N2 - blue folder — Redondo Beach City Council, July 7, 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
JULY 7, 2026
N.2 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
• Public Comments
CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Community Development Director
From: Jacqueline Caro
To: CityClerk; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Joy Ford; Mike Witzansky; Scott Behrendt
Subject: Agenda Item N2-Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - Keep the BCHD FAR Vote SEPARATE from the General Plan Ballot Vote
Date: Sunday, July 5, 2026 8:12:58 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
BCHD should not receive special treatment with a 1.25 FAR.

BCHD is expected to again aggressively pursue a special treatment 1.25 FAR. What it means in reality is that BCHD, which sits on acres of publicly owned land, can turn over its public land to private development, allowing "supersized" structures to be built.

A 1.25 FAR for BCHD would be:
· Equal only to City Hall and Annex, and greater than even Police and Fire Departments. BCHD provides NONE of the essential and emergency services of the City. (It seems obvious BCHD should not be allowed a greater FAR than the Police and Fire Departments.) · The 1.25 FAR is nearly twice the proposed maximum

0.75 FAR applicable to other public land. In fact, some public land might be subject to a 0.2, or even a 0.1 FAR. Yet, BCHD wants many times more FAR than other public land may be allowed.
· Massive buildings on BCHD's land for private businesses would divert BCHD from its mission to support public health. The structures would be totally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and have harmful impacts to a large number of people.
2 - A SEPARATE ballot vote on the major change in land use for BCHD must be required. - Let Redondo Beach Voters decide.

If the City Council decides that BCHD will be given special treatment, a SEPARATE VOTE on the BCHD

1.25 FAR exception should be taken. It appears the City and certainly BCHD, are trying to circumvent a separate vote by bundling up all the major changes in a single ballot vote on the General Plan. The November elections should include the voices of Redondo Beach voters.

Respectfully,
Jackie Ecklund
July 2, 2026
Mayor and City Council:

Subject: General Plan Update and Proposed Floor Area Ratio Limits On behalf of Beach Cities Health District, I would like to reiterate our gratitude for the City Council’s decision in January to place a 1.25 FAR on the BCHD Campus on Prospect Avenue as part of its proposed General Plan Update. This thoughtful decision, made after many opportunities for the public to provide input and based on Staff’s finding that a 1.25 FAR would have no significant environmental impacts, will provide important flexibility for our Campus and our partners to meet the health needs of our community into the future.

We request that in the upcoming adoption of the Land Use Element and relevant zoning ordinances the Council holds firm on their unanimous decision for a 1.25 FAR on the BCHD property.

It is important to remind our constituents that the General Plan Update is a statemandated land use issue. State law calls for general plans to address land use for public buildings and grounds and to include standards related to population density and building intensity across all land use categories (California Government Code § 65302(a)).

Like the City of Redondo Beach, our mission is focused on serving the long-term and evolving needs of the community. Public institutions like the City and BCHD have remained responsive to changing demographics, service delivery models and community priorities, and BCHD values planning frameworks that support adaptability while remaining compatible with and in service to the community.

From BCHD’s perspective, this flexibility is relevant to the General Plan and public institutional uses, which must remain adaptable to ensure public-serving facilities can continue to meet current and future community needs.

With parts of the General Plan Update set to be on the ballot in November, BCHD requests that you consider that all FAR updates be included as part of a single General Plan ballot measure. Keeping the ballot measure simple will help voters better understand this complex land use issue and make a responsible choice for our City.

Voters must also understand that this upcoming ballot measure is focused on longterm land use planning, and not a referendum on our campus project or any other projects currently planned. Keeping the voting process simple and easy to understand will be a benefit. BCHD believes 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.

A process is already in place to evaluate specific development projects, including a Conditional Use Permit, allowing a city to impose conditions on developers to ensure compliance.

BCHD also notes that public institutions are already accountable to the electorate through elections of governing board members every two years. FAR caps in the General Plan could duplicate existing oversight mechanisms and may limit the ability of future governing bodies to respond to changing community needs.

As the City Council considers these issues, we at BCHD look forward to continued collaboration with the City as it plans for the future. Our shared goal is to ensure that public institutions remain able to meet the community’s needs today and in the future.

In Health,

Tom Bakaly
CEO
Beach Cities Health District
[email protected]
From: Debra Clark
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD- ALLOW PUBLIC VOTE
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 2:24:37 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD threatened to sue the City using taxpayer funds to require commercial UPZONING. That was wrong! Redondo voters MUST BE ALLOWED to vote on the coerced increase in BCHD's Floor Area Ratio (the density of commercial construction on our public land) as a separate item on the ballot. Do not let your fear of BCHD lawsuits DISENFRANCHISE the VOTERS of Redondo Beach.

