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 9, 2026
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Public Communications
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Joy Ford; [email protected]; Marc Wiener Cc: Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Sean Scully; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: City of Redondo Beach facilitating BCHD Violating Federal ADA Laws Blocking Bus Stops with Construction Vehicles
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 3:34:07 PM
Attachments: BCHD Parking Semis on Prospect blocking street and US ADA Bus Stop.png CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
First, somehow the City elected to waive the C-2 Parking requirements for the BCHD C-2 medical office building at Beryl & Flagler. By deed restriction, the building is required to have 30 years minimum use as a mental health medical facility. The RBMC requires 30+ parking spots for the medical office building of 9000+ sf. Yet, there are only 8 maximum on the drawings. The closest parking place on the 514 N Prospect site is 2,000-feet away for a pedestrian walking on sidewalks. Clearly, parking at the 514 site is NOT APPLICABLE to a site 2,000-feet away. The City appears to be applying the RBMC in a discriminatory fashion.
Second, BCHD is remodeling two floors of the 510 N Prospect building. BCHD has signs up INSIDE the campus parking lot of NO TRUCK LOADING. BCHD obviously doesn't want to inconvenience itself. As a result, BCHD vendors are BLOCKING NORTH PROSPECT for hours at a time, parked in front on an ADA required bus stop. This is clearly unacceptable and shows a lack of enforcement and property construction restrictions on the construction permits issued by the City for 510 N Prospect.
Special Use Rate Reductions
The code provides a reduced parking ratio for specific specialized health practices. If your 9,500 sq. ft. building is dedicated exclusively to these practices, the rate shifts to 1 space per 300 square feet, reducing the requirement to 32 parking spaces (9,500 / 300 =
31.67, rounded up): Acupuncture offices, Chiropractic offices, Physical therapy clinics, Psychotherapy offices
The City needs to stop violating its own municipal code and require BCHD to adhere to the construction and zoning rules and the federal ADA requirements. The current actions are clearly discriminatory and violate both resident rights as protected in the RBMC and ADA disabled rights.
The attached photos show disabled using the bus stop in front of 510 and a semi servicing BCHD construction blocking a lane and coning off the street for approximately 2 hours. On the days that BCHD blocks the bus stop and street, the disabled have their federal ADA rights violated.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; PRR; [email protected]; Robert W. Lundy Cc: Joy Ford; Mike Witzansky; CityClerk; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; [email protected] Subject: BCHD Documentation of C-2 Flagler & Beryl Lot
Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 11:12:57 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
PUBLIC COMMENT REDONDO BEACH COUNCIL, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY
MANAGER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
According to the information provided by BCHD in response to a PRR regarding BCHD asserting that Silverado missed an opportunity to build on the Flagler & Beryl lot, BCHD provided documents that demonstrate the C-2 lot requires between 29 and 58 parking spaces and has a maximum allowable building by 0.5 FAR of 8751-sf. ALLCOVE has only 8 or fewer parking spots and clearly falls into a mental health facility by deed restriction and grant terms from the state of California.
Further, as BCHD is well aware, Silverado has roughly one-half of the 160,000-sf 514 building for 120 memory care beds on 4-floors. Using that ratio of beds to square feet, the Flagler lot was never suitable for any memory care facility above 12 beds.
It's totally absurd for BCHD to assert that Silverado could have found the Flagler lot to be useful
Further, in the same response, BCHD is clear that it never consulted with, or offered the Flagler lot to Silverado.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: [email protected]; James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Marc Wiener; Sean Scully; [email protected]; Lewis, Bridgett; TRAO News Subject: Blue Folder Comment for Non-Agenda Items 6-9-26 City Council Meeting and 6-18-26 Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:01:42 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Because eComments cannot contain images, this is included in the Blue Folder for direct distribution.
It's becoming obvious that the BCHD FEIR for the HLC is insufficient for the proposed 60- foot tall, 40-feet from lot lines Sunrise proposed project. Further, the project includes a swimming pool that is outside the courtyard of the project on the west site in the noise reflecting area to the west of the proposed 60-foot buildings and roughly 100-feet for R-1 residential.
The aquatic features were part of the Phase 2 of the FEIR. As a result, the FEIR will need to be reopened.
