I.1 - Blue Folder — Redondo Beach City Council, February 24, 2026

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
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
I.1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Public Communications
Comprehensive Bibliography: Healthy Living Campus Impact Assessment Beach Cities Health District. (2021). Healthy Living Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/bchd/2e8c6d20-0b71-11ec-9f1e-0050569183fa3b5dbe96-df7c-454b-921a-39e0032ed5ab-1630630799.pdf This document is the primary regulatory record for the redevelopment, identifying "significant and unavoidable" noise impacts for the 5+ year construction duration . It provides technical details on the demolition of 158,000 square feet of legacy structures and projects an increase in emergency service demand, calculating a frequency of 0.82 annual ambulance calls per bed space, totaling 244 calls per year for the Phase 1 facility .

Beach Cities Health District Board of Directors. (2022). Resolution No. 569: Approving Land Lease Agreement with WRC PMB Redondo Beach LLC. https://bchd.org/newsmedia/press-releases/bchd-board-oks-contract-healthy-living-campus-developeroperator/ This administrative record details the 95-year public-private partnership (a 65-year base term plus two 15-year extensions) where a private developer (PMB/Watermark) maintains 100% ownership and operational control of the structures . The agreement establishes a ground lease model that critics argue converts public community land into a commercial enterprise with minimal public control .

California State Legislature. (2023). Senate Bill 525: Minimum Wage for Health Care Workers. https://calmatters.org/health/2023/10/california-minimum-wage-health-care-law/ This legislation mandates a $25 per hour minimum wage for healthcare support staff and medical technicians . For the Healthy Living Campus, this wage floor necessitates a workforce that primarily commutes from outside the affluent Beach Cities, creating a permanent "staff flux" that contributes to 24/7 vehicular noise and traffic in the residential neighborhood .

City of Redondo Beach. (2025). FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget and FY 2025-26 Proposed Municipal Budget. (https://cms2.revize.com/revize/redondobeachca/FY%202025- 26%20Proposed%20Budget-v2.pdf) These municipal financial records quantify the fiscal strain the BCHD project places on the city’s General Fund. Key entries include the absorption of $58,000 in costs for Fire Department EMS equipment previously funded by BCHD grants and a $46,500 appropriation for program coordinators . These figures were used to benchmark the minimum per-household service-level damage in the Quantitative Value Reduction Table.

Converse Consultants. (2020). Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report: Beach Cities Health District Campus. https://www.traonews.org/why-oppose This site-specific toxicological study identified high concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE) in 29 of 30 soil samples at the campus, with some levels reaching 150 times the residential screening limit . This data is central to evaluating the health risks associated with the demolition of 150,000 square feet of 1950s-era building foundations, which could aerosolize these carcinogens near Towers Elementary School .

Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2021). Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). ITE. https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/trip-and-parking-generation/ This technical manual provides the industry standard for modeling daily vehicle trips. For the HLC assessment, it contrasts the 2.74 round trips per bed for residential care with the 11.81 trips per bed for hospital use, while also providing the basis for evaluating the high-frequency trip generation of the 3,000-member gym facility .

MDS Research. (2019). Market Feasibility Analysis for the BCHD Healthy Living Campus. https://www.traonews.org/why-oppose Commissioned by BCHD, this feasibility study found that 80% to 90% of the target luxury assisted living demographic resides outside the Beach Cities . This finding supports the community assertion of a misalignment of public interest, where 100% of the environmental and economic burden is borne by local residents for a project serving a 91% non-resident population .

National PACE Association. (2025). Operational Framework and Transit Requirements for Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly.
(https://www.pacebus.com/sites/default/files/2025-07/I-290%20I88%20Travel%20Market%20Analysis_update%2007.11.25.pdf) This research evaluates the transit impacts of the PACE "wraparound" care model, which relies on a centralized busing and van fleet to transport enrollees daily . It highlights the "busing nuisance" created by concentrated drop-off and pick-up cycles, which introduce paratransit traffic onto residential streets like Flagler Lane and Prospect Avenue .

Nelson, M. (2023). Hedonic Price Modeling of Residential Property Values Surrounding the Beach Cities Health District Site. BCHD Over-Development Group. https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/bchd/465dd208-499b-11e9-aee3-0050569183fa3b5dbe96-df7c-454b-921a-39e0032ed5ab-1635211651.pdf This report utilizes hedonic modeling of over 5,000 home values to quantify a $200 million aggregate reduction in residential equity within a one-mile radius of the HLC site . The analysis identifies visual blight, privacy intrusions from buildings placed at the site edges, and the loss of "Quiet Residential" character as the primary drivers of this market devaluation .

