J1 - blue folder — Redondo Beach City Council, June 2, 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
JUNE 2, 2026
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Public Communications
From: Frank Watt
To: James Light
Cc: Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; CityClerk Subject: Opposition to the Progress Pride Flag Raising at Redondo Beach City Hall – Request to Enter into Public Record Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 5:51:23 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 Mayor Light and Members of the Redondo Beach City Council, I was born and raised in Redondo Beach and served the City for 36 years. Although I now live in Torrance, I still care deeply about Redondo Beach and the community I called home for most of my life.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the City’s decision to raise the Progress Pride flag at City Hall on June 2, 2026.

My objection is not directed at any individual resident or group of residents. Every person in Redondo Beach should be treated with dignity and respect. My concern is with the City using City Hall to display a flag that represents a specific political, social, and ideological movement.

The Progress Pride flag is not a neutral symbol. While some may view it as a symbol of inclusion, many others see it as a political statement tied to divisive cultural issues and identity-based activism. By raising it at City Hall, the City is taking a public position on one side of a debate where many residents reasonably disagree.

Government buildings should remain neutral and unifying. City Hall belongs to all residents, including those who do not support the political or ideological messages associated with this flag. The American flag, along with other official government flags, is sufficient to represent every resident equally, regardless of background, politics, race, religion, sexual orientation, or personal beliefs.

When public property is used to promote a specific cause or identity-based movement, even with good intentions, it risks dividing the community rather than bringing it together. I respectfully urge the City Council to reconsider this event and adopt a policy of flying only official government flags at City Hall.

I respectfully request that this letter be entered into the official public record.

Thank you for your time and service to Redondo Beach.

Sincerely,
Frank A. Watt
Redondo Beach native / former City employee
From: Stephanie Ishioka
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 5:13:45 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with a 99-year land lease for a project that causes harms to surrounding neighborhoods.

We, the Torrance residents who are located below where Beach Cities plans to build their Sunrise Senior Living community, would be subject to unmitigated construction noise, a five stories high 60 ft. tall building built on a 30 ft. bluff thereby blocking the ocean breeze, sunlight and invade our privacy into our backyards and into our homes.

Also, our property values would decrease with a large commercial building directly above our homes.

Please reduce the height of the buildings and/or keep them within the height of the existing buildings and build the buildings closer to the middle of the land instead of building them right on the perimeter of the land. The Sunrise residents and/or residents of the BCHD would be looking right into our backyards and our homes which is an invasion of privacy.

Where is a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Report for public review to protect our community based on this new project - "Sunrise Senior Living community"? The EIR is based on a different project from many years ago.

This new construction will be a burden on our community and our families. Also on the school children at Towers Elementary.

Please consider the above before building.

Thank you.
-Stephanie Ishioka
From: Sue Doyle
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 11:34:47 AM
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 Civic Leaders,
I’m concerned about the construction of the proposed BCHD Healthy Living Campus. I understand that analysis shows construction noise would exceed FTA safety standards for nearby neighbors. The FTA safety standards are there for a reason. Families living in adjacent areas can’t be expected to wear ear protection eight hours a day. Perhaps the estimated noise level identified in 2021’s EIR but the value is against safety standards today.

I realize that the size of the complex is unlikely to change at this point. However, I wanted to point out the difference in size between the proposed Healthy Living Campus and the monstrous Kaia apartment complex on Lomita and Crenshaw in Torrance. Both are 5 stories above ground. The Kaia site is approximately 2 to 3 acres in size. The proposed BCHD site is 11 acres, and it’s surrounded by neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Susan C. Doyle
From: LINDA Zelik
To: Stop BCHD
Cc: Communications; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]; CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; Kevin Cody
Subject: Re: Public Comment - BCHD"s Sunrise "Deal" Only Pays for 5 BCHD Executives - Residents Lose 5 Acres for 99 Years to Private Development
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 12:51:00 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear sir or madam;
Please do not allow BCHD to destroy our neighborhoods and way of life with their too high, too close to neighbors and too massive plans!!! Tom Backley and his minions are too greedy and do not care about the repercussions of this absurd push. Please don’t allow them to get away with it!
Sincerely, Linda and Joe Zelik
Sent from my iPhone
On May 26, 2026, at 5:33 PM, Stop BCHD <[email protected]> wrote:

Public Comment
Distribution to StopBCHD (Reply ALL to comment to government agencies) BCHD intends to provide its executives with significant pay raises at the May 27th Board Meeting. Even without the pay hikes, BCHD's proposed Sunrise 99- year lease will only provide enough income to pay for the TOP 5 PAID EXECUTIVES (using 2024 pay rates). BCHD's executive pay exceeds local health districts with nearly $1B in revenues. BCHD's TOTAL NUMBER OF EXECUTIVES IS EXCESSIVE. BCHD's TOTAL EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION IS EXCESSIVE.

District RESIDENTS need to KEEP OUR 5 ACRES and FORCE BCHD to meet reasonable standards of TOTAL EXECUTIVE COSTS!
SAVE OUR LAND - CUT BCHD EXECUTIVES!
<image>
--
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 voter-approved 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.

From: Peb Conrad
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD 99 year lease
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:54:13 AM
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.

Don't let your city become a bad neighbor.

Join with responsible people and have your city and leaders put a stop to this project.

As a homeowner in Torrance I will have to look at this ridiculous building from my home.

Peb Ray Conrad
--------------------------------------------
Peb Conrad, E.A.

Conrad & Associates
(310) 542-3401 Office
(310) 793-0203 Fax
www.thebesttaxman.com
From: Peb Conrad
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD 99 year lease
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 9:54:13 AM
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.

Don't let your city become a bad neighbor.

Join with responsible people and have your city and leaders put a stop to this project.

As a homeowner in Torrance I will have to look at this ridiculous building from my home.

Peb Ray Conrad
--------------------------------------------
Peb Conrad, E.A.