The 60-foot structures on the south and east lot lines have no specific shadowing or noise generation/reflection analysis at their proposed locations. Further they raise significant privacy issues.
On behalf of the Torrance and Redondo Beach surrounding residents that have suffered both health damages and property value loss from BCHD, we demand that the EIR be reopened for public comment on these never before considered issues.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR
Cc: Marc Wiener; Paige Kaluderovic; CityClerk; Sean Scully; [email protected] Subject: CPRA - Shadowing for Proposed Sunrise Project
Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 4:53:15 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public records act request to BCHD
Public Comment to Redondo Beach Planning Department, Planning Commissioners, Mayor, City Council
BCHD CPRA:
Provide shadowing studies for 60-foot tall structures on the Flagler side of the campus, especially near Towers St. The prior EIR did not have any structures in that location, thus, shadowing was not studied nor self-certified by BCHD in the FEIR.
MEN <[email protected]>
CPRA - Pricing of proposed IL, AL, MC using 100% publicly purchased on owned land for up to 100 years/5 generations
2 messages
Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> Sat, Apr 4, 2026 at 12:16 PM To: PRR <[email protected]>
Cc: Communications <[email protected]>, Jane Diehl <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Robert W. Lundy" <[email protected]>, Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Because BCHD intends to encumber a 5 acre, $50M public-purchased and owned land parcel, provide or obtain the following documents:
Provide documents demonstrating the specific costs expected to be charged to RESIDENT and NON-RESIDENT tenants of each class of housing above
If no current pricing is available, provide documents with the pricing for Sunrise Hermosa Beach, an 80% BCHD owned facility
Further, provide documents with the proposed pricing for Sunrise Manhattan Beach. If BCHD chooses not to engage Sunrise for such pricing, it will result in an OpEd and Facebook ad due to BCHD's encumbrance of the public parcel for up to 100 years
cc: Public Comment, BCHD and the City Councils on the CC list PRR <[email protected]> Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 2:01 PM
To: "Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)" <[email protected]>
Cc: PRR <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records requests received 4/6/26 that reads:
Because BCHD intends to encumber a 5 acre, $50M public-purchased and owned land parcel, provide or obtain the following documents:
Provide documents demonstrating the specific costs expected to be charged to RESIDENT and NON-RESIDENT tenants of each class of housing above
There are no responsive records.
If no current pricing is available, provide documents with the pricing for Sunrise Hermosa Beach, an 80% BCHD owned facility
Please see publicly available pricing: Assisted Living in Hermosa Beach, CA | Sunrise of Hermosa Beach Further, provide documents with the proposed pricing for Sunrise Manhattan Beach. If BCHD chooses not to engage Sunrise for such pricing, it will result in an OpEd and Facebook ad due to BCHD's encumbrance of the public parcel for up to 100 years
There are no responsive records. BCHD is not an owner or partial owner for Sunrise Manhattan Beach. For proposed pricing related to Sunrise Manhattan Beach, please contact Sunrise Senior Living directly.
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: Saturday, April 4, 2026 12:16 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Cc: Communications <[email protected]>; Jane Diehl <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Robert W. Lundy <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: CPRA - Pricing of proposed IL, AL, MC using 100% publicly purchased on owned land for up to 100 years/5 generations
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
[Quoted text hidden]
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 NOTAUTHORIZED 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: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; info; Joy Ford
Cc: Garth Meyer; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; Paige Kaluderovic; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD Malfeasance in Fiduciary Duty to District Residents Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 8:01:37 AM
Attachments: Gmail - CPRA - Pricing of proposed IL, AL, MC using 100% publicly purchased on owned land for up to 100 years_5 generations.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
BCHD has a clear fiduciary responsibility to its District residents based in state code.
However, BCHD did not even bother to require estimated rent costs of IL, AL and MC from Sunrise prior to signing an MOU and a Lease of 5 acres of District resident public property for 99 years.