Torrance Redondo Against Overdevelopment (TRAO). (2024). Impact Analysis and Nuisance Assessment of the BCHD Healthy Living Campus Redevelopment. https://www.traonews.org/why-oppose This resource synthesizes community-driven impact data to define the geographic "nuisance zones" used to categorize damages . It defines the "Immediate Adjacency" and "Eastern Slope" zones most impacted by height-related shadows and privacy violations, and documents the zoning incompatibility of a 6-story building on a P-CF site typically limited to two stories .

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Andrew Winje; Candace Nafissi
Subject: Public Comment - Non-Agenda Item Blue Folder - Limited Topic of Extended Red Curb ONLY on 500-600 N Prospect Frontage Bus Stop Area Date: Monday, February 23, 2026 3:55:37 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear PWSC Commissioners:

I am speaking on the very limited topic of the red curb painting that the Commission previously approved for the 500-600 block of N Prospect frontage to keep a clear view of the bus stop.

To refresh your memories, this was predicated by an email from LA County to then Director Semaan regarding child predator investigations on the frontage road in the proximity of the Layne water tanks for salt water intrusion pumping. LA County explained to the Director that they use high brightness lighting to maintain a safe area around their tank due to the predator investigation.

I would like to recommend that you split the approval for additional 10 to 15 feet of red curb behind the bus stop from the more general traffic control and safety issues on the frontage and approve the painting activity. This is a de minimis task, I will offer to donate funding as needed.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ACTION TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL CHILD PREDATOR ACTIVITY

AND PROVIDE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT BY USING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA-APPROVED METHOD OF CREATING A CLEAR VIEW INTO BUS STOP AREAS.

The Commission has already approved this action with other measures - we only ask that you extract this simple yet important action and free Director Winje to execute as soon as reasonably possible.

THANK YOU!
February 11, 2026 Neighborhood Update Email
Tuesday night's City Council meeting had a public-led discussion on internet porn, youth internet use, child predators, and neighborhood traffic problems during the public comment.

The first commenters discussed the City's failure to deal with traffic issues in a 25 MPH residential area over by Alta Vista School. The couple described parents cutting through neighborhoods to avoid Prospect and Knob Hill streets, illegal turners, speeders, and parents blowing through stop signs. They came looking for help and their Councilmember was "volunteered" by the rest of the Council to help them out. Good luck to them. If we didn't have Darryl Boyd championing our local safety cause, we wouldn't be making any progress.

The second commenter was a local resident and an expert in the horrible impacts of child pornography, the internet and child predators. She highlighted work that was currently being done to reduce the risks of the internet and subsequent in-person child predator contacts with children.

For my 3 minute comment, I reminded the current City Council of the child predator investigation on the frontage road that was communicated to us by the RB Public Works Director. He learned of it from LA County. As a result of the investigation, the County deploys security lighting whenever they leave equipment on the frontage overnight, especially by the bus stop.

I reminded the Council and City Manager that we had secured Safety Commission approval to paint the curb red in front the entire bus stop as an anti-child predator measure to assure we have a clear view for the safety of children and the frequent ALLCOVE teens that use the stop. Research also shows that having clear view into bus stops increases safety for all users - the elderly, disabled, commuters and others.

I also thanked the new Police Chief, the City Manager and of course Darryl Boyd for their hard work to get motorcycle officers on the frontage and Big Prospect last week. Chief Sprengel has been briefed on our wrong way traffic, illegal U-turns, noise and speeding, and the Child Predator investigation on the frontage. I plan to follow up tomorrow to discuss the curb paint, continued traffic enforcement, and child predator patrols.

As I arrived home after the meeting, the RBPD had 2 units down on Diamond with a couple suspects on the curb. We've been having more and more late night/early morning issues at our bus stop with teen/early 20's youth and all age transients and un-housed.

That's a key reason we keep on the City to paint the curb red as recommended by the Redondo Beach Public Safety Commission so that vehicles don’t block the view of the bus stop from the houses nearby as a safety measure.

Here's a quick pic from my phone of RBPD activity down on Diamond Street last night. It could just have easily been at our bus stop instead. See the RBPD red/blue lights down on Diamond right past the car parked in front of the bus stop.

BE SAFE EVERYONE - ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE OUT ALONE AFTER DARK AND BEFORE SUNRISE! WE’VE HAD A NUMBER OF TRANSIENTS AND PERSONS IN MENTAL CRISIS CAMP OUT AT THE BUS STOP WHEN PARKED VEHICLES BLOCK THE VIEW FROM OUR HOUSES.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Kevin Cody; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo Subject: Public Comment and PRR - BCHD Budget Board Meeting 2-25-26 @ 630PM - ALLCOVE Building Expenditures Must be HALTED Pending disclosure of an ACCURATE BUDGET Date: Saturday, February 21, 2026 1:08:53 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
cc: Mayors and Councils of the BCHD "Cities" as Public Comment The most recent "of record" cost estimate of the ALLCOVE building by BCHD is what accompanies BCHD failed Measure BC filing. In that application to voters, BCHD testified that it required $10M to complete the ALLCOVE building and its integration into the central campus.