Conrad & Associates
(310) 542-3401 Office
(310) 793-0203 Fax
www.thebesttaxman.com
From: William Shanney
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: BCHD Development Plans
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 5:37:42 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

We oppose BCHD's development plan for the following reasons:

1. Permanent damaging impacts from Height/Massing/Inadequate Setbacks - Five stories high, 60 ft. tall, built on a 30 ft. bluff overlooking residents, with only minor setbacks from edges of property.

2. Unmitigated Construction Noise – At the current proposed setbacks and height of structures, analysis shows construction noise would exceed FTA safety standards for nearby neighbors.

3. Bypassing a new EIR - BCHD has included a letter that proposes to bypass a new EIR. Independent Living units and their traffic and noise impacts were NOT studied in the previous EIR. Questions remain on known toxic soil contamination, air quality and construction dust and debris from demolition, grading.

We demand reduced heights, increased setbacks along the eastern border, and a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Report for public review to protect our community. We demand justification for the illegal transfer of public lands for private use.

Sincerely
William and Vivian Shanney
From: Jacqueline Caro
To: CityClerk; City Council; City Clerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: BCHD -Public Comment To Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 10:38:40 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable BCHD Boardmembers,
I oppose BCHD’s plan to approve a 99-year lease on public land to build a structure which would cause harm to the surrounding neighborhood and Tower’s Elementary school in Torrance. I would urge a new EIR to address effects to Towers Elementary school students. The EIR should include when students are present for their education, but also after school activities, such as sports practice. Please note that current school hours have changed since the last EIR.

Traffic has also changed. A new edition of E-Bikes have emerged. I have witnessed teens doing popwheelies on major streets and intersections. Please include this in a new EIR.

Thank you,
Jackie Ecklund
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; Kevin Cody; [email protected]; Robert W. Lundy; James Light; CityClerk Subject: Fwd: Outrageous - coming up on 1AM and BCHD is still doing construction Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 1:06:41 AM
Attachments: BCHD Midnight Construction02 - 1245AM.mp4
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Redondo Beach Mayor, Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Police Chief, Code Enforcement:

The police are at 510 N Prospect at 1AM while BCHD is doing construction. Obviously BCHD HAS NO CONCERN for the neighboring community and its health. Noise is well known to create a variety of health impacts including hypertension and anxiety. Imagine the damage BCHD has planned for the surrounding neighborhoods for 4 years of construction.

The City is negligent in its oversight of construction at the BCHD campus. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, May 24, 2026 at 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Outrageous - coming up on 1AM and BCHD is still doing construction To: <[email protected]>, James Light <[email protected]>, Kevin Cody <[email protected]>, Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Joy Ford <[email protected]> RBPD will send an available officer for a report. We will pursue this at the next City Council meeting, as well as with Code Enforcement on Tuesday when they are open again.

On Sun, May 24, 2026 at 12:52 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

They CANNOT be allowed an more construction permits of activity without a 24 hour monitor. I am calling the PD right now for a report. I drove by, it's well above nighttime noise limits.

From: Stephen Price
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Oppose BCHD Sunrise Plan
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 2:29:29 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.

Hello,
I am Stephen Price, a resident in the Torrance neighborhood behind BCHD on Mildred Avenue, and I oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with a 99-year land lease for a project that causes harms to surrounding neighborhoods.

I have concerns that the noise and air pollution will cause immediate and possibly long-term damage to my family, including my wife and two children who attend Towers school down the road, down-wind. To demolish and rebuild larger structures will take years. What guarantees do you have that our we and children won't have long term health issues from this? Have all risks been thoroughly addressed with safety and health in mind for local residents?
What’s at stake for the local residents?

1. Permanent damaging impacts from Height/Massing/Inadequate Setbacks - Five stories high, 60 ft. tall, built on a 30 ft. bluff overlooking residents, with only minor setbacks from edges of property.

2. Unmitigated Construction Noise – At the current proposed setbacks and height of structures, analysis shows construction noise would exceed FTA safety standards for nearby neighbors.

4. Air pollution and long-term health issues born of in-air contaminates from the demolition.

Concerned and Opposed,
Stephen Price
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: oppose BCHD
Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 9:15:45 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
“ I oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with a 99-year land lease for a project that causes harms to surrounding neighborhoods. “
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: opposed to BCHD project.

Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:34:18 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I am very much opposed to the project at the old South Bay Hospital location. Much too high and also needs much greater setback on the east side if going to done at all !!! I live on Tomlee Ave just east of the proposed project. The loss of light, increased traffic and disruption is not acceptable.
mike woolsey
PS I will be paying close attention to who votes in favor of this project and if you are an elected official I will be very vocal in my dissatisfaction with a yes vote to proceed as planned
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Opposition to Beach Cities Proposal
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 11:25:49 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I am in opposition to any plans for the Beach Cities Health District. The lack of transparency, in my opinion, is blatant and there is a lack of funding. I don’t understand how ONE CEO and FIVE Board Members are making decisions for the residents of three cities. Where are the City Councils of these cities? City Council members are elected representatives of the residents. The residents are taxpayers. Is the proposal to lease this public land for 99 years a reasonable decision for future generations? My recommendation is to allow the residents to vote. The residents voted against the Allcove and it’s going ahead as planned. Is Beach Cities really listening to the residents? Marianne Teola, Redondo Beach From: R. Quan
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Planned BCHD Construction
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 7:38:44 AM
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.

To Whom It May Concern,
As a resident in the Pacific South Bay neighborhood in Torrance, I ask you to reconsider the planned construction of the BCHD campus. The planned building is simply too large for what is essentially a residential neighborhood and would negatively impact day-to-day living of the residents around the campus.

