BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 20, 2026
N.1 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
CONTACT: MARC WIENER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
• PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
From: LINDA Zelik
To: Joy Ford; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Mike Witzansky; Scott Behrendt; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller Subject: Re : Item #N1 - Support of keeping existing FAR limits of .5 to .75 Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 1:24:29 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
BCHD Claims Redline v1.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Sirs and Madams;
I support passage of Agenda item #N1 to limit the overdevelopment of public land to a FAR of 0,5 to 0.75
To give this land to private developers so Tom Bakley and his cohorts can realize a huge profit is unethical and against the intended use of the land! The citizens overwhelmingly object to the commercial development of the land as witnessed by the recent failure of Bond Measure BC to pass.
We, as private citizens living in the surrounding areas, realize what a disaster this would be for the homes, schools and traffic congestion.
Please do not allow these board members to coerce you into destroying our beloved Beach Cities as a place to live, work and provide a safe environment for our school children.
Respectfully, Linda Zelik
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Subject: (FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO THE COUNCIL) Public Comment:
Redline of BCHD Incorrect Statements in Bakaly Letter to RB City Council
Date: January 19, 2026 at 7:00:00 PM PST
To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Send to: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, James Light <[email protected]>, Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> I SUPPORT passage of Agenda Item N1 - BCHD to a 0.5 or 0.75 FAR ONLY.
BCHD’s planned OVERDEVELOPMENT with 100% Private Developers should not be SUPERSIZED. Passage is required because BCHD cannot be trusted to self-limit its 100% PRIVATE DEVELOPERS.
BCHD has a history of lying to the public.
At the October 1, 2024 RB Council Meeting, BCHD Board Member Poster made the ABSOLUTELY FALSE STATEMENT TO THE COUNCIL "your own lawyers had to remind them during a public meeting and on the record to stop targeting BCHD in their remarks." RB Planning Commissioners came to the Council and demonstrated with TRANSCRIPTS that Poster lied to the City Council.
In a July 2025 ER News interview, CEO Bakaly claimed that the 4-story hospital was 60-feet tall. The Board has previously CERTIFIED to the STATE that the 4-story hospital is only 51.5-feet tall at the top of its parapet (the wall around the roof of the building) so that actual roof is under 50-feet, NOT 60-FEET.
Untruthful statements are made to the Council and the Public from the HIGHEST LEVELS OF BCHD. In fact, BCHD letter to the Council contains a variety of misleading statements as demonstrated below.
DO NOT ALLOW BCHD TO DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WITH
SUPERSIZED PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT TO SERVICE 80% OR MORE
NON-RESIDENTS WHILE DAMAGES ARE ALL LOCAL!
REDLINE OF BCHD’S FALSE CLAIMS TO THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voterapproved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.
REDLINE OF BCHD’S CLAIMS TO THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
Mayor and City Council:
Like the City of Redondo Beach, Beach Cities Health District’s (BCHD) mission is focused on serving the long-term and evolving needs of the community. Unlike the City, BCHD extends its services via ALLCOVE to a service area of 1.4M population.
Likewise, only TWO (2) BCHD Programs require residency. All other are open to all comers, inside or outside the District. Public institutions like the City and BCHD have remained responsive to changing demographics, service delivery models and community priorities, and BCHD values planning frameworks that support this adaptability while remaining compatible with the community.
As the City Council continues its deliberations on the General Plan update, I’d like to share the following perspective as part of the broader discussion 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 to include standards related to population density and building intensity across all land use categories (California Government Code § 65302(a)).
While state law requires general plans to include standards addressing building intensity, it does not require a FAR to meet this obligation. FAR is one commonly used measure, but California Code § 65302(a) provides flexibility for cities to rely on a range of development standards to address scale and intensity. Cities may satisfy section 65302(a) through other accepted development-intensity standards, such as dwelling units per acre, lot-coverage requirements, building-height limits, or other development standards that control the overall size or mass of development.
From BCHD’s perspective, this flexibility has particular relevance for the General Plan and public institutional uses, which must remain adaptable to ensure public-serving facilities can continue to meet both current and future community needs. BCHD recommends that the City of Redondo Beach not include FAR caps in the General Plan for public institutional uses, where the State statute can be complied with by using more general development standards that regulate scale and intensity. BCHD is wishful, but inaccurate. Achieveable, up-front standards are the clear intention of the State policy. BCHD’s wish for unlimited height and square feet is both non-compliant and a dangerous precedent.