The public has received NO UPDATES since then on costs. BCHD now plans to begin construction, and has also made significant payments to building costs, all without so much as a formal, actionable budget. We are all aware that the budget BCHD provided to the state for funding under BHCIP was far understated and in error. Since DISTRICT TAXPAYERS will be required to use our public funding to pay back any loans BCHD takes out, DISTRICT TAXPAYERS have a 100% right to STOP THIS PROJECT until we know the magnitude of BCHD's use of OUR FUNDS for a project that serves a 91%, non-resident service area.

ALLCOVE Service Area
SPA8, see https://bhsoac.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/MHSOAC_Packet_08222024.pdf Tom Bakaly, Current Board Report
Permanent allcove Location: We are nearing design completion of a value-engineered, scaleddown permanent allcove building at Flagler/Beryl. Per Board direction at its November meeting, we are looking at borrowing options to bridge the funding gap. We plan to spend State grant funds first, then use borrowed funds to complete the project as we continue to seek philanthropic contributions. We plan to break ground on the permanent allcove building in May 2026.

Tom Bakaly, 10/4/24 Daily Breeze
$3 million to complete the allcove building;
$7 million to build parking and to connect the future allcove site to the main campus or green space; and

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; PRR
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Kevin Cody; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo Subject: Public Comment and PRR - BCHD Budget Meeting 2-25-26 @ 530PM Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 9:36:26 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
cc: Mayors and Councils of the BCHD "Cities" as Public Comment Based on the program costs in the Board presentation, the following questions emerge:
1) For each program, how much of the Net Cost (aka District Taxpayer Subsidy) is being used for non-resident subsidies?
2) All programs only consume a net subsidy from the annual budget of $8.5M - WHERE DOES THE OTHER $6.2M GET SPENT? IS IT OVERHEADS?
Please provide documents that will answer the 2 questions above on behalf of

DISTRICT TAXPAYERS

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; CityClerk
Cc: [email protected]; info; CityClerk; Kevin Cody Subject: Public Comment: Comprehensive Impact Assessment of the Beach Cities Health District Healthy Living Campus Redevelopment
Date: Saturday, February 21, 2026 10:13:04 PM
Attachments: Comprehensive Impact Assessment of the Beach Cities Health District Healthy Living Campus Redevelopment.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The embedded research report demonstrates the serious damage caused by BCHD's 100% private developers, Mar Ventures, Inc. and Continental Development Corporation to the western neighborhoods of Torrance on streets from Beryl Street to Del Amo Blvd from Tomlee Ave to Hawthorne Blvd. The report is fully documented and protecting your residents and their property values is required from the City of Torrance.

This email includes a copy to the Redondo Beach Mayor and Council, the LA County Board of Supervisors, and LA LAFCO, which regulates BCHD.

Comprehensive Impact Assessment of
the Beach Cities Health District Healthy
Living Campus Redevelopment
The proposed transformation of the 10.38-acre Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) campus into a 540,000-square-foot Healthy Living Campus (HLC) represents one of the most significant structural and operational shifts in the history of the South Bay Hospital District. This redevelopment, situated at the nexus of Redondo Beach and Torrance, California, transitions a site originally established for a public hospital into a high-density, privately-operated medical and residential complex under a long-term lease. The following analysis evaluates the multifaceted impacts of this project on the approximately 5,000 homes and 15,000 residents within a one-mile radius, utilizing hedonic price modeling, labor market data, and environmental impact assessments to quantify the resulting damages and nuisances.

Historical Foundations and the Shift from Public
Mandate
The South Bay Hospital District was born of a 1955 public vote, reflecting a post-war civic commitment to localized, high-quality healthcare for the residents of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. The land was acquired through the condemnation of private property, a move justified by the specific public utility of a community-owned hospital. The facility opened in 1960 with 146 beds, providing essential emergency, maternity, and general medical care during a period of rapid suburban growth in the South Bay. However, the economic viability of the public hospital model eroded during the 1970s, culminating in the 1984 failure of the entity as a public operator.

From 1984 to 1998, the facility transitioned into a leasehold model where a private operator maintained services, though the original public mandate began to dissolve.

In 1994, California Senate Bill 1169 allowed the reclassification of the hospital district into a "health care district," which provided the legal mechanism for the entity to abandon acute hospital services in favor of preventative health programming. This administrative pivot is central to current community grievances, as critics argue the district has strayed from its voter-approved mission, essentially operating as a commercial enterprise that utilizes public land for private profit.

Structural Expansion and Zoning Incompatibility
The physical profile of the current site is defined by its 1960s-era hospital building (514 N. Prospect) and two subsequent medical office buildings (510 and 520 N.