Randy Quan
Torrance
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]; CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD"s Sunrise "Deal" Only Pays for 5 BCHD Executives - Residents Lose 5 Acres for 99 Years to Private Development
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:33:15 PM
Attachments: image
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD's executive pay exceeds local health districts with nearly $1B in revenues. BCHD's TOTAL NUMBER OF EXECUTIVES IS EXCESSIVE. BCHD's TOTAL EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION IS EXCESSIVE.

Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved 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.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - Letter to the editor
Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 3:25:27 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Seismic decision
Dear ER:

The families of Silverado Memory Care on the Beach Cities Health Care campus attended the April BCHD board meeting to object to the eviction of their loved ones with dementia from the taxpayer-owned, former hospital building (Silverado families seek pause on redevelopment plans,” ER May 21, 2026). The pleas fell on deaf ears BCHD CEO Tom Bakaly reported the building did not meet seismic standards for continued operation. No, it doesn’t meet 2026 seismic standards, but neither does any other building that wasn’t built under the current code. The 2026 seismic standards are not applicable to the former hospital. BCHD knows it, but it tried to mislead the Silverado families. When that didn’t work, board President Jane Diehl made the false claim that “it’s the law” that the building had to be demolished .

Former Redondo Beach Councilmember Horvath read the State law to the room, demonstrating that the law clearly exempts memory care and skilled nursing use from seismic retrofit to relocate their loved ones? CEO Bakaly’s statement that “there’s 1,600 available memory care beds within 60 miles” was of little solace and it was a highly inappropriate, empathy-free statement in response to the shared grief at the meeting.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Michelle Bholat; Noel Chun; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - Trim the executive fat - a required responsible action Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 1:29:34 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD is a small government organization funded in supermajority by District Resident property taxes, rents from land purchased with District Resident bonds, and rents from a building built with District Resident bonds.

Compared to the three cities in the District, Redondo, Manhattan, and Hermosa Beach, BCHD is very inefficient in executive management.

Hermosa Beach has twice the revenue of BCHD
Manhattan Beach has roughly 3-times the revenue of BCHD Redondo Beach has roughly 4-time the revenue of BCHD
(Police and Fire costs are removed or the numbers roughly double) Yet, BCHD has 13 executives (Chiefs and Directors) while Hermosa has only 5 and Manhattan has only 6, and Redondo has only 9.

Each executive at BCHD has on average only $1.2M in budget oversight per Executive, while Hermosa is $5.5M and Manhattan is $6.9M, and Redondo is $6.4M in budget oversight per executive on average.

BCHD has a bloated management layer that exceeds the size of every District City.

THIS IS THE BUDGET CYCLE TO TRIM THE FAT FROM BCHD’S EXECUTIVE LAYER From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk Subject: Public Comment CEO Report
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:02:41 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

There is not one word in all of CEO Bakaly's attachments that support his false assertion that the 514 building does not meet seismic standards. It meets EVERY APPLICABLE STANDARD. More pages of paid consultant reports will NOT MAKE HIS STATEMENT THE TRUTH. BCHD's consultant even admitted IN WRITING that no ordinance or standard requires retrofit or demolition. NONE.

It was so ethically disappointing, yet not surprising, that Bakaly and Diehl LIED to the families of Silverado with their FALSE SEISMIC CLAIMS at the prior BCHD Board Meeting.

From: TRAO News
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE MAY 27, 2026 BOARD MEETING Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 6:57:33 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.

May 27, 2026
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE MAY 27, 2026 BCHD BOARD MEETING
Members of the BCHD Board and responsible agencies,
We would like to express our ongoing concerns and opposition regarding the May 2026 conceptual site plan that is being considered for a 99-year ground lease.

Sunrise’s new “conceptual” site plan and structure is proposed at 5 stories, 60 ft. tall, with minor setbacks. Despite BCHD’s public claims that they have addressed residents’ concerns, the structure still ignores neighborhood compatibility and places a permanent burden directly onto surrounding families and schoolchildren.

Neighborhood Massing & Visual Impact
The site sits on a 30-foot elevated hillside. Nearby homes are another 30 feet below street level. Placing a proposed 60-foot structure on the elevated site creates a 90 to 120 ft. height that would tower over homes on Flagler Alley and Flagler Lane, with the minor setback.

Privacy & Light Loss - The height and proximity eliminates open sky views and compromises the privacy of nearby residential homes as close as 80 ft. and backyards and Towers Elementary School just 350 ft away.

Reduced Height and Increased Setbacks are needed along the eastern border to restore neighborhood compatibility.
image.png
Construction Noise & Hearing Damage Risks - Damage Thresholds Exceeded The present governing 2021 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concluded that construction noise will exceed Federal Transit Authority (FTA) hearing damage thresholds across all construction phases.

In 2021, the BCHD Board officially voted to pass a "Statement of Overriding Considerations," choosing to proceed even though acknowledging that the construction noise would cause significant physical harm including hearing loss to surrounding families.

Independent Analysis shows that construction noise levels above the FTA threshold would remain, even with the proposed project’s height and minor setbacks.

Ineffective Mitigation - The EIR concluded that sound walls on site can only reach 31 feet. With the proposed structure at 60 feet, construction noise upper levels would not be addressed.

Impacts from demolition of the 1960s hospital and new construction configuration were not sufficiently addressed in the EIR, given the unique topology of the site.

The new project’s North-South “wall” effect creates a “Wind Shadow” impact. Homes located 30 to 60 feet below and 80 feet eastward of this elevated construction site face a severe risk of heavy dust accumulation and toxic contaminant exposure due to off-shore winds and new wind patterns created by the bluff and home “canyon”.

A structure of this scale creates a distinct low-pressure cavity—a Wind Shadow Effect—on its downwind side. Instead of dispersing safely, coastal air currents will break over the building roofline and curl downward trapping fugitive particulate matter and toxic materials directly within the immediate downwind impact zone.

Soil studies by Converse Consultants verified the presence of underground carcinogens:

1. PCE (Perchloroethylene) - 150x above the safe residential limit

Because the scope, traffic patterns, and impacts of an Independent Living facility differ significantly They must be required to provide a new subsequent Environmental Impact Report or addendum subject to review and comment by Responsible Agencies and the public.

