ecomments — Redondo Beach City Council, July 7, 2026

City Council on 2026-07-07 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 07-07-26 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council on 2026-07-07 6:00 PM -

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
07-07-26
18:00
71 49 14 29 3
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
City Council on 2026-07-07 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 07-07-26 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
H.8. 26-0704 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2607-048,

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROCLAIMING SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2026 AS "OPEN WATER SWIM DAY" IN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH IN

SPONSORSHIP AND SUPPORT OF THE EIGHTH ANNUAL SWIM THE

AVENUES WATER SPORTS EVENT TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF

REDONDO BEACH COASTAL WATERS AND IN APPRECIATION OF

THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' EFFORTS TO PERMIT THE EVENT

AND PROVIDE LOGISTICAL SUPPORT
1 0 0 1
H.10. 26-0743 APPROVE A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL
EVENT SERVICES WITH NIKE, INC. FOR THE NIKE AFTER DARK
RUN HALF MARATHON EVENT SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 24, 2026
1 0 1 0
H.12. 26-0767 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. 2607-049, A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO

BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CIVIL PENALTIES FOR

PARKING VIOLATIONS REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF PARKING

RESTRICTIONS DURING VARIOUS HOURS FOR STREET SWEEPING
TO INCREASE THE TOTAL PENALTY AMOUNT FROM $55 TO $79
3 2 1 0
J.1. 26-0788 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public 1 0 0 0 N.2. 26-0768 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CITY'S

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE THE LATEST HOUSING ELEMENT

UPDATE IN THE ARTICLE XXVII TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RELATED TO

THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS

PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE SCOPE OF THE GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS TO
BE CONSIDERED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY AUGUST 4,
2026 AND THE CORRESPONDING BALLOT MEASURE TO BE
SCHEDULED FOR THE NOVEMBER 2026 GENERAL ELECTION
40 11 27 1
P.1. 26-0776 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE

NAMING OF THE HERONDO OPEN SPACE PARK AREA LOCATED AT

HERONDO STREET AND CATALINA AVENUE
3 1 0 1
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for H.8. 26-0704 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2607-048, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROCLAIMING SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2026 AS "OPEN WATER SWIM DAY" IN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH IN SPONSORSHIP AND SUPPORT OF THE EIGHTH ANNUAL SWIM

THE AVENUES WATER SPORTS EVENT TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH COASTAL WATERS AND IN

APPRECIATION OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' EFFORTS TO PERMIT THE EVENT AND PROVIDE LOGISTICAL

SUPPORT
Overall Sentiment
Darryl Boyd
Location:

Submitted At: 8:57am 07-06-26
When will Redondo Beach Residents get their own swim in the filthy Harbor water day like King Harbor Aquatics Water Polo Players?
Isn't it a double standard that water polo players can swim in the Harbor but nobody else can. And by the way, who exactly is behind King Harbor Aquatics?
Agenda Item: eComments for H.10. 26-0743 APPROVE A LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL EVENT SERVICES WITH NIKE, INC. FOR THE NIKE AFTER DARK RUN HALF MARATHON EVENT SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 24, 2026 Overall Sentiment
Darryl Boyd
Location:

Submitted At: 8:59am 07-06-26
Nike is one the World's worst human rights offenders. Surely the "Mayor" & City Council must know this.

Agenda Item: eComments for H.12. 26-0767 ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. 2607-049, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE CIVIL PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS

REGARDING VIOLATIONS OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS DURING VARIOUS HOURS FOR STREET SWEEPING TO INCREASE THE TOTAL PENALTY AMOUNT FROM $55 TO $79
Overall Sentiment
Brianna Egan
Location:

Submitted At: 7:27pm 07-07-26
I support increasing parking fees to reflect the true cost and impact of parking and to increase city revenue.

Marie Puterbaugh
Location:

Submitted At: 9:24am 07-06-26
Yes, this stinks but we need the money. I do think the tickets should only be given BEFORE the street cleaning though. Redondo needs revenue, especially to pay for crossing guards.

Darryl Boyd
Location:

Submitted At: 9:03am 07-06-26
Who's idea was this? That's a 43.63% increase. Ludicrous. NO Agenda Item: eComments for J.1. 26-0788 For eComments and Emails Received from the Public Overall Sentiment
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:

Submitted At: 3:12pm 07-07-26
Will someone PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take a serious look at the temperature in City Hall chambers during City Council meetings? It is absolutely FREEZING in there making it extremely unpleasant to attend a Council meeting for any length of time. Others have publicly mentioned the same while speaking at the podium to the Council. While I understand that large capacity rooms run the air-conditioning for health reasons and in anticipation of a full house, the temperature inside the chambers is egregiously cold. At a minimum, the airconditioning temperature should be adjusted upward when the audience is sparse. Thank you.