Prospect), totaling approximately 250,000 square feet of habitable space. The existing site maintains a relatively low vertical profile; 99.7% of the square footage is under 52 feet in height, and the primary structures are set back 100 feet from the property edges. The proposed HLC Master Plan seeks to more than double this density, reaching a total of 540,000 square feet and increasing building heights to 60 feet while simultaneously pushing structures toward the site boundaries.

Facility
Characteristic
Existing
Condition Proposed HLC Phase 1 & 2
Total Habitable
Space ~250,000 sq. ft. ~540,000 sq. ft.

Maximum Building
Height
52 ft. (99.7% of
site) 60 ft. (at site edges)
Site Setbacks 100 ft. Significantly Reduced
Medical Office Space 150,000 sq. ft. 150,000 sq. ft. (retained/updated) Senior Living Units 100 (Memory
Care)
150 Assisted Living + 100
Memory Care
Residential
Apartments None 200 Units
PACE Day-Use
Capacity None 400 Enrollees
The proposed zoning use of the P-CF (Community Facility) land is a primary driver of the $200 million loss in property values identified through hedonic modeling. The PCF zone in Redondo Beach is typically reserved for low-intensity public uses such as parks, libraries, and fire stations, which are almost exclusively one or two stories in height. The HLC project would be the only neighborhood-incompatible use of such a site, introducing 6-story residential care buildings and an 8-story parking garage into a low-density residential context.

Economic Analysis of Property Value Damages
Hedonic price modeling—a method used to estimate the value of a property based on its individual characteristics and its proximity to specific environmental or structural influences—indicates that the shadow cast by the impending development has already resulted in significant value suppression. For the 5,000 homes surrounding the site, the loss of view corridors, increased ambient noise, and the shift from a medical facility to a high-density mixed-use complex are the primary drivers of this $200 million reduction.

Visual Blight and Privacy Intrusions
The site sits on an elevated bluff approximately 30 feet above the surrounding street level, making it highly visible from the cities of Torrance and Redondo Beach. The homes to the east sit an additional 30 feet below the street level, meaning the proposed 60-foot buildings would effectively tower 120 feet above the adjacent residential roofs. This height differential eliminates long-standing view corridors and introduces severe privacy intrusions, as the upper floors of the Assisted Living (RCFE) and apartment buildings will have direct lines of sight into private yards and windows.

Summary of Economic Damages to Residents
The $200 million aggregate loss can be broken down into specific categories of damage that affect the daily life and financial equity of the 15,000 residents:

Impact
Category Nature of Damage Affected
Population
Visual &
Aesthetic
Shadow casting, loss of sunlight, and
view obstruction. 5,000 Properties
Noise
Pollution
Sirens, heavy vehicle traffic, and
construction. 15,000 Residents
Service
Strain
Overload of local fire and paramedic
services.

Redondo Beach
Taxpayers
Market
Perception
Shift from "Quiet Residential" to
"Commercial/Institutional."
Immediate 1-mile
radius
Demolition Impacts and Environmental Hazards
The project requires the demolition of approximately 150,000 to 158,000 square feet of the existing hospital structure. Because the facility was constructed in the late 1950s and opened in 1960, the demolition process carries substantial risks related to hazardous materials and structural seismic instability.

Toxicological Findings: PCE and VOCs
A Phase II Environmental Assessment conducted in 2020 revealed the presence of hazardous Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and carcinogens on the site.

This risk is amplified by the presence of Towers Elementary School (350 feet downwind), Beryl Heights Elementary (900 feet away), and Redondo Union High School.

Significant and Unavoidable Noise Impacts
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies construction noise as a "significant and unavoidable" impact that cannot be mitigated. The noise levels are projected to exceed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) thresholds for the entirety of the 5+ year construction window. Because the site sits on a hill, traditional sound barriers (typically limited to 31 feet) are physically incapable of blocking the noise generated by heavy machinery and demolition at the site’s elevation.

Traffic and Transit Dynamics: The PACE and Gym
Influx
A major component of the project is the inclusion of a Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) facility, intended to serve 400 enrollees. Unlike traditional medical offices, PACE is a day-use program that involves significant transit activity.

The PACE Busing Nuisance
PACE enrollees are typically frail seniors who qualify for nursing home-level care but live in the community. Consequently, most do not drive. The facility will rely on a fleet of vans and buses to transport up to 400 people daily from across Service Planning Area 8 (SPA 8), which includes areas as far as Long Beach and El Segundo. This "busing" model creates a concentrated traffic spike on Flagler Lane and Prospect Avenue during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up, coinciding with school zones and existing commuter patterns.