The “Wind Shadow effect” on the neighborhood and Elementary school was not studied in the EIR.

In light of these deficiencies, we ask that the BCHD Board of Directors halt approval of the current conceptual plan and mandate the following measures:

1. Pause the agreement to enter a 99-year land lease

2. Commission a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR: Legally re-evaluate the entirely unstudied environmental, traffic, and density impacts of the new Independent Living configuration. Conduct a Localized Microclimate Wind Analysis: Explicitly model the offshore wind shadow effect and its impact on downwind carcinogen dispersion on nearby homes and Towers Elementary School.

3. Reduce Heights and Increase Setbacks: Reduce building height and enforce robust setbacks away from the Eastern border to preserve neighborhood compatibility and protect public health.

Respectfully,
Torrance Redondo Against Overdevelopment

From: Carl Paquette
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 3:51:55 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Regarding this ill conceived and obtrusive development, I am totally against it for all the reasons set forth in the email from the West Torrance Homeowners Association presented in their recent email:

1. Permanent damaging impacts from Height/Massing/Inadequate Setbacks - Five stories high, 60 ft. tall, built on a 30 ft. bluff overlooking residents, with only minor setbacks from edges of property.

2. Unmitigated Construction Noise – At the current proposed setbacks and height of structures, analysis shows construction noise would exceed FTA safety standards for nearby neighbors.

WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW
=>Send Comments - Demand reduced heights, increased setbacks along the eastern border, and a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Report for public review to protect our community.

I live immediately behind the proposed development that would tower over my neighborhood by 90 feet causing shadows and privacy issues.

I have pointed out in previous emails that Beryl Street is already overburdened with traffic during early morning school drop-offs and afternoon pickups and have invited all officials to observe this for themselves. My neighborhood is already a cut-through for traffic between Beryl and Del Amo. There would also be increased parking issues during and after construction.

The fact that there hasn’t been a new EIR concerning the change in development is extremely dubious.

Please reconsider this horrendous project.

Respectfully submitted,
Carl Paquette
From: Rita Lau
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B- Oppose BCHD Sunrise Plan Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 2:55:11 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.

Hello,
My family, including 2 young children, oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with a 99-year land lease for a project that causes harms to surrounding neighborhoods. I am very concerned about the safety and health of the surrounding neighborhoods and Towers elementary school.

What is at stake?

1. Permanent damaging impacts from Height/Massing/Inadequate Setbacks - Five stories high, 60 ft. tall, built on a 30 ft. bluff overlooking residents, with only minor setbacks from edges of property.

2. Unmitigated Construction Noise – At the current proposed setbacks and height of structures, analysis shows construction noise would exceed FTA safety standards for nearby neighbors.

Please address all of these concerns!
Sincerely,
Rita Price
From: M. Nava
To: Communications; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:01:13 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with a 99-year land lease for a project that causes harms to surrounding neighborhoods.

Marcio N
From: Dana LaRoche
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 7:03:35 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.

Good evening,
I oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with a 99-year land lease for a project that causes harms to surrounding neighborhoods.

This will ill reversibly impact our community with such a broad expansion that is beyond the purpose of the established land. We respectfully request you oppose the design plans as published.

Thank you for this consideration.

Dana LaRoche
From: Aileen Pavlin
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 4:28:09 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with a 99-year land lease for a project that causes harms to surrounding neighborhoods. “ . Permanent damaging impacts from Height/Massing/Inadequate Setbacks - Five stories high, 60 ft. tall, built on a 30 ft. bluff overlooking residents, with only minor setbacks from edges of property.

2. Unmitigated Construction Noise – At the current proposed setbacks and height of structures, analysis shows construction noise would exceed FTA safety standards for nearby neighbors.

Aileen Pavlin
From: Barbara Kiyokane
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 5:14:21 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

We strongly oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with the 99-year land lease being proposed. How is it that individual homeowners must get approval by neighbors before adding a second story, but the Redondo Beach City Planning Department can impose a massive 60-foot structure on a hill right in our backyard?! We have owned our home in the Sunnyglen neighborhood in West Torrance since 1984. While we are upset by the loss of our home value, our biggest objection is to the shadow that your personal greed will be casting on our community (literally).

Phil and Barbara Kiyokane
From: Skye
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment to Agenda Item VIII.B
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 8:46:38 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear All,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the Beach Cities Health District’s (BCHD) proposal to move forward with a 99-year land lease and its incompatible building design smacked in a residential neighborhood.

This project poses significant potential harm to the surrounding neighborhoods. Furthermore, as this involves public land, I am concerned about the long-term implications of signing away public rights. Transferring control of public assets through such an extensive lease introduces substantial risks, particularly regarding future oversight and changes in ownership.

I urge you to please protect the interests of the community.

Sincerely,
Skye
Resident
May 27, 2026
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE MAY 27, 2026 BOARD MEETING –
Members of the BCHD Board and Staff and responsible agencies, We would like to express our ongoing concerns and opposition regarding the May 2026 conceptual site plan that is being considered for a 99-year ground lease. Sunrise’s new “conceptual” site plan and structure is proposed at 5 stories, 60 ft. tall, with minor setbacks. Despite BCHD’s public claims that they have addressed residents’ concerns, the structure still ignores neighborhood compatibility and places a permanent burden directly onto surrounding families and schoolchildren.

Neighborhood Massing & Visual Impact
● The site sits on a 30-foot elevated hillside. Nearby homes are another 30 feet below street level. Placing a proposed 60-foot structure on the elevated site creates a 90 to 120 ft. height that would tower over homes on Flagler Alley and Flagler Lane, with the minor setback.
● Privacy & Light Loss - The height and proximity eliminates open sky views and compromises the privacy of nearby residential homes as close as 80 ft. and backyards and Towers Elementary School just 350 ft away. ● Reduced Height and Increased Setbacks are needed along the eastern border to restore neighborhood compatibility.