Agenda Item: eComments for N.2. 26-0768 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE THE LATEST HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IN THE ARTICLE XXVII TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RELATED

TO THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN MODIFICATIONS

PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE SCOPE OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY AUGUST 4, 2026 AND THE CORRESPONDING BALLOT MEASURE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE NOVEMBER 2026 GENERAL ELECTION Overall Sentiment
Brianna Egan
Location:

Submitted At: 7:24pm 07-07-26
I support the increase in FAR for PI land including BCHD. The health district has tried for years to gain approvals and community support for redevelopment, and the opposition they face is an unfortunate bellwether of our community’s resistance to change. It’s long past time for the facilities to be rebuilt given the state’s seismic requirements and the aging infrastructure. Our city and the Beach Cities will benefit greatly from having renovated BCHD and healthcare facilities. BCHD can expand their offerings, seniors can have more options for assisted living, and the community can have new wellness and recreation opportunities—many free of charge.

We need this as an investment in the fabric of the community. You are hearing from people in nearby neighborhoods who do not want to be inconvenienced by construction for a few years, but who are obstructing progress and services for millions. Please approve an increase to 1.25 FAR in the general plan and on the ballot.

Lara Duke
Location:

Submitted At: 6:28pm 07-07-26
I agree on some if the General Plan proposals, but not BCHD's. Any ballot measures should be treated separately, not lumped together, so people are aware of the details. While BCHD provides good health services to our beach cities, their demands for special treatment and increased Floor Area Ratio are inappropriate and not good for our community. I oppose their tact of threatening lawsuits when they don't hear or get what they want.

How is this good for the community, given that means going after residents' tax dollars? Let's not forget this is a zoning matter, not one to do with whether we like BCHD or not. Public Institutional is the zone and this particular area is massive, eleven acres of public zoned land. BCHD is wanting to use the land as a cash cow. They are justifying a huge private RCFE as providing revenue for health services. Why do they presume this land is theirs even to request such development when it's public zoned property? Further, how would such dispersal of money for community good even be regulated? The destiny of these 11 acres should be made by the public.

Truly this matter should not even be something put to a vote because the answer should be no, that zone will match the FAR of all other public zones (excepting those already made for actual civic entities, police and fire).

End of story.

Also, remember that this property had been P-CF, Public- Community Facilities. The Institutional seems to be a new designation, maybe to make us think of BCHD as an institution and therefore they should be allowed to run the whole show on 11 acres of public property. Public zones in Redondo are finite and are supposed to be for public uses as outlined in the allowed zone uses. Libraries, museums, schools, to name a few, but ALL actually for public use. We need to protect these special zones.

Maricela Guillermo
Location:

Submitted At: 6:03pm 07-07-26
Oppose BCHD FAR Above 0.75 — Separate Article 27 Vote Needed I respect and appreciate that BCHD provides programs that many residents value, including services for seniors, youth, and families. However, the value of those programs is a separate issue from whether BCHD should receive a 1.25 FAR development entitlement on the Redondo Beach campus.

The question before the City is not whether BCHD has worthwhile programs. The question is whether Redondo Beach neighborhoods should absorb the long-term land-use, density, traffic, emergency response, and neighborhood impacts of a higher FAR. A 1.25 FAR creates a much larger development envelope, and once that entitlement is approved, a future BCHD project can be presented as consistent with the approved zoning framework.

BCHD serves Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and broader South Bay users through programs such as allcove. That may be positive from a service perspective, but it also means Redondo Beach residents and nearby neighborhoods should not be expected to carry the land-use impacts without a clear and separate vote.

For that reason, I do not support bundling BCHD’s 1.25 FAR into one broad General Plan ballot measure. If BCHD wants a 1.25 FAR, that issue should be presented clearly and separately to Redondo Beach voters under Article XXVII.

Marcio Nava
Location:

Submitted At: 5:57pm 07-07-26
I oppose the current FAR of 1.25 for BCHD. There are many other P-CF parcels and they are all 0.5 or 0.75.

BCHD should not be spot upzoned because it threatened to sue the City. Thank you.

Executive Director StopBCHD.com
Location:

Submitted At: 4:52pm 07-07-26
The community advocates at StopBCHD.com are very concerned about the damages that BCHD already has on the Torrance and Redondo Beach neighborhoods that surround it. Neighbors within the 1/4 mile construction zone in Redondo Beach and Torrance have property values that are roughly $100M lower using the same modeling basis as Zillow, Redfin and other real estate hedonic price modelers. Raising BCHD's FAR to 1.25 will allow it to lease out space to more private developers. It will allow total construction of over 550,000 sqft which is twice the current size. Furthermore, it will allow unlimited parking ramps. BCHD has already proposed a 10-story ramp adjacent to the Diamond houses. The City must come to its senses and require BCHD to have an FAR of

0.5 to 0.75
Geoffrey Gilbert
Location:

Submitted At: 4:49pm 07-07-26
Dear Mayor, City Council, Committee Members and City Staff Officials; BCHD should not get special treatment and an FAR larger than originally proposed by the Planning Commission.