District residents and taxpayers who OWN the District have no assurance of any level of affordability of the Sunrise facility due to BCHD's malfeasance.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Garth Meyer; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paige Kaluderovic; Lewis, Bridgett Subject: Public Comment - BCHD"s 4-story former Hospital Building is 51.5-feet tall per BCHD"s own permit filing at the City of Redondo Beach
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 8:01:43 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The Easy Reader News has a story about BCHD evicting Silverado and leasing 5 acres for 99 years to Sunrise for a private development. Garth Meyer follows Redondo Beach for the ER News, so I'm sure it's good. I did notice that the BCHD CEO claims that he doesn't know how tall the hospital building is. It makes you wonder how he signed so many documents and contracts that contain the 51.5-foot height in them. For instance, the FEIR contains it and the BCHD preconditional use permit filing with the City of Redondo Beach to name a couple documents. Since BCHD spent about $2M on architects for the pre-development of the HLC, I'd hate to see them spend any more of our taxpayer money. So I looked up the height from the BCHD permit application and I looked up the cost of architects from the CEO's May 2026 report. AND IT DIDN'T COST BCHD A CENT TO GET THE INFORMATION! Here's a link https://easy-reader.onlineedition.com/html5/index.html?&locale=ENG&pn=15 From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications
Cc: Garth Meyer; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment - Why again should Silverado have wanted the BCHD Beryl & Flagler lot? Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 12:24:39 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Has anyone ever figured out what BCHD President Jane Diehl was implying when she kept telling the Silverado families that Silverado should have tried to lease the C-2 lot at Beryl & Flagler? That small lot supports a 9500 sqft building. Based on public, commercial real estate listings, the "state of the art" medical facility building that Silverado currently occupies has about 80,000 sqft in the 4-story Silverado area. What obfuscation of BCHD's responsibility was Diehl attempting to make by implying that Silverado could have built anything meaningful in memory care on that lot? Perhaps there's a minimum number of words that the Board President must speak at a meeting? It's as reasonable an explanation as any.
Similar to the CEO in the June 4, 2026 ER News story, the BCHD Board President seems to have little understanding of the published materials about the campus size, height, setbacks, etc. - EVEN WHEN THEY WERE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT. In Diehl's case, the board certified the EIR, and the EIR contained all the facts to figures to KNOW that a 20,000 sqft C-2 lot with a 10,000 sqft max build size is one-half of one floor of the four floors that SIlverado occupies.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Lewis, Bridgett; Paige Kaluderovic Cc: Garth Meyer; info; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; [email protected] Subject: Public Comment All Agencies - Despite Board Member Poster"s Published Misstatements - BCHD has no evidence that it improves health outcomes
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 3:20:51 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
JUST BECAUSE A BCHD BOARD MEMBER POSTS IT - DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE - SO SAY THE EXPERTS THAT BCHD CONTRACTS WITH!
Q12. According to Dan Witters, Director of Research of Gallup and BCHD's researcher for the Blue Zones LLC project, does any Gallup research demonstrate that BCHD programs cause Gallup survey measured health improvements?
A12. No. According to Dan Witters and the published methodology of the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index (WBI), Gallup’s research establishes correlation, not causation. While the surveys track historic wellness highs in the Beach Cities, the research design does not mathematically prove that BCHD’s specific programs are the direct cause of those health improvements.
The distinction between the observed data and a causal claim is defined by Gallup's own reporting parameters:
The Demographic Confounder (Wealth as a Predictor): In his findings presented to the BCHD Board, Dan Witters explicitly noted that "household income is the top predictor of well-being among individuals and large populations". Because Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach possess exceptionally high median household incomes, their baseline high scores (such as low smoking rates, high exercise rates, and high life-evaluation percentages) are structurally heavily tied to their socioeconomic status rather than any single local agency's initiatives.
Observational Tracking vs. Controlled Studies: The WBI is a random-sample, populationweighted telephone/web observational survey administered periodically to measure community attitudes and lifestyle markers. It is not a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or a longitudinal clinical study that isolates individuals participating only in BCHD programs.
Therefore, it lacks the scientific control mechanisms necessary to isolate BCHD or Blue Zones programming as the single independent variable driving the community-wide data shift.
Multi-Agency & Structural Interventions: The positive changes over time—such as an increase in reported daily exercise and drops in above-normal weight—are driven by a broad mix of overlapping factors. These include independent city-led active transportation policies (such as adding bike lanes), infrastructure upgrades, natural geography (proximity to the beach), and a highly educated populace making independent wellness choices.