Construction Noise & Hearing Damage Risks - Damage Thresholds Exceeded The present governing 2021 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) concluded that construction noise will exceed Federal Transit Authority (FTA) hearing damage thresholds across all construction phases.
● In 2021, the BCHD Board officially voted to pass a "Statement of Overriding Considerations," choosing to proceed even though acknowledging that the construction noise would cause significant physical harm including hearing loss to surrounding families.
● Independent Analysis shows that construction noise levels above the FTA threshold would remain, even with the proposed project’s height and minor setbacks.
● Ineffective Mitigation - The EIR concluded that sound walls on site can only reach 31 feet. With the proposed structure at 60 feet, construction noise upper levels would not be addressed.

Hazardous Toxic Contaminants & Air Quality
Topological Threat - The elevated project site is located just 80 feet from Torrance backyards and 350 feet from Towers Elementary School, placing residents and over 600 students directly downwind from demolition and construction dust and particulates.
● Impacts from demolition of the 1960s hospital and new construction configuration were not sufficiently addressed in the EIR, given the unique topology of the site.
● The new project’s North-South “wall” effect creates a “Wind Shadow” impact. Homes located 30 to 60 feet below and 80 feet eastward of this elevated construction site face a severe risk of heavy dust accumulation and toxic contaminant exposure due to off-shore winds and new wind patterns created by the bluff and home “canyon”.
● A structure of this scale creates a distinct low-pressure cavity—a Wind Shadow Effect—on its downwind side. Instead of dispersing safely, coastal air currents will break over the building roofline and curl downward trapping fugitive particulate matter and toxic materials directly within the immediate downwind impact zone.
● Soil studies by Converse Consultants verified the presence of underground carcinogens:

1. PCE (Perchloroethylene) - 150x above the safe residential limit

2. Chloroform & Benzene - 7x to 13x above allowable limits EIR Non-Compliance and Deficiencies - BCHD is attempting to rely on the old 2021 EIR. However, the current proposal introduces a brand new element - a majority of Independent Living units—a specific use that was never studied in the original EIR. ● Because the scope, traffic patterns, and impacts of an Independent Living facility differ significantly They must be required to provide a new subsequent Environmental Impact Report or addendum subject to review and comment by Responsible Agencies and the public.
● The “Wind Shadow effect” on the neighborhood and Elementary school was not studied in the EIR.

In light of these deficiencies, we ask that the BCHD Board of Directors halt approval of the current conceptual plan and mandate the following measures:
1) Commission a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR: Legally re-evaluate the entirely unstudied environmental, traffic, and density impacts of the new Independent Living configuration. Conduct a Localized Microclimate Wind Analysis: Explicitly model the offshore wind shadow effect and its aerodynamic impact on downwind carcinogen dispersion on nearby homes and Towers Elementary School. 2) Enforce Height Protections and Stricter Setbacks: Reduce building height and enforce robust setbacks away from the Eastern border to preserve neighborhood compatibility and protect public health.
3) Provide Comprehensive 3D Visualizations: Deliver the detailed 3D spatial visualizations from critical
Respectfully,
Torrance Redondo Against Overdevelopment (TRAO)
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; CityClerk
Cc: Robert W. Lundy; [email protected]; James Light; Kevin Cody; info; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: BCHD Executive Pay is Excessive Compared to San Diego, LA, and Ventura County HCDs Date: Sunday, May 24, 2026 5:40:02 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

According to an analysis conducted by Gemini AI (subscription) and reviewed by an expert witness, BCHD's executive payroll is egregious. The BCHD Board is negligent in its lack of fundamental oversight and comparison to surrounding peer HCDs both with and without hospitals. Large hospital HCDs have lower costs of executive management than BCHD.

Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) spends more on executive compensation than hospital-operating districts that manage hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures and hundreds of medical staff. Specifically, BCHD’s executive payroll of $2,485,281.56 surpasses that of Tri-City Healthcare District ($1.58M) and approaches the total payroll of Palomar Health ($3.21M), despite BCHD acting primarily as a property landlord rather than operating an acute care hospital. Furthermore, nearly 47% of every property tax dollar BCHD collects from local residents goes directly toward paying its 13 top executives. [1, 2]

1. Healthcare Districts WITHOUT Hospitals (Landlord & Asset Management)
These districts operate as property managers, wellness grant-makers, or program hosts.

Because they do not have massive clinical billing revenues, executive payroll consumes a substantial portion of their local property tax allocations.

Healthcare
District [2,
3]
Annual
Total
Revenue
Annual
Property
Tax
Revenue
SUM of
Executive
Compensation
Executive
Pay as % of
Property
Tax
Executive
Pay as % of
Total
Revenue
Beach Cities
HCD
$17,614,000 $5,284,200
(30%)
$2,485,281.56 47.03% 14.11%
Camarillo
HCD
$4,953,632 $2,823,000
(57%)
$535,073.02 18.95% 10.80%
Grossmont
HCD
$13,900,000 $4,587,000
(33%)
$415,000 9.05% 2.98%
Note: Property tax ratios are pulled directly from each district's financial disclosures; BCHD receives exactly 30% of its intake via local property taxes. [2]

2. Healthcare Districts WITH Hospitals (Full Clinical Operations) These districts directly run 24/7 medical centers, emergency trauma rooms, and specialty clinics. They generate high revenues through patient insurance billings, making their executive overhead look comparatively small relative to their total operations.