Gym and Professional Medical Influx
The relocation of the Center for Health & Fitness (CHF) to a new facility on the campus maintains a membership base of over 3,000 people. This 7-day-per-week operation generates continuous trip ends throughout the day, including early morning (5:00 AM) and evening peaks that differ from standard office hours. When combined with the 150,000 square feet of medical offices, the total daily vehicle trips are expected to increase significantly, overwhelming local intersections that already suffer from high congestion.

Labor Economics and the Healthcare Workforce
The operational phase of the HLC will introduce a permanent workforce of several hundred employees into the residential neighborhood 24 hours a day. The staffing requirements for 150 assisted living units, 100 memory care units, and a 400-enrollee PACE program are substantial.

Wage Rates and Commuting Impact
Staffing for residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFE) consists largely of caregivers, medication technicians, and support staff. Wage data for these roles in the Los Angeles and South Bay area reflects a shift toward higher minimums mandated by state law.

Given the high cost of housing in Redondo Beach and Torrance, the majority of this workforce will commute from outside the Beach Cities. This creates a "24/7 staff flux" with shift changes at 7:00 AM, 3:00 PM, and 11:00 PM, introducing vehicular noise and traffic during sensitive evening and night hours for the 15,000 residents.

Operational Nuisances and Emergency Noise
The combination of 250 senior living units and an urgent care/PACE facility creates a permanent increase in emergency vehicle activity. Assisted living and memory care facilities generate a higher-than-average volume of 911 calls for medical emergencies, fall-related injuries, and respiratory distress.

The Burden of Sirens
Local residents have raised concerns that the facility will excessively tax the Redondo Beach Fire Department and Paramedics. With 250 high-acuity residents and 400 frail PACE enrollees, the frequency of ambulance arrivals—often using sirens to navigate the congested corridors of Prospect and Beryl—will become a chronic nuisance. This noise impact is permanent and will persist for the duration of the 100-year lease.

The 100-Year Lease and Governance Risk
The BCHD is moving forward with a public-private partnership that involves a 65-year ground lease to private developers (PMB and Watermark), with two 15-year extensions, totaling 95 years. Under this arrangement, the private developer owns and operates the structures, while the district retains ownership of the land.

Misalignment of Public Interest
A critical insight from financial and market feasibility studies is the misalignment between the project's target demographic and the local taxpayers. Consultants (MDS) found that 80% to 90% of the target renters for the luxury assisted living units reside outside the Beach Cities health district. Only 9% of the target market are residents of Redondo Beach. Consequently, local residents are assuming 100% of the environmental and economic damage while receiving less than 10% of the primary residential benefit. Furthermore, the district would be required to "lease back" administrative space from the private developer at market rates, potentially leading to a poor return on investment for the $16 million in taxpayer funds already spent on pre-development.

Quantitative Value Reduction Table
The following table summarizes the potential reduction in property values for the surrounding neighborhoods based on proximity and specific nuisance exposure.

Neighborhood Zone Median
Property Value
Projected
Loss (%)
Average
Damage ($)
Immediate Adjacency (0
- 0.1 miles) $1,750,000 10% - 15% $175,000 -
$262,500
Eastern Slope (Torrance
View-Side) $1,600,000 7% - 10% $112,000 -
$160,000
Transit/PACE Bus
Corridors $1,450,000 4% - 6% $58,000 -
$87,000
General 1-Mile Radius
(Torrance/RB) $1,550,000 2% - 3% $31,000 -
$46,500
Comprehensive Summary of Evidence and Research
Basis
This report is predicated on a synthesis of the following primary research categories:

Environmental Impact Documentation: The Beach Cities Health District Healthy Living Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including Appendix I (Noise Modeling), Appendix K (Vehicle Miles Traveled), and Appendix G (Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments).

Labor and Wage Data: Real-time salary reporting from Indeed and ZipRecruiter for caregivers, PACE staff, and nursing roles in the Los Angeles and Long Beach markets.

Municipal Finance and Governance: The City of Redondo Beach FY 2024-25 and 2025-26 Proposed Budgets, and the BCHD Board Resolutions regarding the land lease agreement with PMB/Watermark.

Transit and Operational Studies: Research from the National PACE Association and regional transportation planning documents regarding bus-onshoulder and paratransit impacts.

Community Advocacy Data: Technical analyses provided by Torrance Redondo Against Overdevelopment (TRAO) regarding building heights, site setbacks, and target demographic data.

Conclusion of Impacts
The proposed Healthy Living Campus represents a fundamental restructuring of 10 acres of public land into a high-intensity commercial and residential node. The shift from a low-profile medical facility with substantial setbacks to a 540,000-square-foot complex at the site's edges creates permanent and unmitigatable damages. The $200 million in lost property value reflects a realistic market adjustment to the loss of residential character, the introduction of significant environmental hazards during demolition, and the chronic nuisance of 24/7 staffing, PACE busing, and emergency sirens. The long-term nature of the 95-year lease ensures that these impacts will be borne by three generations of residents in Torrance and Redondo Beach, for a project where the vast majority of direct beneficiaries are currently residing outside the taxing district.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; info
Cc: Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment: There is a strong appearance of PRO-BCHD Bias at the City Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 4:50:27 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD is no different than any other commercial developer when it's leasing 5-acres of previously condemned, public purchased and owned land to a private developer for 5 generations. The development is 100% private and commercial. The development will pay a lease fee to the property owners (the taxpayers).