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Debbie Clark
Sent from my iPhone
From: William Shanney
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD Threat
Date: Thursday, July 2, 2026 5:51:07 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

William and Vivian Shanney
From: LINDA Zelik
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 3:32:10 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear R.B CityClerk and Council members;
Please don’t let BCHD intimidate you into approving the over sized FAR to 1.25. It should be put to the voters to decide
as it will have disastrous effects for both the Redondo Beach residents and entire surrounding communities!
Thank you for doing the right thing,
Linda and Joe Zelik
From: Aileen Pavlin
To: CityClerk
Subject: (Subject) Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE

GENERAL PLAN ZONING VOTE
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 10:40:09 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD threatened to sue the City using taxpayer funds to require commercial UPZONING.

That was wrong! Redondo voters MUST BE ALLOWED to vote on the coerced increase in BCHD's Floor Area Ratio (the density of commercial construction on our public land) as a separate item on the ballot. Do not let your fear of BCHD lawsuits DISENFRANCHISE the VOTERS of Redondo Beach
BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Aileen Pavlin
From: p Yee
To: CityClerk
Subject: (Subject) Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE

GENERAL PLAN ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 7:31:17 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Patricia Orz
From: MONIKA OLMOS
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 7:45:35 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Monika Olmos
Sent from my iPhone
From: JOHN STAUFFER
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 6:18:06 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

From: Mari Ramskill
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 7:42:22 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you,
Mari Ramskill
From: Vin Raju
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. vote must be separate from the general plan zoning vote
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 7:20:27 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.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD threatened to sue the City using taxpayer funds to require commercial UPZONING.

That was wrong!
Redondo voters MUST BE ALLOWED to vote on the coerced increase in BCHD's Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R. - the density of commercial construction on our public land) as a separate item on the ballot. Do not let your fear of BCHD lawsuits DISENFRANCHISE the VOTERS of Redondo Beach.

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you,
Vin Raju
From: Amy Matsuda
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD F.A.R Vote Ballot
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 9:06:22 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 Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

Please ensure that the BCHD F.A.R. 1.25 VOTE is a separate question on the ballot.

Thank you,
Amy Yick
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 10:22:56 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Giving BCHD special treatment is not fair to the residents right to vote.

Philip de Wolff
From: Gennaro Pupa
To: CityClerk
Subject: Bchd out of redondo
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 5:47:43 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.

Stop BCHD from any further additions. Order BCHD to abandon the entire project and no longer conduct any business in redondo beach.

From: Krista Allen
To: CityClerk
Subject: Bchd up zoning needs public vote!
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 1:22:05 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Please distribute to all city council members.

It's important that Beach city health District not have 1.25 floor area ratio.

If required, we have to vote against the general plan.

Giving bchd such special consideration is not compatible with our resident wishes Krista Allen
607 Esplanade
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; Communications; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Jane Diehl; Martha Koo; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat Subject: Comment due to failed Zoom - Excessive Comm Dept Labor Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2026 7:17:07 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD spends 11% of all labor funding on the Comms department. It has 2 executives. Because BCHD actively REFUSES to conduct benefit to cost analysis, it has NO VALIDATION of the level of benefits from the $750K of Comms spending. Nor does BCHD provide a consolidated marketing comms budget that include other costs.

This is a poor and unacceptable level of controls.

From: Melanie Cohen
To: CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: BCHD Action Alert: One Quick Email to the RB City Council Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 7:20:57 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 7:17 PM
Subject: BCHD Action Alert: One Quick Email to the RB City Council To: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
If you just want to help and not read - HEAD TO THE BOTTOM NOW! BCHD threatened to sue the City over the floor area ratio (FAR, campus density). The Council rolled right over and gave BCHD an FAR of 1.25, or about 3X their current density. And the Council knows that it will be used for COMMERCIAL PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT since BCHD has never developed ANYTHING.

So the City's fear of being sued by BCHD has caused the City to bundle the BCHD upzoning vote (required by Article 27 of the charter) with the ENTIRE GENERAL PLAN.

That means VOTERS WILL HAVE TO KILL THE WHOLE GENERAL PLAN TO STOP BCHD. OUTRAGEOUS!
We need to FORCE THE CITY to put the BCHD UPZONING on the ballot as its own item.

Otherwise RB voters are DISENFRANCHISED.

PLEASE CONSIDER SENDING THE FOLLOWING EMAIL TO THE CITY COUNCIL NOW!
(Email) [email protected]
(Subject) Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE

SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN ZONING VOTE
(Body Text)
Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD threatened to sue the City using taxpayer funds to require commercial UPZONING.