Healthcare
District
Annual
Total
Revenue
Annual
Property
Tax
Revenue
SUM of
Executive
Compensation
Executive
Pay as % of
Property
Tax
Executive
Pay as % of
Total
Revenue
Palomar
Health
~$917,000,000 ~$14,200,000 $3,212,000 22.61% 0.35%
Tri-City
Healthcare
~$400,000,000 ~$6,100,000 $1,580,000 25.90% 0.39%
Core Structural Conclusions
Disproportionate Executive Footprint: BCHD's executive compensation sum ($2.48M) is 57% higher than Tri-City Healthcare District’s ($1.58M). Tri-City actively manages an entire regional hospital network with hundreds of medical FTEs and emergency facilities.

The Landlord Overhead Anomaly: While Grossmont HCD utilizes a lean executive management format ($415,000) to manage its leased hospital real estate, BCHD funds a heavily layered 13-person executive roster.

Tax Consumption: Nearly half (47.03%) of BCHD’s total property tax revenue is consumed by executive compensation packages rather than being directly distributed into community wellness programming or infrastructure. [1, 2] [1] https://bchd.org
[2] https://bchd.blob.core.windows.net
[3] https://www.grossmonthealthcare.org
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paige Kaluderovic; California Department of Health Care Services; Brad Waller; [email protected]; CityClerk; City Council; California Department of Public Health; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Garth Meyer
Subject: Public Comment: Correction of the BCHD Q&A Record Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 12:02:17 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From: Frank Briganti
To: CityClerk
Subject: Re: BCHD May Board meeting
Date: Monday, May 25, 2026 11:35:59 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

For Public Record & Review
Request for some legal responses/answers

1. Silverado. 90+ % turned over to a private equity? How does BCHD have authority to turn over District/private property’s to a private group * It shall revert back to the CA health District!!

2. No demo protection /traffic for surrounding 300+ homes & towers school.!. *health- Safety How much revenue$$$$ is recived by BCHD from Silverado? ^^^Demo exposure asbestos ,biologicals,dust noise,carcinogens, formaldehyde,### pregnancy risks###,etc Resrictions: work hours,days,24 hr site protection ,Emergency contacts,etc??????? ** Conflicts of interest between BCHD(all officers,+). -No sign offs Why NO Bonds by BCHD (Financial & Comletion) for Projects? No RPD & RBFP-vechile/ped traffic reports ? No Truck routes********** Alcove project no CA. State, County,City EPA reports on ground testing-caped oil well exposure /Safety ! Thank Dr. Frank tomlee ave. Within 50+ yds of Project
Sent from my iPad
From: [email protected]
To: Communications; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]; CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Stop BCHD Subject: Re: Public Comment - BCHD"s Sunrise "Deal" Only Pays for 5 BCHD Executives - Residents Lose 5 Acres for 99 Years to Private Development
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 6:29:21 AM
Attachments: image
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Wow! Really! I must have gone into the wrong profession. No wonder you don't want this in your back yard. You can afford to live elsewhere, so you are putting this in another neighborhood. One where you don't care about the consequences. One where you don't care that our house values will decrease. Shame on you.

Jennifer Sams
On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 03:33:07 PM PDT, Stop BCHD <[email protected]> wrote:

Public Comment
Distribution to StopBCHD (Reply ALL to comment to government agencies) BCHD intends to provide its executives with significant pay raises at the May 27th Board Meeting.

Even without the pay hikes, BCHD's proposed Sunrise 99-year lease will only provide enough income to pay for the TOP 5 PAID EXECUTIVES (using 2024 pay rates). BCHD's executive pay exceeds local health districts with nearly $1B in revenues. BCHD's TOTAL NUMBER OF EXECUTIVES IS EXCESSIVE. BCHD's TOTAL EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION IS EXCESSIVE.

District RESIDENTS need to KEEP OUR 5 ACRES and FORCE BCHD to meet reasonable standards of TOTAL EXECUTIVE COSTS!
SAVE OUR LAND - CUT BCHD EXECUTIVES!
--
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 voter-approved 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.

From: TRAO News
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE MAY 27, 2026 BOARD MEETING Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 10:55:18 PM
Attachments: Public Comment to BCHD Board and all agencies.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.

Attachment with images.

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 6:57 PM TRAO News <[email protected]> wrote:

Independent Analysis shows that construction noise levels above the FTA threshold would remain, even with the proposed project’s height and minor setbacks.

Ineffective Mitigation - The EIR concluded that sound walls on site can only reach 31 feet. With the proposed structure at 60 feet, construction noise upper levels would not be addressed.

Impacts from demolition of the 1960s hospital and new construction configuration were not sufficiently addressed in the EIR, given the unique topology of the site.

Soil studies by Converse Consultants verified the presence of underground carcinogens:

1. PCE (Perchloroethylene) - 150x above the safe residential limit

The “Wind Shadow effect” on the neighborhood and Elementary school was not studied in the EIR.

In light of these deficiencies, we ask that the BCHD Board of Directors halt approval of the current conceptual plan and mandate the following measures:

1. Pause the agreement to enter a 99-year land lease

3. Reduce Heights and Increase Setbacks: Reduce building height and enforce robust setbacks away from the Eastern border to preserve neighborhood compatibility and protect public health.

Respectfully,
Torrance Redondo Against Overdevelopment

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Stop Beach Cities
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 9:18:07 AM
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.

How can Beach Cities consider pay raises to Beach Cities executives when they are borrowing money? If you don't have the funding, common sense would dictate that you make needed cuts to staffing. It is my opinion that one or all three of the beach cities involved demand a third-party review of BCHD expenses and make recommendations. My recommendation is to stop BCHD as it exists now and make due with what's there currently. Marianne Teola, Resident of Redondo Beach

MEMORANDUM
TO: Stakeholders / Review Committee
FROM: Financial & Econometric Analysis Advisory
DATE: May 28, 2026
SUBJECT: Due Diligence Framework and Material Requirements for Salary Benchmarking Peer Suitability Analysis
Executive Summary
Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) has compiled a 16-agency benchmarking index to evaluate and justify localized adjustments to its employee compensation structures. In public administration and econometrics, a valid benchmarking peer must exhibit institutional, operational, and financial parity.

