J.1 - Blue Folder — Redondo Beach City Council, March 31, 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
MARCH 31, 2026
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Public Communications
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; James Light; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; [email protected] Subject: OPPOSE BCHD"s FAR 1.25 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS HEALTH AND MONETARY DAMAGES Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 6:08:00 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD Board, Redondo Mayor and Council, Torrance Mayor and Council:

Neighborhood studies show that BCHD has taken over $200M of our property value within a 1-mile radius in Redondo Beach and Torrance. Neighborhood studies show that a careless, tall, dense, close to the edge development will destroy another $300M to over $1 Billion in property value and health benefits. BCHD and its “Big Oil” consultant Wood PLC rejected every peer-reviewed study and neighborhood concern regarding negative health impacts of the proposed private development.

I oppose BCHD’s plan to allow a private developer to double the density of the buildings on the former emergency hospital site from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.58 to FAR 1.25.

I oppose an increase in building height to 60-feet for the new construction. The current 4- story hospital is 99.7% at 51.5-feet or lower. Only the 952-sf “penthouse” is taller. The average floor space is under 40-feet tall today.

I oppose construction on the edge of the site adjacent to R-1 property. The site is 30-feet above grade, so the 60-foot buildings will be 90-feet and taller compared to the local residential property. Current setbacks to the 4-story hospital towers exceed 100-feet.

I oppose the noise from balconies and windows facing residential neighborhoods and demand no decks and non-opening windows on all Torrance and Redondo Beach facing walls.

I oppose the loss of privacy from buildings 60-ft to 90-ft or taller above residential neighborhoods and demand mitigations to block views down into neighborhoods.

BCHD cannot continue to damage the health and welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods and must fully mitigate the health impacts and value loss. BCHD has an affirmative action to maintain or improve health – and BCHD has no right to continue to damage surrounding resident health and wealth.

Respectfully,
Jeff Earnest
From: Rosann Taylor
To: James Light; CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: Studies referenced in email James Light rebuttal Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 9:14:57 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 Jim,
This is in response to your comments.

Public Comment
Dear Mayor and City Council:

Analyzing a mid-rise, high-density housing complex (200–400 units) within a one-mile radius is essential for a robust hedonic pricing model, as large-scale residential developments generate spillover effects that diminish with distance but remain significant within this "catchment area." The primary negative externalities—such as increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, and the loss of "open space" or views —directly influence the market value of neighboring properties by altering their bundle of desirable characteristics (Rosen, 1974). Studies on urban density suggest that while such developments may provide localized amenities, they also act as significant "disamenity" sources whose impact on housing prices typically stabilizes only after a 0.5 to 1-mile buffer (Ewing & Cervero, 2010). Furthermore, the "shadow effect" and increased competition for public services (like street parking and park access) are most accurately captured by evaluating sales data within this 1.6-kilometer radius to account for the spatial decay of these externalities (Galster, 2004).

References:

Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association. Link to JAPA
Galster, G. (2004). The Effects of Affordable and Multi-Family Housing on Market Values of Nearby Properties. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research. Read on HUD User Moudon, A. V. (2009). Real Noise from the Built Environment: Residential Proximity to Traffic and Health.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Norton, R. K., et al. (2007). The Social and Environmental Impacts of Institutional Land Uses on Residential Neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Affairs.

Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition.

Journal of Political Economy.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 7:26 AM Rosann Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: James Light <[email protected]>
Date: March 24, 2026 at 8:58:35 PM PDT
To: Rosann Taylor <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Studies referenced in email
The models outcomes in the first paper don’t stand simple critical analysis. It concludes that BCHD has a substantive impact on homes along the waterfront in Redondo Beach. That is simply unbelievable. They can’t even see BCHD. I am betting many don’t even know it exists.

VR
Jim
Jim Light
Mayor, City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond St., Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310.989.3332
www.redondo.org
From: Rosann Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 8:23:36 PM
To: James Light <[email protected]>
Subject: Studies referenced in email
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.

Hi Jim,
The studies referenced are at the bottom of this email.

Regards,
Rosann
“ RE: OPPOSE BCHD’s FAR 1.25 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS HEALTH AND MONETARY DAMAGES”
Rosann,
Thanks for your email. Can you please provide me the studies you reference? VR
Jim Light
Mayor
310.989.3332
415 Diamond St., Redondo Beach, CA 90277
redondo.org
Aloha! ♀
Please note that email correspondence with the City of Redondo Beach, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. The City of Redondo Beach shall not be responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of digital data that may be contained in this email.