Unfortunately, the City isn't providing the sort of due diligence that it typically provides on commercial projects.

For example, despite both Coastal and HCD staffs indicating that the City needed to approve the 401-417 N PCH project based on State law, the developer and counsel were grilled at Council - DESPITE the fact they seemed to have the solid legal hand and also had provided PREMIUM quality materials. Real views, real dimensions, real layouts.

Could you even imagine the sort of GARBAGE below as being acceptable to Council from a developer?
But the Council demonstrates a freeride attitude and related actions to BCHD - when BCHD is acting as a developer, having paid nearly $13M in pre-development costs itself.

Somehow, this level of CRAP work product is acceptable from BCHD. The surrounding residents have no idea what this looks like, how tall it is, and the setbacks on this diagram are obscenely thin. In short, this is GARBAGE work. It would NEVER be accepted from a developer, yet the Council accepts it from Mar Ventures Inc and CDC. Remember, these developers brought the tall towers on Sepulveda to El Segundo, and sued residents to invalidate a petition against one of CDCs developments.

The Council knows quality from CRAP - why won't the Council trust its collective NOSE when it smells BCHD's CEO's work product? It REEKS OF CRAP.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications
Cc: info; [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: Re: CPRA Request
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 7:00:12 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment to all agencies
Thank you. Based on the attachment, Bakaly has no direct experience in "building projects" aka construction. That renders his statement at the D3/D4 meeting to be fiction.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 6:54 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records requests received 2/2/26 that reads:

At the joint D3/D4 meeting where Bakaly spoke that was recorded and published on Instagram - there is a Bakaly quote "everything is a trade-off, but listening matters ... from decades of building projects, hope is a strategy."
Provide documents from the CEOs experience of the decades of projects that he's built.

Pleaser find responsive record attached.

If you believe we have not correctly interpreted your request, please resubmit your request with a description of the identifiable record or records that you are seeking.

Please note that if records you are seeking do not exist, BCHD has no obligation to create new records, or to obtain records from other sources, unless those sources are considered “prepared, owned, used by, or retained by” by the District.

Please note that the District may not respond to questions or comments included with your request that are not themselves requests for identifiable public records under the California Public Records Act. The lack of response by the District to any such questions or comments, including follow-up questions and comments, is not an indication of the District’s position on any topic or item, and should not be presented as such to any person.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2026 4:12 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA Request

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
At the joint D3/D4 meeting where Bakaly spoke that was recorded and published on Instagram - there is a Bakaly quote "everything is a trade-off, but listening matters ... from decades of building projects, hope is a strategy."
Provide documents from the CEOs experience of the decades of projects that he's built.

THE PRECEDING E-MAIL, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, CONTAINS

INFORMATION THAT MAY BE CONFIDENTIAL, BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY

CLIENT OR OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES, OR CONSTITUTE NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION. IT IS INTENDED TO BE CONVEYED ONLY TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THIS MESSAGE,

PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE AND THEN DELETE IT FROM YOUR SYSTEM. USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR

REPRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE BY UNINTENDED RECIPIENTS IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. PLEASE NOTE THAT

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT, ALONG WITH

ALL ATTACHMENTS OR OTHER ITEMS, MAY BE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT. THE BEACH

CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CLAIMS,

LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE DISCLOSURE OR USE OF ANY

INFORMATION, DATA OR OTHER ITEMS THAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]; CityClerk
Cc: [email protected]; info; CityClerk; Kevin Cody Subject: Re: Public Comment: Comprehensive Impact Assessment of the Beach Cities Health District Healthy Living Campus Redevelopment
Date: Monday, February 23, 2026 12:14:34 PM
Attachments: BCHD Lit Support - Comprehensive Bibliography.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

In support of the report discussing the nuisance damages of the BCHD campus to the surrounding property owners, our authors have assembled the references list, attached.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 10:11 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

This email includes a copy to the Redondo Beach Mayor and Council, the LA County Board of Supervisors, and LA LAFCO, which regulates BCHD.