Redondo Beach voters must be allowed to vote to approve any increase in the FAR for this private commercial development as a separate item on the ballot. BCHD continues to promote this as its "project", as it it will be created for BCHD own community uses. This would be as if RBUSD promoted the Kensington development as if it were to be directly used by the students. The City Council and public knew that RBUSD was leasing out "surplus" property to a developer for a non Scholl District commercial project. BCHD's "project" is exactly the same however BCHD does not make this distinction to the public. It continues to portray this project as something for the community but has privately admitted the developer will have control and final say for what ever uses it decides for itself. Even the proposed pool might not be open to the general taxpaying public and "open space" can be used for future building not preserved in perpetuity. The increased FAR BCHD has lobbied for is only to make our public land more marketable for developers, not for any BCHD or community use. Did RBUSD propose the Kensington designs under its name? Yet BCHD deliberately "markets" this as its "own" project allowing it to be confused with operating the gym or allcove.

In creasing the FAR for a commercial developer will have major long term detrimental effects on the surrounding residents (who want a better, smarter, and smaller design) and future developments in our already strained city.

Sincerely,
Geoffrey Gilbert
Redondo Beach
Terry Evans
Location:

Submitted At: 4:45pm 07-07-26
The current proposed FARs for public zoning areas are inconsistent. Some are spotty and too large. Others are unfairly small. This plan is a failure.

Franz Esperanza
Location:

Submitted At: 4:24pm 07-07-26
Please expand this general plan update to include the hotel use for the I-2 Industrial zone for which the property at 750 N Francisca Ave is a part. This property has been long undeveloped with few options for a development project. An active hotel on this lot will bring many benefits to the city and neighboring properties.

Gil Escontrias
Location:

Submitted At: 4:10pm 07-07-26
I respectfully submit three independent concerns regarding the proposed increase in the Beach Cities Health District Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

1. Opposition to Increasing the FAR
I oppose increasing the FAR from 0.75 to 1.25.

The existing standards were adopted for a reason and should remain unless a compelling public need is clearly demonstrated. Before expanding development, the District should first fulfill the mission for which it was created—to serve the residents of Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach.

Details matter. Projects of this magnitude succeed or fail because of the details, not broad promises. Legitimate concerns regarding infrastructure, fiscal responsibility, governance, legal exposure, and long-term community impacts deserve careful review—not dismissal in the name of the "greater good." Good intentions do not replace sound public policy.

2. This Proposal Should Not Be Bundled
This proposal deserves independent public review.

Bundling it into a broader General Plan action reduces transparency and limits meaningful public participation.

Major policy decisions should stand on their own and receive independent analysis, discussion, and public scrutiny.

3. Private Management Raises a More Fundamental Questions I am also concerned about placing publicly owned facilities under the management or effective control of private entities. Public facilities should remain publicly accountable.

If the District's future role is to become primarily a facilitator, landlord, or administrator of privately managed facilities, then that represents a fundamental change in mission.

If that is the intended direction, the public deserves an honest discussion about whether the District continues to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. If not, the community should openly consider whether the District—including the possibility of its dissolution—should be evaluated rather than allowing its original mission to gradually disappear while taxpayers continue to fund it.

Responsible progress requires transparency, accountability, fiscal discipline, and fidelity to the District's public mission.

Sara Martin
Location:

Submitted At: 4:02pm 07-07-26
From D1 Council Member Brad Waller’s weekly e-blast to the residents he represents: “Our community values transparency and direct communication, and clear ground rules, applied evenly, are how every resident gets a fair shot at being heard.”
Please apply this to BCHD’s request to be given special treatment by the city, again. BCHD’s habitual modus operandi is to lobby for, and get, special terms which disempower the public and keep our opposition to their poor public agancy management non-transparent. Their board’s special self-voted non-term-limited (which limits public participation in favor of incumbents) behavior patterns reveal a mindset more in line with a personal mission charity, rather than accountable for running a tax-payer funded governmental agency. I advise each of you to look up the definition for “communal narcissism” and see if you recognize anyone in BCHD’s leadership orbit. If we eliminated all the well-to-do Beach City residents who enjoy the benefits of a taxpayer-funded gym and masseuse services, would there be anyone left to speak in support of BCHD’s request for special treatment at he expense of the public?
Thank you.

Todd Loewenstein
Location:

Submitted At: 3:59pm 07-07-26
I'm supportive of the work BCHD does for this community, but a FAR of 1.25 is inappropriate for this PI site.