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.
--
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: D. Dangelo
To: CityClerk
Subject: Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN ZONING VOTE Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 7:27:10 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.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Denise Dangelo

MEMORANDUM
TO: Redondo Beach Public Works, Sustainability, and Infrastructure Commission FROM: The 500-600 N. Prospect Resident Community
DATE: June 22, 2026
SUBJECT: Enhanced Environmental Noise Analysis: Integration of Hard Data from BCHD Healthy Living Campus EIR and Redondo Beach General Plan EIR

1. Executive Summary & Call to Action
The 500-600 block of North Prospect Avenue—situated between Diamond Street and Beryl Street—is suffering from a severe, compounding environmental health hazard: chronic traffic noise pollution. While our parallel memorandum addresses the immediate physical dangers of speeding and vehicle collisions, this document integrates hard, empirical data from recent Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) to detail the systemic damage inflicted on our neighborhood by sustained, excessive decibel levels.

The Quantitative Reality
● Violations of California Noise Standards: The Redondo Beach General Plan Noise Element (Draft updated 2024–2026) and its companion EIR establish that traffic noise along the North Prospect Avenue secondary arterial corridor routinely exceeds 60 to 65 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level). This explicitly violates the State Noise Insulation Standards for outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction in dense multi-family residential zones.
● EIR-Documented Baseline Spikes: Acoustic monitoring conducted at 514 N. Prospect Ave for the Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) Healthy Living Campus EIR records actual ambient noise baselines that continually encroach upon public health thresholds.

Due to the over-wide 4-lane secondary arterial cross-section, off-peak speeding creates sustained noise spikes well above acceptable residential limits. ● The Velocity-Noise Link: Traffic noise increases exponentially with speed. A vehicle traveling at 40 MPH (the 85th percentile reality on our block) generates roughly twice the acoustic energy of a vehicle traveling at the legal 35 MPH limit. When un-designated heavy commercial vehicles over 3 tons exploit this wide corridor, low-frequency noise and vibration levels spike even more severely.

Call to Action
The peer-reviewed scientific consensus and local EIR data are absolute: chronic traffic noise is not a mere inconvenience; it is a direct physiological stressor that causes severe cardiovascular, psychological, and developmental harm. Because the physical width of North Prospect Avenue actively encourages high-velocity, off-peak driving, the road is a structural noise generator cutting directly through a high-density neighborhood filled with multi-family homes, medical facilities, and schools.

The 500-600 N. Prospect Resident Community calls upon the Commission to:

1. Formally recognize that the excessive traffic noise on the 500-600 block constitutes a public safety and environmental health hazard that violates the intent of the Redondo Beach General Plan Noise Element.

2. Incorporate acoustic mitigation as a primary objective of the Prospect Avenue Mobility Corridor and Complete Streets Proposal, prioritizing street narrowings ("Road Diets") and rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) resurfacing, which has been proven to reduce traffic noise by 4 to 6 decibels.

3. Direct code enforcement and the Redondo Beach Police Department to aggressively enforce the Torrance/Redondo Truck Route restrictions, eliminating the illegal, low-frequency acoustic disruptions caused by un-designated commercial vehicles over 3 tons bypassing main thoroughfares.

2. Municipal & Campus EIR Empirical Noise Data
The following sections integrate the data points published by the City of Redondo Beach and localized environmental impact studies.

A. The Redondo Beach General Plan EIR Noise Element
The City’s 2024–2026 General Plan Updates outline strict parameters for community noise environments.
● The 60 dBA Threshold: The State Noise Insulation Standards require specified levels of outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction for new multifamily residential construction in areas where the outdoor noise exposure exceeds CNEL 60 dBA.
● Future Roadway Noise Contours: The General Plan's acoustic modeling projects that Prospect Avenue’s over-built 4-lane secondary arterial layout channels maximum possible noise levels directly into residential setbacks. Because these contours do not account for individual property walls or localized traffic speed spikes, the off-peak 38–41 MPH reality forces actual local exposure much closer to the hazardous 65 dBA CNEL contour line.

B. The BCHD Healthy Living Campus EIR (514 N. Prospect Ave) Site-specific acoustic tracking for the multi-phase campus master plan at 514 N. Prospect Ave establishes a clear, undeniable empirical baseline for our exact block. ● Ambient Baseline Levels: Short-term and long-term noise monitoring conducted directly on the Prospect Avenue frontage reveals a highly compressed acoustic environment. The constant flow of traffic along the four lanes ensures that baseline daytime noise levels rarely drop below comfortable residential margins. ● Construction vs. Mobile Source Cumulative Impacts: While the BCHD EIR extensively mitigates temporary, stationary noise sources (such as HVAC systems, deliveries, and construction equipment), it explicitly flags mobile traffic noise along Prospect Avenue as a permanent fixture.
● Vibration and Low-Frequency Noise: The EIR documents that heavy vehicle movement generates measurable ground-borne vibration. When un-designated heavy commercial vehicles bypass main routes to utilize Prospect, these vibrations rattle the aging infrastructure and non-ductile concrete configurations of nearby campus facilities and residential complexes alike.