A preliminary review of the 16 selected agencies reveals extreme structural variance. The index blends small asset-management health districts, full-service municipal corporations, and massive county governments managing multi-billion dollar state-mandated social safety nets.

Using an unweighted blend of these agencies as a justification for salary increases introduces significant statistical skew.

This memorandum establishes a rigorous Due Diligence Framework and itemizes the Evidentiary Materials Required to independently audit whether these 16 agencies constitute legitimate organizational peers to BCHD.

I. The Core Challenge: Structural Incongruity
To illustrate the necessity of rigorous due diligence, we look at the stark operational metrics across the proposed peer group:
● The Scale Skew: BCHD operates with 151 non-safety employees and $14.8 Million in net non-safety revenue. Conversely, Los Angeles County operates with 93,406 non-safety employees and $35.5 Billion in net non-safety revenue. Executive or managerial compensation in an organization of 93,000 people reflects scale liabilities, massive risk management portfolios, and complex labor union environments that do not exist in a 151-person organization.
● Revenue-per-Employee Variance: The efficiency and financial realities of these employers are entirely mismatched. BCHD generates $98,013.25 per employee.

Meanwhile, Peninsula Health Care District sits at $1,137,500.00 per employee, and enterprise-heavy municipal utilities like Pasadena and Long Beach operate between $469,000 and $816,000 per employee. High revenue-per-employee ratios usually signify highly automated or asset-passive systems that can absorb inflated individual salaries—a luxury not shared by labor-intensive, direct-service community health layouts. ●
II. Required Due Diligence Framework
To evaluate if an agency is a suitable benchmarking peer, due diligence must be conducted across four distinct vectors:

1. Organizational & Operational Complexity
● Due Diligence Objective: Determine if the job descriptions and executive scopes of responsibility are actually comparable. A "Director" or "Chief" managing 5,000 workers across multiple enterprise funds has a radically different job profile than a Director managing a lean staff of 10 in a singular community building. ● Audit Metric: Executive Span of Control (number of direct and indirect reports) and number of distinct operational divisions managed.

2. Labor Market Demographics (The Cost-of-Living Factor) ● Due Diligence Objective: Filter out geographic anomalies. While health districts like Grossmont (San Diego) or Camarillo (Ventura County) are structurally closer to BCHD, agencies located outside of immediate regional labor pools must be cost-of-living adjusted.
● Audit Metric: Geographic Differential Index matching the local cost of living and housing indices relative to the South Bay/Los Angeles coastal basin.

3. Revenue Architecture & Fiscal Sourcing
● Due Diligence Objective: Verify how the peer pays for its labor. Municipalities rely on highly cyclical sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes (TOT), and business licenses.

Special health districts rely primarily on fixed ad-valorem property tax allocations and passive real estate leases. Organizations insulated from market cycles (passive leasors) cannot be cleanly benchmarked against organizations dependent on volatile municipal general funds.
● Audit Metric: Percentage of revenue derived from property tax allocations vs. enterprise fees for service.

4. Total Compensation Equivalence
● Due Diligence Objective: Eliminate "Top-Line Skew." Transparent California and raw data ledgers highlight Total Pay & Benefits. Benchmarking must isolate base salaries from historical legacy costs, such as pension debt (UAAL) amortization payments or localized health benefit spikes that disguise actual take-home compensation scales. ● Audit Metric: Base Salary vs. Total Compensation Ratio.

III. Materials & Evidence Required for Independent Audit To execute this due diligence and formally verify or challenge the suitability of these peers, BCHD leadership must produce the following documentation for each agency:

Category Specific Material Required Analytical Objective Financial Ledger
Verification

1. Complete ACFR (Annual
Comprehensive Financial
Report) for the trailing 2
fiscal years.

2. Line-item Enacted
Operating Budgets.

Isolate exact non-safety
enterprise revenues and
confirm that restricted
capital improvement
project (CIP) funds are not
distorting operational
revenue pools.

Organizational
Architecture

1. Official Agency
Organizational Charts
mapping all reporting lines.

2. Comprehensive Job
Description Matrix for all
benchmarked roles.

Verify that titles match
actual duties. Ensure a
"Director" in a peer city isn't
performing the workload of
a "Manager" or "Supervisor"
at BCHD.

Compensation Detail 1. Active MOU
(Memorandums of
Understanding) and Salary
Schedules.

2. CalPERS/Retirement
Contract Disclosures
detailing employer-paid
member contributions
Isolate the true
cash-equivalent
compensation. Determine
how much of the reported
"Total Comp" is spent
paying down historical
agency pension debt vs.
active employee pay.
(EPMC).

Operational Output
Metrics

1. Annual Service Volume
Reports (e.g., patient
encounters, residents
served, square footage of
facilities managed).

Quantify the true scale of
the operation. Compare
service footprint size
against headcount to
determine structural
density.

IV. Conclusion & Recommendations
Blindly accepting a salary benchmark index that aggregates entities as structurally diverse as BCHD ($14.8M net revenue / 151 workers) and Los Angeles County ($35.5B net revenue // 93,406 workers) violates basic principles of public sector salary governance.

Before any salary adjustments are approved based on this data, the review committee should demand a Peer Stratification Analysis. The index must be broken into three distinct tiers:

1. Tier 1 (Direct Structural Peers): Healthcare/Hospital Districts under $50M in revenue (e.g., Camarillo, Grossmont, Peninsula).

2. Tier 2 (Local Labor Market Competitors): Immediate geographic cities (Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach) with public safety costs cleanly subtracted.

3. Tier 3 (Macro-Scale Reference Points): Major cities and counties (Long Beach, Pasadena, LA County). These should be heavily discounted or weighted downward, serving purely as macro-market reference points rather than direct justification peers.