A FAR of 1.25 at this site could mean that a project would be one of the largest developments in Redondo Beach's history. As I understand it, a plan with a .85-.9 FAR could include roughly 240 units — that's apartmentstyle housing, some of which could be 1- or 2-bedroom units. For comparison, 240 units is more than double The Eddy, at PCH and PV Blvd, which has 115 units. And a FAR of 1.25 could allow a project nearly 50% larger than even the 0.85 FAR version of a 240-unit plan.

For further perspective, the largest hotel in RB, the Sonesta, has 342 rooms, most of which are studio-sized — and even the Sonesta isn't situated in a residential zone. A 1.25 FAR project could end up being bigger in square footage than Sonesta. The BCHD site is surrounded by homes, both in Redondo Beach and in neighboring Torrance. The impact on those residents would be significant. While a senior-oriented development won't generate traffic at the same rate as a typical residential project, it will still add a substantial number of car trips to the area.

I'm concerned about the impact on the RB Fire Department. Back in 2020, I asked firefighters how they were holding up during COVID. They told me that calls to The Kensington at PCH and Knob Hill — an 80-unit senior and memory care facility — had them suiting up five times a day, and that the pace was taking a real toll on them.

Now scale that to a project three to four times the size: that could mean 15–20 calls a day during a future pandemic. That volume would strain our fire department past its limits and cost the city millions of dollars a year — costs that ultimately land on taxpayers. And beyond the dollar cost, there's the day-to-day disruption of nearconstant sirens from paramedic and ambulance calls. Someone has to absorb that cost, and it's likely to be residents.

For these reasons, I'm asking the Council to reconsider the proposed FAR for this land. Please consider a FAR of .80 or preferably less, and a separate vote from the General Plan. Your constituents must have a say in what happens on this public site.

Nancy Bhatt
Location:

Submitted At: 3:19pm 07-07-26
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As a Redondo Beach resident, long-time BCHD volunteer, and retired school teacher, I urge the Council to maintain the 1.25 FAR cap for the BCHD campus and advance the General Plan as a single ballot question.

BCHD’s wellness programs are vital to keeping our seniors independent and supporting the health of our entire community.

The 1.25 FAR is a sensible, protective cap that gives the city clear oversight while allowing BCHD the flexibility it needs to modernize its aging campus. We cannot afford to lose these essential health resources for the near term and for generations to come.

Furthermore, keeping it as a unified ballot ensures absolute clarity for voters, allowing our community to evaluate our future as a whole.

Please stand by your January decision to maintain the 1.25 FAR and approve. Thank you! Matt Puterbaugh
Location:

Submitted At: 3:00pm 07-07-26
I support BCHD - I support the 1.25 FAR for the project.

Alex Fineman
Location:

Submitted At: 2:49pm 07-07-26
I urge you to maintain the proposed higher FAR for the BCHD campus. Redondo Beach has one of the oldest populations in the South Bay, and the need for supportive senior housing, healthcare, and services will only continue to grow. Allowing BCHD the flexibility to expand and modernize its campus ensures these essential services can remain close to the residents who rely on them, reducing travel and strengthening our community.

Please do not allow a small but vocal group opposed to change to prevent investments that provide lasting benefits for current and future generations. Planning for an aging population is responsible governance, and BCHD is a valuable community asset that deserves the ability to evolve to meet future needs.

Steve Colin
Location:

Submitted At: 2:35pm 07-07-26
The FAR for BCHD controlled public property should not exceed .75 and the issue should not be bundled on a future ballot. Do not attempt to confuse the public on this issue. You are not BCHD. There should be no private development on the public hospital site. It is suspicious that neither council member from District 2 and District 3 has discussed possible changes at district meetings. The neighborhoods in these two districts will be affected most by an increase in the BCHD FAR. I would also suggest some communication with the newly elected city council members, and Mayor, in Torrance about this issue as Torrance residents living east of the BCHD campus are affected
Lezlie Campeggi
Location:

Submitted At: 2:28pm 07-07-26
This is a land use and zoning issue. For non-city government Public/Institutional zoning, the FAR should be consistent. It appears that one property runs the risk of (illegal) spot-zoning, as pointed out by residents, should it be slated for a 1.25 FAR within the General Plan ballot measure. That proponents are conflating this with a "I support/don't support BCHD" adds to that risk should the Council allow that to remain as part of the General Plan ballot measure.

There is no development cap on FAR in many areas of the city. Does that mean "unlimited development" would be allowed on public/institutional properties? No, it does not. In the absence of a FAR development cap, one could argue that only what currently exists related to FAR would be an acceptable, objective standard for future development. I wonder if "proponents of BCHD" even know what that current FAR is, and what they're actually asking for with a 1.25 FAR.

The existing development on that property is around .60 FAR. 1.25 FAR could DOUBLE what could be built.