Thus, while Dan Witters and Gallup validate that the Beach Cities are outpacing the national downward trend in overall well-being, their research serves as a metric of area-wide correlation.
It does not provide direct, empirical evidence of causal attribution to BCHD's structural programs.
According to a Case Study conducted by LA County Department of Health
BCHD HAS NO EVIDENCE THAT LIVEWELL KIDS REDUCED BMI
Q13. Does the analysis of BCHD's LiveWell Kids provide any evidence that BCHD programs caused the BMI changes in school children?
A13. No. The June 2020 report analyzing the drop in childhood obesity and body mass index (BMI) within the Redondo Beach Unified School District (RBUSD) does not provide any empirical evidence of direct causation.
While the report documents a significant historical trend—a multi-year decline in childhood obesity percentages—the underlying research framework lacks the necessary scientific criteria to prove that BCHD’s programming caused the shift, as explicitly noted in the public record:
● Lack of a Controlled Study Framework: The analysis conducted on the RBUSD data was an observational trend assessment rather than a formal, scientific program evaluation. Evaluation experts, including those from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, specifically clarified that "this study was not a formal program evaluation and, importantly, lacked a control group." Without a control group (a similar student population not exposed to the LiveWell Kids curriculum), it is epidemiologically impossible to isolate the program as the independent causal variable. ● The Descriptive Statistics Limitation: The report relies entirely on descriptive statistics—the mapping of height and weight trends over a specific time window. In statistical analysis and public health modeling, descriptive trend lines merely illustrate what happened; they are analytically insufficient to demonstrate why it happened or to claim direct causal attribution.
● Socioeconomic and Household Confounders: The document does not control for powerful external variables that independently dictate childhood health outcomes. Families in Redondo Beach possess high levels of educational attainment and median household income—two of the strongest socio-environmental predictors of childhood physical activity and nutrition. The data fails to separate the impacts of independent parenting choices, private youth sports leagues, and broad socioeconomic privileges from the specific impact of BCHD's school interventions.
Consequently, while the June 2020 report functions as a successful record of an area-wide downward trend in childhood BMI, it provides zero causal validation for the absolute effectiveness of the LiveWell Kids program.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR
Cc: info; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; [email protected]
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ALL AGENCIES - Re: CPRA - Non-resident spending Date: Saturday, June 6, 2026 3:41:56 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
For the record, BCHD does not track non-resident expenditures made by the District.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 3:29 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Mark,
The no responsive documents applies to all 3 of your public records requests.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 9:20 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CPRA - Non-resident spending
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Thank you. #1 and #3 refer to the most recent recorded data. Only #2 refers to the prospective year.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 7:11 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records requests received 2/26/26 that reads:
Provide documents that demonstrate:
1) the total amount of funding budgeted and/or spent subsidizing non-residents of the District in ALL PROGRAMS
2) the total amount funding for FY 26-27 that would be foregone (if any) due to nonsubsidization of non-residents 3) whether the current non-resident subsidies would fund the needs to fully service RESIDENTS in the existing programs
There are no responsive records. The District FY26-27 budget has not yet been compiled.
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: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 6:34 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>; Noel Chun <[email protected]>; Michelle Bholat <[email protected]>; Martha Koo <[email protected]>; Communications <[email protected]>; Jane Diehl <[email protected]>; info <[email protected]> Subject: CPRA - Non-resident spending
EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Provide documents that demonstrate:
1) the total amount of funding budgeted and/or spent subsidizing non-residents of the District in ALL PROGRAMS
2) the total amount funding for FY 26-27 that would be foregone (if any) due to nonsubsidization of non-residents 3) whether the current non-resident subsidies would fund the needs to fully service RESIDENTS in the existing programs
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: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Garth Meyer; info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Paige Kaluderovic; Lewis, Bridgett Subject: Public Comment: BCHD CEO Calls His Own Presentation "Speculating"? Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 11:00:24 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The Easy Reader News has a story about BCHD evicting Silverado and leasing 5 acres for 99 years to Sunrise for a private development. Garth Meyer follows Redondo Beach for the ER News, so I'm sure it's good.
I noticed that the BCHD CEO claims that the Sunrise proposed development's height of 60- foot and setback of 2 car lengths is "SPECULATING" on the layout.
