bigger problem. There's plenty of room for the BCHD to fulfill their obligations within the 0.75 FAR. I support the recommendation to limit the BCHD property to a FAR of
0.75. Thanks for your careful consideration.
Jill Klausen
Location:
Submitted At: 3:48pm 01-19-26
BCHD must have a Floor Area Ratio cap of 0.5. Nobody in the area wants this monstrosity built. We have been fighting against this (and winning) for years. As OUR elected representatives on the council, it is your OBLIGATION to abide by the wishes of your constituents, not the graft or influence of private, for-profit corporations, which is what BCHD is advocating for with this project.
BCHD's doubling of the campus would lead to catastrophic negative impacts on the surrounding thousands of residents' health and welfare with traffic, noise, pollution, and a heavier burden on services, including 911 emergency calls.
Here are the facts: "According to a new AARP _'Home and Community Preferences Survey._' Data _shows that 77 percent of adults 50 and older want to remain in their homes for the long term — a number that has been consistent for more than a decade. …
"Respondents said they value communities that provide access to clean water, healthy foods, quality health care and safe outdoor spaces."
https://www.aarp.org/home-living/home-and-community-preferences-survey-2021/ "A growing body of evidence shows that access to green space in urban areas can bring considerable benefits to the health and well-being of city residents. These benefits may include improved cognitive development and functioning, reduced symptom severity of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, reduced obesity, and positive impacts on mental health."
https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2021/04/27/denver-community-health-green-space A Health District that ignores the needs and desires of their constituents in the community for the sake of private corporate profits must be reined in by those we put in place to be our voices. That's you, by the way.
We are asking you to do the right thing for the community and LIMIT the FAR for BCHD to 0.5.
Thank you
Dency Nelson
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 2:16pm 01-19-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.
BCHD is an important "Third Place" for citizens to come to receive the benifts provided for healthy bodies, healthy minds and healthy spirits! As important as any of the public institutions and should be granted equal opprtunities to thrive, including an equal FAR!
Marcio Nava
Location:
Submitted At: 2:05pm 01-19-26
I oppose any increase in FAR for BCHD. Any increase would be excessive for their non-emergency services and out of scale with the character of the City and surrounding areas.
Vanessa Poster
Location:
Submitted At: 12:08pm 01-19-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex. I am so proud of the work BCHD does to support residents in all age groups from birth to death, helping people to live longer, happier lives with vitality until the end.
Pam Absher
Location:
Submitted At: 9:59am 01-19-26
I support limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or .75 FAR ONLY. Overdeveloping the BCHD site is not conducive with our beach town. The city council made mistakes in years past that changed the character of our city, such as condos along the oceanfront blocking the ocean view, 2 and 4 on a lots in North Redondo that congested the area and took away properties with yards, and an upper story to the pier that was a failure. The council has the opportunity to limit the size of the building on the BCHD property, which would allow the property to fit in with the neighborhood, not over tower the neighboring buildings.
Tim Ozenne
Location:
Submitted At: 9:54am 01-19-26
We live about 1 mile east of the BCHD campus. The large buildings are already a problem, and allowing increased size and desity using FAR relaxation will make matters even worse.
Does BCHD acknowdlge the detrimental effect it's land use will have on local residents? Joan Davidson
Location:
Submitted At: 9:44pm 01-18-26
I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED.”
Joan Davidson
Jay Bichanich
Location:
Submitted At: 9:36pm 01-18-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED. Note: It appears that many of those that chose 'oppose' for this Agenda Item may have meant 'support'. Political jargon is awfully good at confusing constituents!
Bill Shanney
Location:
Submitted At: 2:38pm 01-18-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED.” Steve Randall
Location:
Submitted At: 2:02pm 01-18-26
Mom is very disappointed in the the BCHD's dogged pursuit of over-building on Public land for private gain, for purposes never intended to be part of the district they were formed to be and who to serve. Over-building to mainly accommodate the private partnership for an assisted-living facility most of us can't afford and by their own data would be inhabited by over 80% of seniors not from the district they're supposed to serve is wrong. Flat out wrong. And these people have lied to us over and over.
What is healthy about blocking much needed sunshine from the neighbors in an adjacent city? Nothing! What is healthy about adding more assisted living units to a property that results in MORE EMT services blaring 24 x 7 sirens? Nothing! What is healthy about adding more daily traffic to an already congested area? Nothing. What is healthy for Redondo residents to suffer years of construction noise and pollution to build a campus that doesn't add to benefit their neighborhood? Nothing!
And what about all the upgrades to our city streets and sewers? Do Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach pay for that? No, only Redondo Beach taxpayers get that and all the other negative impacts.
When CEO Bakaly gives numbers of all the Redondo Beach youth and young people "visits" for BCHD services, doesn't anyone find it odd that the metric he uses is VISITS? Not RESIDENTS? Residents using those service are more likely than not to have multiple VISITS! But Bakaly frames that and a lot of other things deceptively.
But the biggest thing that has mom really ticked about all this is: Who the heck (wasn't the word she used) is Tom Bakaly to put BCHD at the same level as the needs of FIRST RESPONDER PROPERTIES? We voted for a bond measure to upgrade those facilities which are all part of the city government facilities so the people have all said YES to that, while at the same time, they struck down another 'pie in the sky' wish from BCHD on the same ballot.