Imagine a development DOUBLE the size of what currently exists on the site where BCHD is housed. And then imagine that BCHD decides to sell all or part of the property; selling what is PUBLIC property which is another problem in and of itself.

It's almost certain that if BCHD actually plans to move forward with submitting a proposed project, it will be BEFORE the November General Election IF the FAR for their property is slated for .75 - 1.0 FAR in the General Plan ballot measure. While the FAR would then be based on the current "unlimited FAR cap," it might also be a "flawed" plan or one that doesn't meet objective standards, and be rejected. If the Council decides to include FAR for this property in the November General Plan ballot measure, it should be at .75. Meeting an Article XXVII deadline for a separate ballot measure could be ready for the March 2027 City election, 4 months after November 2026.

Council, choose wisely. Residents, know WHAT you're opining on here. It's land use, not a BCHD project.

David Monaghan
Location:

Submitted At: 1:20pm 07-07-26
I oppose the 1.25 FAR for BCHD. The city council are not listening to the residents, especially the ones directly affected and in close proximity to BCHD. Voters should be allowed to vote on this.

Ashley Monaghan
Location:

Submitted At: 12:44pm 07-07-26
BCHD should be a separate vote, not bundled as an attempt to bypass the intent of Article XVII. Decisions that impact the community and residents who live here should get to vote! Gerta Lind
Location:

Submitted At: 12:10pm 07-07-26
Decisions that change the character and density of our neighborhoods should not be made without the residents’ voices. We deserve transparency and input before major land-use rules are changed. I oppose this because I want to be able to vote on this.

John Wallace
Location:

Submitted At: 10:33am 07-07-26
To: RB City Council: Please maintain the 1.25 FAR for BCHD’s campus that was approved in January. A 1.25 FAR will provide important flexibility for our campus and our partners to meet the health needs of our community into the future and support pool construction that will benefit local residents. John Wallace, MD Hermosa Beach George Broatch
Location:

Submitted At: 10:26am 07-07-26
I am a native resident of the Redondo, Torrance, PV area, and am very happy to have an organization like BCHD here. What it offers the community is priceless in the health and mental well-being benefits it provides for seniors, youth and young families in the area. It makes the Beach Cities a much nicer, better, and more valuable place to live. Special thanks, too, to the many volunteers who provide so much service to the community.

Looking over some of the comment already provided, I would agree very much with this one:

Honorable Mayor Light and Members of the Redondo Beach City Council, Please maintain the 1.25 FAR for the BCHD campus and keep all FAR updates part of one ballot measure this November. A 1.25 FAR will provide important flexibility for the campus and its partners to meet the health needs of our community into the future.

BCHD provides significant services not offered by the private sector, particularly for our youth through the BCHD allcove, and for our seniors, like my wife and me, through exercise programs, counseling and community, specifically designed for those of us in our later years. BCHD is an invaluable institution for many of us, and its future depends on its proposed updated campus. That updated campus can only be achieved by having the same 1.25 FAR offered to all of the other public institutions in Redondo Beach. Please grant BCHD that equal opportunity!
Patricia Bellas
Location:

Submitted At: 10:19am 07-07-26
I encourage the council to continue to support the 1.25 FAR for public institutions, including BCHD. As a community, we have all benefitted from the services provided by BCHD, along with other Beach Cities and our surrounding communities. They have provided strong leadership in supporting seniors and the youth in our communities. I also encourage the inclusion of this in the ballot measure as part of all public institutions and not as a separate issue.

Michael Martin
Location:

Submitted At: 9:27am 07-07-26
BCHD should be a separate vote, not bundled as an attempt to bypass the intent of Article XVII. FAR of 0.75 is more than adequate for all PI.

Amy Mensink-Boyd
Location:

Submitted At: 9:15am 07-07-26
I oppose the 1.25 FAR for BCHD. What happened to the 0.75 plan? We are supposed to have a vote! The city council needs to listen to the residents, especially the ones directly affected that are across the street and surrounding area. We voted NO on Measure BC. You work for the residents and constituents of your districts, Not BCHD.

Nainsi Skiba
Location:

Submitted At: 3:57am 07-07-26
I oppose the 1.25 FAR for BCHD. I also oppose bundling two issues into one ballot item. The RB residents need to be able to vote on both items separately, with full transparency and disclosure on these items.

Personally, I find the eviction of the current residents at BCHD's memory care center to be a cruel and heartbreaking situation for those elderly patients and their families. Seniors, particularly those suffering from illnesses and cognitive disorders, can be quite frail. Being relocated will inflict emotional suffering, physical distress, and harm to these fragile elderly people. The FAR needs to remain at 0.75 the previously determined number. Allow our residents to vote on both BCHD issues separately for the greatest clarity and fairness to RB.