The information was extracted DIRECTLY from the presentation that the CEO gave at the 5- 27-26 Board meeting.
So let's save BCHD paying more consultants to brief the CEO on his own presentation and clarify that the CEO provided the information to the public in the public meeting with Sunrise and a roomful of folks present.
Here's a link https://easy-reader.online-edition.com/html5/index.html?&locale=ENG&pn=15
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected] Cc: info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell Subject: Public Comment: Future development at BCHD MUST PROTECT PROPERTY VALUES (from Nextdoor regional post) Date: Friday, June 5, 2026 2:22:25 PM
Attachments: bchdq9.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Property Values near BCHD are $200M lower than expected by price models. Thankfully RBMC requires Protecting Property Values from future development like the 60-foot tall, 40- foot setback, privately owned Sunrise plan.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Garth Meyer; [email protected]; info; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: Waiting for a BCHD Response - What "Opportunity" is a 20,000 sqft C-2 FAR 0.5 Lot for Memory Care?
Date: Friday, June 5, 2026 1:11:32 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
We're still trying to clarify BCHD Board President Diehl's repeated "missed opportunity" comments to Silverado families regarding the Flagler & Beryl lot. It made no sense to those of us who are informed in Redondo Beach zoning. It appears to have only been a deflection from BCHD's eviction of Silverado.
BCHD Diehl Video - https://youtu.be/xWvDnMAZAKY?t=7996 This Nextdoor stream is populated by BCHD Comms staff. Please refer to BCHD Board President Diehl at the last BCHD Board Meeting and explain what relevance the Flagler lot has to Memory Care.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: RB Public Comment and BCHD CPRA - FEIR Noise Impact Analysis Appears Insufficient for Current Sunrise Proposal
Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:30:25 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - Redondo Beach Mayor and Council, Redondo Beach Planning Commission, Redondo Beach Planning Department, Redondo Beach City Attorney Provide documents demonstrating the FEIR for the HLC considered the noise impacts of 60- foot tall buildings on the Flagler Alley and Flagler Street edges of the lot within 40-feet (2 cars) of the lotlines.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; CityClerk; [email protected] Subject: RB Public Comment and BCHD CPRA - FEIR Noise Impact Analysis Appears Insufficient for Current Sunrise Proposal
Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:40:00 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - Redondo Beach Mayor and Council, Redondo Beach Planning Commission, Redondo Beach Planning Department, Redondo Beach City Attorney Provide documents demonstrating the FEIR for the HLC considered the noise impacts of a public swimming facility in the front of 60-foot tall buildings on the Prospect side of the proposed Sunrise project. At this time, I see no reference to this Phase 2 item that would have required reopening the CEQA process.
Provide noise studies and other supporting evidence that clearly demonstrates the pool was part of the FEIR certification for a location 100 feet from residential abutting lot lines.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Joy Ford; Marc Wiener; Mike Witzansky
Cc: Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Sean Scully; Garth Meyer; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: City of Redondo Beach facilitating BCHD Violating Federal ADA Laws Blocking Bus Stops with Construction Vehicles
Date: Sunday, June 7, 2026 1:55:28 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
We need to be VERY CLEAR that BCHD is intentionally forcing deliveries to park on Prospect in front of the bus stop. They have SIGNS that force trucks to find their own parking. The 510 south entrance is full of construction activity and I see NO PATH for heavy trucks to the loading docks on the east side of the campus.
BCHD signage
The 510 south driveway (BY THE WAY - NO MORE NIGHT AND WEEKEND USE OF THE CHUTES!)
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 3:33 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:
First, somehow the City elected to waive the C-2 Parking requirements for the BCHD C-2 medical office building at Beryl & Flagler. By deed restriction, the building is required to have 30 years minimum use as a mental health medical facility. The RBMC requires 30+ parking spots for the medical office building of 9000+ sf. Yet, there are only 8 maximum on the drawings. The closest parking place on the 514 N Prospect site is 2,000-feet away for a pedestrian walking on sidewalks. Clearly, parking at the 514 site is NOT APPLICABLE to a site 2,000-feet away. The City appears to be applying the RBMC in a discriminatory fashion.