From: Shirley LaCanfora
To: CityClerk
Subject: Sunrise plans
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 4:04:08 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 oppose BCHD's plan to move forward with a 99-year land lease for a project that causes harms to surrounding neighborhoods. “ I'm a senior and I do not see this as a good use of the property for the future of the south bay.

Shirley LaCanfora
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; [email protected]; [email protected]; Robert W. Lundy; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Kevin Cody; Jane Diehl, RBUSD Subject: Unvetted "Peer" Roster for BCHD Compensation Evaluation Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 7:56:39 PM
Attachments: SUBJECT Due Diligence Framework and Material Requirements for Salary Benchmarking Peer Suitability Analysis.pdf CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Per the BCHD study meeting on 5/27/26, the revealed peer listing in use for compensation would appear to be poorly matched to BCHD's size and function. The attached letter was prepared by one of our volunteers and reflects the work required to validate the peer list and cull it down to reasonable peers. Some agencies have in excess of $1B in revenue, while BCHD $15M per year is quite small.

Further, we have evaluated BCHD's provided peer listing with regard to BCHD's executive management density. We have found that by any reasonable measure, BCHD executive layer is excessively large. See below for a table of the BCHD provided peers. BCHD ranks near the bottom of both SPAN-RANK and FISCAL-RANK. BCHD has a span of control of only 6.3 employees per executive (#13 of 16 peers), without removing the executives themselves from the FTE ranks. Sterilizing the FTEs of executives provide a span of control of only 5 FTEs per BCHD executive. Similarly, BCHD's fiscal portfolio per executive is very low. At only $1.1M gross revenue per executive, BCHD is #15 of 16 peers. Further, the fiscal measure includes the salaries of the executives. If removed, the average fiscal portfolio per executive would be approximately $900,000. By any reasonable benchmark, BCHD has excessive executives.

Agency Name Entity Type
Net NonSafety
Revenue
Total
Employees
Full Time
Employees Executives
FTE Span of
Control per
Executive
Fiscal Portfolio
per Executive
SPAN
RANK
(Best = 1)
FISCAL
RANK
(Best = 1)
Peninsula Health District Health District $18.2 Million 16 9 3 3 $6,066,667 16 9 Camarillo Health Care District Health District $6.1 Million 44 38 6 6.3 $1,016,667 13 16 Grossmont Health Care District Health District $16.4 Million 30 19 3 6.3 $5,466,667 13 11 Beach Cities Health District Health District $14.8 Million 151 82 13 6.3 $1,138,462 13 15 City of Hermosa Beach City $27.5 Million 173 126 6 21 $4,583,333 12 13 City of Inglewood City ~$102.0 Million 649 484 18 26.9 $5,666,667 10 10 City of Redondo Beach City $53.8 Million 598 319 14 22.8 $3,842,857 11 14 City of Manhattan Beach City $41.6 Million 396 280 8 35 $5,200,000 9 12 City of Gardena City ~$85.0 Million 438 372 8 46.5 $10,625,000 8 8 City of Long Beach City ~$2.75 Billion 5545 5300 93 57 $29,569,892 5 4 Riverside County County ~$6.1 Billion 26140 22662 413 54.9 $14,769,976 6 6 Orange County County ~$7.4 Billion 17962 17938 281 63.8 $26,334,520 4 5 City of Huntington Beach City ~$136.0 Million 1076 650 13 50 $10,461,538 7 7 San Bernardino County County ~$7.7 Billion 20325 18362 238 77.2 $32,352,941 3 3 Los Angeles County County ~$35.5 Billion 91785 91600 1009 90.8 $35,183,350 1 2 City of Pasadena City ~$1.02 Billion 1929 1563 19 82.3 $53,684,211 2 1 Any work prepared for BCHD should follow the attached due diligence framework to avoid "spiking" the compensation of the small, top heavy agency.

Mark Nelson
Expert Witness
From: Tim Ozenne
To: Communications; City Clerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: We oppose BCHD Plans to Expand the Healthy Living Campus Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 5:58:34 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

It appears the BCHD board of directors intends to approve a substantial expansion of buildings and other facilities on the BCHD campus along the eastern side of Prospect Avenue. On behalf of my wife and myself, we strongly oppose this expansion.

As we live in Torrance, there would be no immediate increase in our property taxes to fund this expansion, but the expansion would harm many of us who have lived near the BCHD facilities for many years. In the case of myself and my wife, we live barely one mile east of the BCHD eastern property line (near Flagler Lane). We have been here since 1978. From our home, the western horizon is hugely dominated by the (long-defunct) BCHD hospital which sits on the top of the hill.

Although the plans for the existing building are not clear, it appears BCHD will reconstruct facilities in order to accommodate Sunrise Assisted Living’s expansion which will involve a 99-year ground lease.. We will be stuck with the new facilities for a long time, so the impact on area property owners will persist for many years. The plan involves several new building. Substantial negative econometric estimates of the impact the expansion will have on nearby property values is a major concern for many of us near the property. I am unaware of any analysis by BCHD or its consultants which shows positive changes in nearby property values. Why? Why has BCHD failed to publish an EIR that shows any positive effects on the local area.

Maybe there are none?
Nor has BCHD publicly quantified the noise effects the proposed expansion would have on local property owners. It seems BCHD is primarily focused on the opportunity to increase its own salaries. We won’t know unless BCHD delays the project until it is able to provide a comprehensive EIR.

I have submitted several written comments during earlier phases of this project. Not a single comment has been acknowledged or included in BCDH replies. But, since our house could be a substantial portion of our estate when it is settled, I hope BCHD and others will not ignore comments on the local impacts of its plan. Don’t BCHD’s neighbors deserve reasonable consideration?
Sincerely,
Tim Ozenne
West Torrance
Note: Mahattan Beach does not provide its email address for the city clerk or other administrative offices. If they did, MB would have been included among the recipients.

Redondo Beach City CouncilJune 2, 2026

Redondo Beach City Council
June 2, 2026