Les Leigh
Location:

Submitted At: 8:44pm 07-06-26
The City is better to have NO general plan than to allow BCHD to turn the taxpayer purchased Prospect campus into a 100% PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT with an FAR 1.25. The Sunrise deal will demolish the ONLY BCHD owned building and replace it with 100% PRIVATE, non-dedicated to the District real estate. BCHD will become the most costly landlord of all Health Care district with 13 executives consuming 36% of the total District employee compensation. BCHD will have NO OWNERSHIP on the campus of any operating asset.

OPPOSE ANY DOCUMENT WHERE BCHD IS SPOT ZONED TO FAR 1.25 BCHD should not be spot zoned up to FAR 1.25. Further, any Article 27 vote MUST expose BCHD's FAR as a separate ballot measure to REJECT by voters. If that means all of P-I is exposed for rejection, then so be it. The City on January 20 2026 had numerous BCHD only exhibits of FAR for the Council and the public. CLEARLY - BCHD WAS SINGLED OUT FOR SPOT UPZONING. THAT IS ILLEGAL. Even BCHD's taxpayer funded law firm agrees that is spot zoning.

OPPOSE ANY ELECTION WHERE BCHD FAR (AND P-I FAR IF NEEDED) IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR A VOTE

OF THE PEOPLE
Do not bundle BCHD's awful FAR decision with the rest of the general plan changes. We do not seek to reject the entire general plan, but we will unless the City exposes this evil BCHD plan for FAR 1.25 for a campus with NO BCHD on it to a VOTE.

BCHD WILL SOON OWN NO OPERATION SPACE ON THE SITE - P-I ZONING SHOULD BE RESCINDED BCHD currently owns about 50% of the operational building area, that is, the 514 building. The 510 and 520 buildings are investor owned and operated. BCHD plans to issue a contract to Sunrise to demolish 514 and its ancillary buildings, leaving the entire campus PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED.

BCHD DOES NOT DESERVE P-I ZONING IN REDONDO BEACH
BCHD is functioning as a commercial real estate company and investor. As a result, the property should be zoned commercial, consist with its actual use.

It's high time for the City Council to listen to the voters of REDONDO BEACH.

We demand to be able to vote to rescind BCHD's P-I zoning and convert is to Commercial (C).

We demand to be able to deny FAR 1.25 to BCHD in the Article 27 vote.

Mark Nelson
Location:

Submitted At: 8:26pm 07-06-26
The City is better to have NO general plan than to allow BCHD to turn the taxpayer purchased Prospect campus into a 100% PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. The Sunrise deal will demolish the ONLY BCHD owned building and replace it with 100% PRIVATE, non-dedicated to the District real estate. BCHD will become the most costly landlord of all Health Care district with 13 executives consuming 36% of the total District employee compensation.

It's high time for the City Council to listen to the voters of REDONDO BEACH.

We demand to be able to vote to rescind BCHD's P-I zoning and convert is to Commercial (C).

We demand to be able to deny FAR 1.25 to BCHD in the Article 27 vote.

David Waldner
Location:

Submitted At: 5:22pm 07-06-26
I am completely in agreement with Jill Klausen’s comment on this issue. If Council Includes the grossly inflated FAR increase for BCHD in the November measure the General Plan will fail by a landslide. Put it to a separate vote and let the local Redondo community decide on this.

Theresa Cannon
Location:

Submitted At: 4:23pm 07-06-26
Please maintain the 1.25 FAR for Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) as presented in the Land Use attachment.

BCHD provides valuable services to the beach communities improving health and well-being. This FAR was previously approved and is included in the document for your approval. Redondo Beach needs the services of BCHD to help with teens and adults. Providing a new facility will only increase the ability to serve the community.

Louis Friedman
Location:

Submitted At: 4:06pm 07-06-26
I OPPOSE agenda item N2. BCHD should not be allowed a FAR of 1.25. Voters must be allowed to vote on this.

It should not be grouped into the general plan as some backhanded deal.

Steve Randall
Location:

Submitted At: 1:49pm 07-06-26
Interesting comment from BCHD Board Member Dr. Koo who says the current HLC is less than 1.25 FAR but they need it to be 1.25 for "flexibility." Seriously? You already broke ground on a new allcove facility at the northeast corner of the property after losing the bond measure vote in 2025. It's clear BCHD is paying zero attention to the community where they want to build a bigger development.