Second, BCHD is remodeling two floors of the 510 N Prospect building. BCHD has signs up INSIDE the campus parking lot of NO TRUCK LOADING. BCHD obviously doesn't want to inconvenience itself. As a result, BCHD vendors are BLOCKING NORTH PROSPECT for hours at a time, parked in front on an ADA required bus stop. This is clearly unacceptable and shows a lack of enforcement and property construction restrictions on the construction permits issued by the City for 510 N Prospect.
Special Use Rate Reductions
The code provides a reduced parking ratio for specific specialized health practices. If your 9,500 sq. ft. building is dedicated exclusively to these practices, the rate shifts to 1 space per 300 square feet, reducing the requirement to 32 parking spaces (9,500 / 300 =
31.67, rounded up): Acupuncture offices, Chiropractic offices, Physical therapy clinics, Psychotherapy offices
The City needs to stop violating its own municipal code and require BCHD to adhere to the construction and zoning rules and the federal ADA requirements. The current actions are clearly discriminatory and violate both resident rights as protected in the RBMC and ADA disabled rights.
The attached photos show disabled using the bus stop in front of 510 and a semi servicing BCHD construction blocking a lane and coning off the street for approximately 2 hours. On the days that BCHD blocks the bus stop and street, the disabled have their federal ADA rights violated.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Garth Meyer; [email protected]; info; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Public Comment: Waiting for a BCHD Response - What "Opportunity" is a 20,000 sqft C-2 FAR 0.5 Lot for Memory Care?
Date: Friday, June 5, 2026 2:40:15 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Updated link.https://youtu.be/xWvDnMAZAKY?t=7918
BCHD used unlicensed music in their Board meeting and YouTube flagged it chopped it out.
Ethics issue anyone?
On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 1:11 PM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:
We're still trying to clarify BCHD Board President Diehl's repeated "missed opportunity" comments to Silverado families regarding the Flagler & Beryl lot. It made no sense to those of us who are informed in Redondo Beach zoning. It appears to have only been a deflection from BCHD's eviction of Silverado.
BCHD Diehl Video - https://youtu.be/xWvDnMAZAKY?t=7996 This Nextdoor stream is populated by BCHD Comms staff. Please refer to BCHD Board President Diehl at the last BCHD Board Meeting and explain what relevance the Flagler lot has to Memory Care.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]
Cc: Jacki Bacharach; CityClerk
Subject: So I fed your wonderful article through AI to get a sense of what we south bay folks spent our money on ....
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:35:52 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
I was truly surprised to find that this project is the highest per square foot of any AI could locate. I don't believe that SBCCOG did much, if any, due diligence prior to committing our funding.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Housing Development File
FROM: Project Advisory Team
DATE: June 3, 2026
SUBJECT: Financial Metrics and Comparative Analysis – 14115 Cordary Ave.
Affordable Housing Development
1. Project Profile & Core Financial Metrics
The Cordary Avenue Apartments project (developed by Abode Communities) is a five-story, wood-frame affordable housing development targeted at households earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Based on the latest regulatory adjustments and financing approvals by the South Bay Regional Housing Trust (SBRHT), the breakdown of the project metrics is detailed below:
Location: 14115 Cordary Ave, Hawthorne, CA 90250
Total Building Square Footage: 69,000 sq. ft.
Total Project Cost: $75,900,000
Total Housing Units: 93 units
Calculated Cost per Square Foot ($ / sq. ft.): $1,100.00 Calculated Cost per Unit ($ / unit): $816,129.03
2. Market Context & Baseline Benchmarks
Across Los Angeles County, affordable housing development costs have faced intense upward pressure due to land acquisition, prevailing wage requirements, localized municipal permitting fees, and strict environmental compliance protocols.
According to regional multi-family construction indicators:
Basic Multi-Family Construction: General core market multi-family structural shells track between $150 to $350/sq. ft. exclusively for the hard construction footprint.
Total Development Cost (TDC) for Affordable Housing: For a 4-to-5 story woodframe new development, current benchmark costs across LA County typically fluctuate between $500,000 and $700,000 per unit. High-density permanent supportive housing structures regularly touch $600,000 to $900,000 per unit.