Comprehensive Impact Assessment of
the Beach Cities Health District
Healthy Living Campus
Redevelopment
The proposed transformation of the 10.38-acre Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) campus into a 540,000-square-foot Healthy Living Campus (HLC) represents one of the most significant structural and operational shifts in the history of the South Bay Hospital District. This redevelopment, situated at the nexus of Redondo Beach and Torrance, California, transitions a site originally established for a public hospital into a high-density, privately-operated medical and residential complex under a longterm lease. The following analysis evaluates the multifaceted impacts of this project on the approximately 5,000 homes and 15,000 residents within a one-mile radius, utilizing hedonic price modeling, labor market data, and environmental impact assessments to quantify the resulting damages and nuisances.

Historical Foundations and the Shift from Public
Mandate
The South Bay Hospital District was born of a 1955 public vote, reflecting a postwar civic commitment to localized, high-quality healthcare for the residents of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. The land was acquired through the condemnation of private property, a move justified by the specific public utility of a community-owned hospital. The facility opened in 1960 with 146 beds, providing essential emergency, maternity, and general medical care during a period of rapid suburban growth in the South Bay. However, the economic viability of the public hospital model eroded during the 1970s, culminating in the 1984 failure of the entity as a public operator.

From 1984 to 1998, the facility transitioned into a leasehold model where a private operator maintained services, though the original public mandate began to dissolve.

This administrative pivot is central to current community grievances, as critics argue the district has strayed from its voter-approved mission, essentially operating as a commercial enterprise that utilizes public land for private profit.

Facility
Characteristic
Existing
Condition Proposed HLC Phase 1 & 2
Total Habitable
Space ~250,000 sq. ft. ~540,000 sq. ft.

Maximum Building
Height
52 ft. (99.7% of
site) 60 ft. (at site edges)
Site Setbacks 100 ft. Significantly Reduced
Medical Office
Space 150,000 sq. ft. 150,000 sq. ft. (retained/updated) Senior Living Units 100 (Memory
Care)
150 Assisted Living + 100
Memory Care
Residential
Apartments None 200 Units
PACE Day-Use None 400 Enrollees
Capacity
The proposed zoning use of the P-CF (Community Facility) land is a primary driver of the $200 million loss in property values identified through hedonic modeling. The P-CF zone in Redondo Beach is typically reserved for low-intensity public uses such as parks, libraries, and fire stations, which are almost exclusively one or two stories in height. The HLC project would be the only neighborhood-incompatible use of such a site, introducing 6-story residential care buildings and an 8-story parking garage into a low-density residential context.

The homes to the east sit an additional 30 feet below the street level, meaning the proposed 60-foot buildings would effectively tower 120 feet above the adjacent residential roofs. This height differential eliminates long-standing view corridors and introduces severe privacy intrusions, as the upper floors of the Assisted Living (RCFE) and apartment buildings will have direct lines of sight into private yards and windows.

Summary of Economic Damages to Residents
The $200 million aggregate loss can be broken down into specific categories of damage that affect the daily life and financial equity of the 15,000 residents:

Redondo Beach
Taxpayers
Market Shift from "Quiet Residential" to Immediate 1-mile Perception "Commercial/Institutional." radius
Demolition Impacts and Environmental Hazards
The project requires the demolition of approximately 150,000 to 158,000 square feet of the existing hospital structure. Because the facility was constructed in the late 1950s and opened in 1960, the demolition process carries substantial risks related to hazardous materials and structural seismic instability.

Toxicological Findings: PCE and VOCs
A Phase II Environmental Assessment conducted in 2020 revealed the presence of hazardous Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and carcinogens on the site.

Perchloroethylene (PCE) was detected in 29 of 30 soil samples, with some concentrations reaching 150 times the allowable residential screening level. The demolition of the concrete foundations and the subsequent soil disturbance risk aerosolizing these toxins, posing a direct health threat to the surrounding community. This risk is amplified by the presence of Towers Elementary School (350 feet downwind), Beryl Heights Elementary (900 feet away), and Redondo Union High School.

Job Role Average Hourly Wage (Los
Angeles)
Potential Peak
Staffing
Assisted Living
Caregiver $18.73 - $25.00 60 - 80 per shift
Memory Care
Caregiver $19.50 - $27.00 40 - 50 per shift
PACE Driver $25.00 - $31.00 20 - 30 (Daytime)
PACE Social
Worker $36.00 - $52.00 10 - 15 (Daytime)
Medical Office Staff $30.00 - $45.00 150 - 200
(Daytime)
The newly enacted $25 per hour healthcare minimum wage in California will apply to many of these positions, including nursing assistants, custodians, and support staff. Given the high cost of housing in Redondo Beach and Torrance, the majority of this workforce will commute from outside the Beach Cities. This creates a "24/7 staff flux" with shift changes at 7:00 AM, 3:00 PM, and 11:00 PM, introducing vehicular noise and traffic during sensitive evening and night hours for the 15,000 residents.