Let's talk about BCHD mis-management while we're at it. You've got this big complex with a good portion of the building where Silverado is now sitting EMPTY! And because you can't seem to find an executive to properly manage the District campus while paying him a grossly inflated salary, you beg the City Council of Redondo Beach to allow variances and conditional use permits to accommodate businesses that DO NOT BELONG IN A HEALTH DISTRICT CAMPUS. Now I like Shakespeare just like a lot of folks do but their office shouldn't be in the Health District. Just who are you catering too? The Hermosa guy mentioned in one of the comments below who goes to the BCHD gym and supports Shakespeare By The Sea? And now you want to allow a HUGE FAR that would dwarf the surrounding neighborhood and take most of the afternoon sun away from the Torrance neighbors across the street? How healthy is that? It's NOT! We don't need that kind of footprint capacity for a site that hasn't been productively and effectively managed for years. Someone else said the FAR should be the same as for the schools and I agree. Only police and fire should have higher footprint building capacity as our first responders. Either set the FAR for the Health District site at .75 FAR or split it out to a separate vote because you're taking that out of the voters hands and risking voters saying NO, NO, NO to the General Plan ballot measure. Besides, we all know the city council is gonna find ways to approve variances and CUPs beyond the .75 FAR anyway. Stop yanking our chains.

Marie Puterbaugh
Location:

Submitted At: 9:03am 07-06-26
BCHD’s project still complies with the current zoning. While it is truly heartbreaking that Silverado did not work out, Sunrise is still assisted living. Is this really about preserving greenspace or is it just a Hail Mary to "STOP BCHD" as the project appears to be proceeding? BCHD started this project almost a decade ago and has exhausted any/all reasonable feedback from the community. No project will please all, some people will be against it. We just witnessed the devastation of an earthquake in Venezuela, BCHD is desperately trying to update a building that is very decrepit and outdated and Redondo delays, delays, delays. Costs and interest rates rise, and now BCHD has to pivot due to costs and timing.

Redondo Beach City Council can't please everyone, yes some of your voters are going to be upset. As a City Council, don't you have more important issues to address, including increasing revenue, updating outdates laws regarding hedges, infrastructure, E-bike safety, blight and ensuring Vape/smoke shops are behaving legally? If those advocating for "stopping" BCHD don't even truly understand the mechanics of what they are asking, as Mayor Light corrected the ask on social media, residents should consider the source. Perhaps this should go on the ballot to conclude, historically Redondo has voted pro BCHD and we could conclude once and for all. BCHD has an elected board and those opposed should appeal to BCHD. Many in Redondo either don't care about the Healthy Living campus or support it, and City Council needs to address more urgent needs right now.

Darryl Boyd
Location:

Submitted At: 8:40am 07-06-26
To those who don't live near the BCHD campus, you have no idea what we tax paying Redondo Beach Residents already go through from a TERRIBLE neighbor, Beach Cities Health District. We already deal with noise, traffic, speeding, car accidents, and impatient drivers who are either BCHD tenants, clients, or customers. The OVERPAID BCHD Board of Directors and it's CEO have had no consideration for what Beryl Heights Residents and the most highly impacted Residents at 500-600 N Prospect Ave and the loss of our Quality Of Life and our legal right to peaceful enjoyment of our properties. This is not about BCHD services. This is about BCHD's desire to OVER-DEVELOP FOR PROFIT on top of Residential neighborhoods further impacting our physical & mental health, our property values, and our home ownership rights. This FOR PROFIT BCHD scheme will negatively impact generations in our neighborhoods & in our City overall. This current OVERPAID BCHD Board of Directors should be put down & RECALLED.

The Mayor of Redondo has lied to me, my neighbors and our neighborhood. For BCHD Director Martha Koo, who traveled to Japan with Mayor Jim Light on an undisclosed trip, & to call him honorable is totally laughable This current Mayor & City Council has undermined & worked against the Beryl Heights Community, the tax paying Residents at 500-600 N Prospect Ave, and Redondo Beach Residents who voted NO on Measure BC. This City Council has facilitated any and all work arounds that BCHD has cooked up to circumvent the will of Residents who voted NO on Measure BC, this includes Alcove. This Mayor and this City Council have serious transparency & accountability issues and need to be STOPPED and possibly RECALLED.

The Planning Commission's recommendation of a max .75 FAR should not be exceeded. This current Mayor & City Council has now shown it's true colors, obviously beholden to an out of control BCHD, it's Board of Directors & CEO & not its Residents & Constituents. If this disgraceful Mayor & crony City Council continues to force this ridiculous 1.25 FAR scheme through against our will, then let the RECALLS begin.

Darryl Boyd
39 year tax paying Redondo Beach Resident & homeowner
Martha Koo
Location:

Submitted At: 6:13pm 07-05-26
Honorable Mayor Light and Members of the Redondo Beach City Council, Please maintain the 1.25 FAR for the BCHD campus and keep all FAR updates part of one ballot measure this November. The current Healthy Living Campus plan is far less than a 1.25 FAR. However, a 1.25 FAR provides important flexibility for the campus and its partners to meet changing and possibly unforeseen health needs of our community far into the future.