From: LINDA Zelik
To: [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; James Light; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; [email protected] Subject: In opposition to BCHD"s FAR 1.25 Private Development Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 2:08:38 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please do not let BCHD intimidate you so they can extract more private money from the land they were supposed to protect!
As residents who live just 2 blocks from this site, we implore you to be reasonable and limit the size and scope
of the proposed monstrosity!
Estimates show that a careless, too tall, too large, too close to the edge commercial development like BCHD's private developer plans could cost another $300M to over $1 Billion in damages.

See Study #2 (BCHD Planned Actions) and Study #3 (Cost of BCHD Planned Damages)
At a minimum, we need the City of Redondo Beach to enforce:

DEEP 100-FOOT SETBACKS (MATCHING CURRENT SETBACK),

STAIR STEP BUILDING DESIGNS,
50-FOOT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS,

NO BALCONIES AND NON-OPENING WINDOWS FACING

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, AND
NO INCREASE IN OVERALL DENSITY ON THE SITE.See Study #5 Thank you, Linda and Joe Zelik,
In the U.S., long-term commercial or industrial construction projects are recognized as major contributors to local environmental health hazards, particularly through chronic exposure to diesel exhaust, dust, and noise.

Long-Term Construction & Respiratory Health
A primary study focused on the U.S. context—specifically Boston, Massachusetts— investigated the health of residents near major construction projects lasting several years (including high-rise buildings and highway construction).

National Institutes of Health (.gov)
 Methodology: Researchers used zip code data to track health outcomes (emergency department visits and mortality) for residents living adjacent to large-scale, multi-year construction sites.  Respiratory Illness: The study identified significant correlations between residential proximity to these projects and increased pulmonary-related health issues.  Diesel Exposure: California-specific data from the Union of Concerned Scientists highlights that diesel construction equipment is one of the largest sources of toxic particulate matter, leading to premature deaths and chronic respiratory illnesses like asthma and acute bronchitis.

Union of Concerned Scientists +3
Chronic Stress and Cardiovascular Risks
Sustained construction activity (lasting 5+ years) acts as a chronic "environmental stressor" with documented U.S. impacts:
 Noise and Sleep: Chronic exposure to construction noise in urban areas is linked to hypertension, elevated cortisol levels (stress response), and cardiovascular disease (CVD).  Mental Health: Longitudinal qualitative research, such as the Healthy Neighborhoods Project, found that residents in areas undergoing long-term urban renewal or construction often experience high levels of anxiety, depression, and "ontological insecurity" due to the loss of control over their living environment.
 Systemic Inflammation: Research in Detroit demonstrated that proximity to hazardous urban sites (often co-located with heavy construction) is associated with systemic inflammation and accelerated "immune aging" in nearby residents.

National Institutes of Health (.gov) +3
Vulnerable Communities
U.S. studies frequently emphasize that these health damages are not distributed equally:
 Disproportionate Impact: Low-income populations and people of color are more likely to live in "fenceline" communities near major industrial and commercial development projects.  Resource Barriers: In high-poverty areas, residents often lack the mitigation resources (like high-quality indoor air filtration) to protect themselves from the 5-year duration of dust and noise Neighborhood Report: How BCHD Methodically disposed of all Mental Health and Sleep Comments Using a Translation Table In the BCHD Healthy Living Campus Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), there are virtually no instances where BCHD granted "further consideration" to psychological impacts as a standalone environmental category. Instead, BCHD consistently applied a strict legal standard to exclude psychological impacts from the EIR’s scope of analysis.

However, BCHD did provide "further consideration" in a technical sense by acknowledging that physical stressors can lead to psychological outcomes. In these cases, they addressed the physical cause (the environment) while continuing to discard the psychological effect (the resident's mental state).

Below are the specific areas where BCHD addressed the "precursors" to psychological impacts:

1. Consideration of "Human Health" via Air Quality and Noise Location: Section 2.3.1 (Master Response 1: Project Description and Health Impacts) Context: In response to dozens of comments about the "mental health toll" of the project, BCHD provided a consolidated response.

The "Consideration": BCHD argued that while "psychological impact" is not a CEQA category, Human Health is. Therefore, they "further considered" the psychological concerns by evaluating whether the project’s physical emissions (toxic air contaminants, dust, and noise) would meet thresholds designed to protect human health.

Outcome: They concluded that because the physical impacts were mitigated to "Less Than Significant," the psychological health of the residents was, by extension, protected.

2. Consideration of "Aesthetics and Enclosure" (Viewshed) Location: Section 3.1 (Aesthetics) and Response to Comment ORG 2-32 Context: Residents at the adjacent Silverado and Towers facilities expressed that the massive scale of the new building would cause a psychological sense of "enclosure" or "suffocation." The "Consideration": BCHD performed a "further consideration" of the visual character of the site. They utilized 3D modeling and viewshed analysis to determine if the physical building height followed local zoning.