BCHD also notes that public institutions are already accountable to the electorate through elections of governing board members every two years. FAR caps in the General Plan could duplicate existing oversight mechanisms and may limit the ability of future governing bodies to respond to changing community needs. Speaking of elections, BCHD’s Measure BC ($30M to prepare the campus for redevelopment and build the 91% non-resident service territory ALLCOVE building) was soundly rejected in November of 2024. It was the ONLY revenue measure rejected. It failed to garner a simple majority as $600M+ of other bond measures passed by 2/3rds votes. BCHD DOES NOT HAVE VOTER SUPPORT FOR ITS OVERDEVELOPMENT SCHEME. In fact, voters wouldn’t even approved PREPARATION for the BCHD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME.
If the City Council nonetheless chooses to proceed with a FAR cap for public institutional use, BCHD respectfully requests that it be consistent with the FAR applied to City Hall, the City’s other large public institutional property. In the Fall of 2024, the City adopted an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concluding that maintaining the same FAR level (1.25) for these large public institutional properties would result in no significant environmental impacts. In light of that environmental review, applying a lower FAR standard in the General Plan to BCHD would raise concerns regarding internal consistency within the General Plan and give the appearance of targeting a specific property. The City has no need for increased FAR caps at this time. All Public land uses should be capped at the maximum of their existing FAR or 0.5 to 0.75 FAR.
As the City of Redondo Beach considers these issues, BCHD looks forward to continued collaboration with the City as it plans for the future. Our shared goal is to ensure that public institutions remain able to meet the community’s needs both today and in the years ahead.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
From: ree
To: CityClerk
Subject: Support the lowest FAR possible for the land occupied by bchd Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 1:29:33 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Public Leaders of the City of RB,
I strongly support a FAR of less than or equal to 0.75.
BCHD wants a higher FAR in order to make the parcel more attractive to a private developer.
If a private developer takes the long term land lease, the public has no right to use it.
That was not intended in the beginning, and should not take place.
Please do not raise the FAR.
Sincerely,
Maher Sesi
Redondo Beach
From: Mary Drummer
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; CityClerk Subject: I oppose Agenda Item N1
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:31:52 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
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.
Thank you for considering my response.
Mary Drummer
District 1, Redondo Beach
From: Emily Bodkin
To: Khatirah Nazif
Cc: Eleanor Manzano; Laura Diaz
Subject: Public Comment on Comcate Case #52407 for 1/20/26 CC Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:31:11 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Khatirah,
Please see the below Public Comment submitted on Comcate Case #52407 at 1:32 PM:
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 only asking for logical, reasonable and uniform requirements for ALL public institutions. This is necessary for BCHD to continue to support our South Bay residents in the future.
Respectfully submitted.
Heck, Dennis
Please let me know if additional information is needed.
Thank you,
Emily Bodkin
Administrative Specialist | City Clerk's Office
310.697.3176
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comments for N1 - Oppose increase in FAR for BCHD Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:37:21 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I SUPPORT a 0.5 to 0.75 FAR cap for BCHD and oppose any increase in FAR for BCHD. Any increase for BCHD would be excessive for their non-emergency services and out of scale with the character of the City and surrounding areas.
How many more times will this issue be addressed. The Planning Commission gave a recommendation. Follow it!
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk; James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully
Subject: Public Comments for N1 - Oppose increase in FAR for BCHD Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:40:02 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
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. It is only going to hurt the homeowners in the surrounding areas. The land and area there was not created for overbuilding. Put this in your own backyard.
Jennifer Sams
From: [email protected]
To: Eleanor Manzano; CityClerk
Cc: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi Subject: Blue Folder Supplemental Information - For City Council Agenda Item N1 1/20/25 Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:55:08 PM
Attachments: School Zone Property Up Zoned.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Mayor and City Council,
Item N1 has the potential to change the zoning of school property that could in the future be deemed as surplus property.
Attached is a rough representation of what that could look like with current housing bills coming out of Sacramento.
Sincerely,
Wayne Craig
Redondo Beach
Lincoln Elementary
Lincoln Elementary
UP Zoned
Jefferson Elementary
Jefferson Elementary
UP Zoned
Alta Vista School
Alta Vista School
UP Zoned
Beryl Heights School
Beryl Heights School
UP Zoned
Birney School
Birney School
UP Zoned