3. Regional Project Comparison (LA County & City of LA) To understand how the Cordary Avenue Apartments project positions itself within the regional landscape, the project's financial metrics are compared below against similar 50-to-100 unit affordable housing profiles across different sub-markets in Los Angeles County.
Project /
Location
Profile
Scale &
Footprint
Total
Cost
Cost per
Unit
Cost
per
Sq. Ft.
Strategic / Risk Drivers
14115
Cordary
Ave.
(Hawthorne /
South Bay
Area)
93 Units
69,000
sq. ft.
$75.9M $816,129 $1,100
High soft-cost structure; backed by
the first $6M SBRHT regional
allocation.
City of Los
Angeles
Sub-Market
(Metro Core
/ ED 1
Pipeline)
~75 Units
~55,000
sq. ft.
$62.5M $833,333 $1,136
High land costs and mandatory
union/prevailing wage parameters
drive premium.
San
Fernando
Valley Cities
(e.g.,
Glendale /
Burbank)
~80 Units
~62,000
sq. ft.
$60.0M $750,000 $967
Slightly lower land baselines offset
by high municipal development
impact and school fees.
Gateway
Cities Area
(e.g.,
~90 Units
~70,000 $58.5M $650,000 $835
Standard multi-family
configurations aligning closer to
the median of county affordable
Downey /
Norwalk)
sq. ft. housing benchmarks.
4. Analytical Summary
The Cordary Avenue Apartments project sits at the higher tier of the regional cost envelope. At $816,129 per unit, it surpasses the typical $500,000 to $700,000 bracket for standard new wood-frame buildings in Los Angeles County, pricing closer to highdensity Downtown Los Angeles permanent supportive housing. This premium is largely attributed to elevated post-2024 localized material and soft cost spikes, along with extensive site infrastructure provisions tailored for the 0.93-acre property parcel.
It seems like a poorly planned project.
From: Holly Osborne
To: CityClerk
Subject: CIty Council Non-agenda, June 9th, 2026: Parks Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 12:59:02 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Good evening Mr Mayor and Council members::
This is Holly Osborne, District 5. I was here virtually last time, but did not get to speak. I wanted to speak on an article on "A green space shortage" in the June 2 LA Times. Well, I am just as glad I had to wait, because now there is an article in the June 6 L.A Times on air pollution! The first article says the city of LA ranks 90th out of 100 cities in terms of average park space in acres per1000 people. . The LA Times called that "the kind of mortifying ranking usually occupied in other categories by Mississippi."
The average for Los Angeles County is 3.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
The LA County Park Needs Assessment states Redondo Beach has just 1.4 acres per 1,000 residents. It is worse than all the other beach cities: (See Table below) Table 1 : Park Ratio (acres/1000 residents) for Beach cities) I am very glad that you were able to work with HCD to get our Housing Element re-approved by them. It sounds like you got someone that was reasonable and understanding, especially since they HAD earlier approved our Housing Element, before it got un-approved.
What I am asking is that you not destroy any of our meager green space. In particular, do not allow property that is technically school district property, but now has housing on it, to have even more housing installed. I know some are advocating to increase the FAR on school property. Do not do it.
And District 4: Wake up. I am talking about the property called Heritage Pointe, which has 135 units on it already. See Figure 1,below.
Figure 1. Heritage Pointe is at the top; the green parkette is that green shape at the bottom.
Figure 2. This is a section of District 4. IT IS DENSE. NO GREEN SPACE DO NOT MAKE IT WORSE BY BUILDING ON THE GREEN SPACE under the Sr. Housing.
Heritage Pointe Apartments Lot Size: 2.50 acres.
The multi-family senior community sits on a 2.5-acre parcel located at 1801 Aviation Way This is a density of 135 units/2.5 acres = 54 units/acre. Way above the density for most city properties.
It has a 1.6 acre Parkette plot, next to it; that is the only green space around for several blocks.
Do not destroy it.
The LA Times also had an article on smog, on June 6: "LA area begins year with worst smog in decade." Trees are necessary to decrease air pollution. And there have been numerous article on heat, and how heat kills, especially seniors, and how ttemperatures are lower in shaded areas.
All hese articles emphazie the importance of green space and shade.
Please do not destroy green space!
Thank you.
Holly Osborne.