Outcome: They addressed the visual impact but ultimately discarded the psychological feeling of enclosure, stating that "subjective" feelings about the "massing" of a building do not constitute a significant environmental impact if zoning laws are met.

3. Consideration of Construction Stress through "Mitigation Monitoring" Location: Section 4.0 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) Context: Comments suggested that the "uncertainty" and "unpredictability" of a 15-year construction schedule caused chronic stress.

The "Consideration": While BCHD refused to label "stress" as an impact, they "further considered" the source of the stress by establishing a Construction Communication Plan.

Outcome: They committed to providing a "community liaison" and regular updates to neighbors.

BCHD framed this as a way to "reduce the potential for community concern," which is a indirect way of addressing the psychological impact without legally admitting it is an "environmental effect."

4. Consideration of "Vulnerable Populations" (Seniors)
Location: Section 2.4.3, Response to Comment IND 106-2
Context: Commenters noted that the elderly population has a higher sensitivity to psychological distress and cognitive confusion during major environmental changes.

The "Consideration": BCHD acknowledged the presence of "vulnerable populations" in the immediate vicinity. They "further considered" this by ensuring that noise and vibration thresholds were measured specifically at the property lines of the adjacent senior living facilities.

Outcome: BCHD maintained that the "sensitivity" of the residents does not change the "threshold of significance" for the physical environment. They concluded that if a noise level is safe for a person of "normal sensitivity," it is legally sufficient for the senior population as well.

Summary of BCHD’s Position
In every instance where psychological impacts were raised, BCHD followed a "Translation Protocol":
 Receive a comment about mental health/anxiety/psychological distress.  Translate that concern into a physical category (Noise, Air Quality, or Aesthetics).  Analyze the physical category.
 Conclude that because the physical category is mitigated, the psychological concern requires no further consideration.

From: Reid Fujinaga
To: [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; James Light; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: No to BCHD Project
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 2:55:21 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 live less than a quarter mile from BCHD and am opposed to the proposed BCHD project.

I oppose BCHD’s plan to allow a private developer to double the density of the buildings on the former emergency hospital site from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.58 to FAR 1.25.

I oppose an increase in building height to 60-feet for the new construction. The current 4-story hospital is 99.7% at 51.5-feet or lower. Only the 952-sf “penthouse” is taller. The average floor space is under 40-feet tall today.

I oppose the noise from balconies and windows facing residential neighborhoods and demand no decks and non-opening windows on all Torrance and Redondo Beach facing walls.

I oppose the loss of privacy from buildings 60-ft to 90-ft or taller above residential neighborhoods and demand mitigations to block views down into neighborhoods.

Reid Fujinaga
19605 Ronald
From: Aileen Pavlin
To: [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; James Light; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; [email protected] Subject: Oppose BCHD FAR 1.25
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:40:27 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Subject: OPPOSE BCHD’s FAR 1.25 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS HEALTH

AND MONETARY DAMAGES
BCHD Board, Redondo Mayor and Council, Torrance Mayor and Council:

Neighborhood studies show that BCHD has taken over $200M of our property value within a 1-mile
radius in Redondo Beach and Torrance.

Neighborhood studies show that a careless, tall, dense, close to the edge development will destroy
another $300M to over $1 Billion in property value and health benefits.

BCHD and its “Big Oil” consultant Wood PLC rejected every peer-reviewed study and neighborhood
concern regarding negative health impacts of the proposed private development.

I oppose BCHD’s plan to allow a private developer to double the density of the buildings on the former
emergency hospital site from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.58 to FAR 1.25.

I oppose an increase in building height to 60-feet for the new construction. The current 4-story hospital
is 99.7% at 51.5-feet or lower. Only the 952-sf “penthouse” is taller. The average floor space is under 40-
feet tall today.

I oppose construction on the edge of the site adjacent to R-1 property. The site is 30-feet above grade,
so the 60-foot buildings will be 90-feet and taller compared to the local residential property.

Current
setbacks to the 4-story hospital towers exceed 100-feet.

I oppose the noise from balconies and windows facing residential neighborhoods and demand no decks
and non-opening windows on all Torrance and Redondo Beach facing walls.

I oppose the loss of privacy from buildings 60-ft to 90-ft or taller above residential neighborhoods and
demand mitigations to block views down into neighborhoods.

BCHD cannot continue to damage the health and welfare of the surrounding neighborhoods and must
fully mitigate the health impacts and value loss. BCHD has an affirmative action to maintain or improve
health – and BCHD has no right to continue to damage surrounding resident health and wealth.

Aileen Pavlin
From: Marcia Gehrt
To: [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; James Light; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; [email protected] Subject: OPPOSE BCHD’s FAR 1.25 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND ITS HEALTH AND MONETARY DAMAGES Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 8:37:53 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.