Susan Brilliant
Location:

Submitted At: 6:01pm 07-05-26
The Beach Cities Health District programs are an asset in the community, providing well-being services across the lifespan. I am writing to urge you to maintain the 1.25 FAR for BCHD’s campus that was approved in January.

A 1.25 FAR will provide important flexibility for the organization and partners to meet the health needs of our community in the future.

We believe that including all FAR updates in one ballot question will ensure the community can consider the full set of proposed changes together rather than in separate, potentially complex measures.

JB Abrahams
Location:

Submitted At: 1:25pm 07-05-26
I oppose increasing the BCHD FAR to 1.25 and will vote NO on the General Plan if the City Council zones BCHD for anything above the Planning Commission's recommended 0.75.

It's also worth addressing the commenter from Hermosa Beach who lectures Redondo residents about accepting higher density. He enjoys living in one of Hermosa's low-density single-family neighborhoods, yet has no problem advocating policies that would dramatically change someone else's neighborhood.

This is the same mindset from the same fool that supported running Metro trains 24 hours a day just feet from the backyards of Redondo residents—while bearing none of the consequences personally.

It's easy to champion density and other disruptive projects when they're always proposed for someone else's community instead of your own. If these policies are so desirable, why not advocate for them in your own neighborhood first?
Redondo residents are the ones who will live with the increased traffic, parking shortages, congestion, infrastructure demands, and changes to neighborhood character—not outside activists who can simply drive home when the meeting is over.

Fortunately, Redondo voters—not residents of neighboring cities—will decide what is appropriate for Redondo Beach.

Jessica Gonzales
Location:

Submitted At: 12:09pm 07-05-26
Let's stop pretending that the Beach Cities Health District is the equivalent of the Police Department, Fire Department, or Public Works. Those are essential city services that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, protecting lives, responding to emergencies, and maintaining critical infrastructure. BCHD simply does not occupy the same role, and it should not receive zoning privileges that treat it as though it does.

The commenter from Hermosa Beach made it clear what this is really about: preserving his gym, even if it comes at the expense of dramatically increasing development in a residential neighborhood that he doesn't have to live in.

It's easy to support oversized projects when someone else's neighborhood is paying the price. Would he be just as enthusiastic if a massive increase in density, traffic, parking demand, and building height were proposed next door to his own home?
If BCHD believes a fitness center is essential, there are existing commercial spaces and strip malls nearby that are already appropriately zoned for that type of use. Residential neighborhoods should not be sacrificed simply to accommodate a gym expansion.

This debate isn't about whether people value health and wellness. It's about whether one public agency should be granted extraordinary zoning privileges that fundamentally alter an established neighborhood. Residents have every right to say no.

To the guy from Hermosa Beach - you are an idiot!
Dency Nelson
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 3:19pm 07-04-26
Honorable Mayor Light and Members of the Redondo Beach City Council, Please maintain the 1.25 FAR for the BCHD campus and keep all FAR updates part of one ballot measure this November. A 1.25 FAR will provide important flexibility for the campus and its partners to meet the health needs of our community into the future.

Dency Nelson
Hermosa Beach
[email protected]
Leslie Ogg
Location:

Submitted At: 11:09am 07-04-26
We are tired of caving in to special interests - and we as a city will reject the General Plan if you do not lower the FAR for BCHD and RBUSD to 0.75. Please put the BCHD up for a separate vote.

Jill Klausen
Location:

Submitted At: 3:34pm 07-03-26
I WILL be voting NO in November if you include a 1.25 FAR for BCHD and RBUSD, as will thousands of other residents, your fear mongering notwithstanding. All you have to do to avoid Builders Remedy projects is remain in compliance with state housing rules. We don't need to buckle to your campaign donors to stay out of trouble. And you WILL lose your seats the next time there's an election.

Agenda Item: eComments for P.1. 26-0776 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE NAMING OF THE

HERONDO OPEN SPACE PARK AREA LOCATED AT HERONDO STREET AND CATALINA AVENUE Overall Sentiment
Mark Nelson
Location:

Submitted At: 4:36pm 07-07-26
I have a name for it that comes with its own theme song "Money for Nothing" Park Lezlie Campeggi
Location:

Submitted At: 3:28pm 07-07-26
There’s only one name that should be considered for the new, native plant park on Herondo Street and Catalina Ave., overlooking the decommissioned power plant property: Bill Brand.

Bill Brand’s activism as a citizen, along with his dogged pursuit of residents’ quality of life while serving as an elected official, made this new open space possible. Without his steady advocacy, we wouldn’t have this community resource and place for enjoyment.

Please make a motion and vote to name this space "Bill Brand Memorial Park." Thank you!
Darryl Boyd
Location:

Submitted At: 9:07am 07-06-26
Please make sure that "Mayor" Jim Light doesn't try to name it after himself.

Redondo Beach City CouncilJuly 7, 2026

Redondo Beach City Council
July 7, 2026