Can't support BCHD on this as their mission for the future is to expand that which they were never chartered to do to begin with.
And P.S. to city council - the number of eComments here opposing isn't a proper measurement.
Farah Kreutz
Location:
Submitted At: 2:00pm 01-18-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I SUPPORT limiting BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY. BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED. I OPPOSE Overdevelopment on the BCHD Site and you support 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY in the General Plan update.
Tod Weber
Location:
Submitted At: 7:41am 01-18-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.
Tom Bakaly
Location:
Submitted At: 9:37pm 01-17-26
Like the City of Redondo Beach, Beach Cities Health District’s (BCHD) mission is to serve the community’s evolving needs. Public institutions like the City and BCHD have remained responsive to changing demographics, service delivery models and community priorities.
As the Council deliberates on the General Plan update, I’d like to share the following perspective on public institutional uses and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) caps. As you know, state law calls for general plans to address land use for public buildings and grounds and include standards related to population density and building intensity (California Government Code § 65302(a)). While state law requires building intensity, it does not require a FAR to meet this obligation. FAR is one commonly used measure, but the Code provides flexibility for cities to use a range of standards to address scale and intensity and satisfy section 65302(a).
To best serve the community, flexibility has relevance for the General Plan and public institutional uses, which must remain adaptable to ensure public-serving facilities can meet both current and future community needs.
BCHD recommends that the City not include FAR caps in the General Plan for public institutional uses, as compliance can be achieved with general development standards. BCHD notes that public institutions are already accountable through elections. FAR caps could duplicate oversight, limit future governing bodies’ responsiveness to changing community needs or treat institutions unequally.
If the Council nonetheless chooses to proceed with a FAR cap, BCHD respectfully requests that it be consistent with the FAR applied to City Hall, the City’s other large public institutional property. The City adopted an addendum to the EIR concluding that maintaining the same FAR level (1.25) for these large public institutional properties would result in no significant impacts. Lowering FAR for BCHD could appear inconsistent and target a single property.
As the City considers these issues, BCHD looks forward to continued collaboration. Our shared goal is to ensure that public institutions remain able to meet the community’s needs today and in the future.
Craig Ward
Location:
Submitted At: 5:34pm 01-17-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.
Rafael McMaster
Location:
Submitted At: 4:36pm 01-17-26
Re: Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR (while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall). I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex... Once again, this feels targeted at BCHD - please use the same rules for everyone. This targeting is deeply sad considering the hundreds and hundreds of families (and lives) that BCHD supports, serves, and saves. I see firsthand the young teen lives that are impacted by the amazing work the BCHD/allcove staff tirelessly serve.
Now more than ever, it's about time we support those who serve to make our community, better. Please do the right thing - because our community supports and votes for those who do the right thing.
Anthony Chavez
Location:
Submitted At: 2:05pm 01-17-26
Regarding Agenda Item N1, I OPPOSE limiting only BCHD to a 0.75 FAR while allowing higher FARs for other public institutional uses such as City Hall. I SUPPORT a uniform 1.25 FAR for BCHD, City Hall and the Annex.” BCHD has many excellent programs for Seniors. My wife & I use the BCHD Gym which is the only Gym in the South Bay area geared for Senior use. Restricting BCHD to a a FAR of 0.75 would negatively impact the many programs BCHD offers for the Community. Tony Chavez, RB resident since 1985.
Agenda Item: eComments for P.1. 26-0097 APPROVE LETTER TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) REGARDING THE CITY'S SUPPORT OF THE HAWTHORNE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE
PROPOSED C LINE EXTENSION TO TORRANCE PROJECT
Overall Sentiment
Les Leigh
Location:
Submitted At: 11:35am 01-20-26
The right of way route through neighborhoods cannot be allowed. Hawthorne Blvd is a better alternative.
Barbara Epstein
Location:
Submitted At: 7:35pm 01-16-26
Thanking the city for writing this letter to the METRO Board in favor of the Hawthorne Boulevard route for the C Line Extension to the Torrance Project.
Your letter validates the consensus of Redondo Beach residents’ wishes across the city. My own personal concern is for the safety and health of those who live in residential areas where the ROW runs, so I am truly grateful for the city’s letter.
If there is a way to abandon the ROW rail line, and dangerous fuel lines, and seek funding to compensate the owners, it could be a winning situation for all parties to develop a new, green, dedicated, linear park running the entire length of the ROW.
There are conservation organizations, like “Rails to Trails” that reclaim rail, and other types of easements, and create greenways in their place.
Back in the 1980s, I believe, the rail line in Hermosa and Manhattan Beach to Redondo Beach, was transformed into the beautiful source of new life, their Greenbelt. There are reports of finding clusters of Monarch Butterflies in new locations on the Greenbelt. They got a beautiful, health-supporting Greenbelt. All we got was public storage.
Hawthorne Blvd. has the width to accommodate this project, and will much better serve the public in getting riders where they need to go. The Hawthorne Boulevard option will be so much better for commercial interests along the route.
I appreciate the Staff, Council members, and Mayor Light’s careful consideration in crafting this draft. It makes perfect sense.