The 100-Year Lease and Governance Risk
The BCHD is moving forward with a public-private partnership that involves a 65- year ground lease to private developers (PMB and Watermark), with two 15-year extensions, totaling 95 years. Under this arrangement, the private developer owns and operates the structures, while the district retains ownership of the land.

Quantitative Value Reduction Table
The following table summarizes the potential reduction in property values for the surrounding neighborhoods based on proximity and specific nuisance exposure.

Neighborhood Zone
Median
Property
Value
Projected
Loss (%)
Average
Damage ($)
Immediate Adjacency (0
- 0.1 miles) $1,750,000 10% - 15% $175,000 -
$262,500
Eastern Slope (Torrance
View-Side) $1,600,000 7% - 10% $112,000 -
$160,000
Transit/PACE Bus
Corridors $1,450,000 4% - 6% $58,000 -
$87,000
General 1-Mile Radius
(Torrance/RB) $1,550,000 2% - 3% $31,000 -$46,500
Comprehensive Summary of Evidence and
Research Basis
This report is predicated on a synthesis of the following primary research categories:

Labor and Wage Data: Real-time salary reporting from Indeed and ZipRecruiter for caregivers, PACE staff, and nursing roles in the Los Angeles and Long Beach markets.

Municipal Finance and Governance: The City of Redondo Beach FY 2024- 25 and 2025-26 Proposed Budgets, and the BCHD Board Resolutions regarding the land lease agreement with PMB/Watermark.

Transit and Operational Studies: Research from the National PACE Association and regional transportation planning documents regarding bus-onshoulder and paratransit impacts.

Community Advocacy Data: Technical analyses provided by Torrance Redondo Against Overdevelopment (TRAO) regarding building heights, site setbacks, and target demographic data.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]; Michelle Bholat Cc: info; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; LA District Attorney
Subject: Re: Public Comment: Filed Complaints regarding BCHD Board members, Board actions, and Committee Member Date: Saturday, February 21, 2026 3:11:47 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

As much as BCHD wants to selectively enforce policies and allow it's committee members and board members free reign to make false statements to the BCHD taxpayers and the CIty Council of Redondo Beach - this needs to be dealt with and it is NOT GOING AWAY.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 6:47 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

Public Comment - Mayors, Councils and City Attorneys of the District Cities, LA County District Attorney Office
I see from the current agenda packet that BCHD is ignoring these documented complaints of ethics violations within their organization. BCHD even failed to acknowledge the complaints submitted in November via BCHD outside counsel who acts as their general counsel.

BCHD chooses to ignore its own ethics issues, especially at the Board and Committee Member levels.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 10:29 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

BCHD failed to acknowledge the written complaints filed regarding:
1) Board Member Koo's company getting referrals from BCHD and ALLCOVE. It seems well documented in AI/searches.
2) Board Member Poster's false statement under oath at the RB Council after being certain to identify herself as a sitting Board member of BCHD. Her statement regarding the actions she imagines the City Attorney took were so ludicrous to be deliberate false information to the Council.
3) A Committee Member's false statement that BCHD received the final $2.3M in reimbursements. They did not. The Board and CEO knew they did not, but never commented. This was clear malice against the public by the Board and CEO, and a deliberate false statement by Drummer, since nowhere in the record is the $2.3M reimbursed.
4) The same Committee Member repeatedly (half day offsite and November BOD) claiming that the work of Stop BCHD is as a satellite of the US federal DOGE. Clearly, that is yet false assertion.

My folks have completed downloads of the audio records, AI transcribed, and are prepared to provide full evidence for #2, #3, and #4 from BCHD's own record. #1 is a workproduct from public information that the Company that Koo is CMO of is a referral provide given out by BCHD.

We really need the Board and its Counsel to determine how ethics violations by the Board are handled. They likely will not discipline themselves. LAFCO? LA District Attorney? Private Litigation?
One final issue. BCHD has made false claims that it provides an ROI on property taxes for years. Any first year finance book rejects the claim that that ROI can occur using unrelated funds on the initial investment. The only potential ROI on the property taxes might be from passive investment of the lumpsum. Further - BCHD computes the alleged ROI incorrectly as well. They include the initial investment in the "rate" computation. That would make your 3% money market "BCHD ROI" 103% which is total nonsense. An MBA/CFO/CEO/CPA should know better. So should a financial auditor. Again, an intro level Finance error. In theory, the buck stops with the CEO or CFO, either of which should have corrected the formula and math. This casts doubt on all financial processes at BCHD. The CFO. The BCHD Auditors who ignored it in financial reports. It's quite material that the BCHD claim is wrongly computed and highly inflated.

How would StopBCHD file a malfeasance claim and also a challenge to the audit? If the auditors missed the computation of ROI, how closely did - or didn't - they audit BCHD? It's a sad state of affairs.

Redondo Beach City CouncilFebruary 24, 2026

Redondo Beach City Council
February 24, 2026