3. Peer-Reviewed Evidence: The Damages of
Environmental Noise
For decades, public health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have studied the systemic impacts of environmental noise. The damages are divided into three primary categories:

A. Cardiovascular and Physiological Stress
Chronic traffic noise activates the sympathetic nervous system, triggers the body's fight-or-flight response, and elevates cortisol and adrenaline levels—even when a person is entirely accustomed to the sound or asleep.
● Ischemic Heart Disease: Large-scale epidemiological studies show a direct, linear relationship between long-term exposure to road traffic noise above 55 decibels and an increased risk of ischemic heart disease and myocardial infarction (heart attacks). ● Hypertension: Sustained acoustic stress impairs endothelial function (the handling of blood vessels), leading to chronically elevated blood pressure.

B. Severe Sleep Disturbance and Cognitive Impairment
The 500-600 block suffers from significant nighttime speeding, which creates erratic, high-decibel noise spikes that shatter healthy sleep architecture. ● Sleep Fragmentation: Nighttime noise causes shifts from deep REM sleep to light sleep, hidden micro-arousals, and elevated heart rates during sleep, preventing restorative rest. ● Cognitive Impacts on Children: Beryl Heights Elementary and Redondo Union High frame this corridor. Peer-reviewed research consistently demonstrates that children exposed to chronic ambient traffic noise suffer from impaired reading comprehension, diminished long-term memory, and reduced attention spans due to constant acoustic distraction.

C. Psychological Well-being and Property Value Degradation ● Chronic Annoyance and Anxiety: Sustained exposure to high-volume traffic noise is heavily correlated with increased rates of anxiety, depression, and psychological distress. ● Economic Externality: In urban economics and hedonic price modeling, traffic noise functions as a major negative externality. Properties flanking high-noise secondary arterials see depressed valuation growth compared to identical homes situated just one block away from the acoustic impact zone.

4. Summary of Documented Corridor Metrics &
Impact Factors
Factor Baseline Condition Environmental & Health
Impact
General Plan Contour
Target
> 60-65 dBA CNEL Corridor Exceeds California's
preferred residential
thresholds, mandating
indoor structural noise
insulation.

BCHD EIR Acoustic
Monitoring
Constant daytime/evening
mobile source noise
Validates resident claims of
a constant, unrelenting wall
of traffic noise on the
500-600 block.
85th Percentile Speed
(38-41 MPH)
Exceeds posted 35 MPH
limit.

Acoustic energy increases
exponentially; 40 MPH
creates double the noise
force of 35 MPH.

Roadway Geometry (64-ft
Cross-Section)
4 wide lanes with empty
off-peak space.

Acts as an acoustic
megaphone, reflecting
tire-and-engine noise
directly into multi-family
residential setbacks.

Heavy Commercial
Bypass Traffic
Vehicles over 3 tons utilizing
residential Prospect.

Introduces structural
low-frequency vibrations
and high-decibel diesel
engine braking.

5. Proposed Structural Mitigations
Standard law enforcement cannot solve a systemic environmental problem caused by poor roadway design. We urge the Commission to recommend a multi-layered engineering and policy approach to quiet the corridor:
● Geometric Modification (The Road Diet): By reducing North Prospect Avenue from 4 lanes down to 2 active driving lanes with a center-turn median and Class IV protected bike lanes, the city will narrow the field of vision for drivers. This structurally caps vehicle speeds, lowering the baseline ambient noise level.
● Acoustic Resurfacing: When this segment undergoes future maintenance, the city should mandate the use of open-graded friction courses or rubberized asphalt. This material absorbs tire-pavement interaction noise, providing an immediate, permanent reduction in neighborhood decibels.
● Heavy Vehicle Diversion: Enforcing the existing commercial vehicle ordinances will remove heavy trucks from an un-designated route, instantly deleting the most disruptive, low-frequency sound elements from our daily lives.

The data proves our street is too fast; science and municipal EIRs prove it is too loud. We urge the Commission to take action tonight to restore safety and peace to the 500-600 North Prospect community.

Respectfully Submitted,
The 500-600 N. Prospect Resident Community
From: sinsheimer
To: CityClerk
Subject: Please have the BCHD FAR 1.25 separate from the upzoning General Plan Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 10:13:02 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Sent from my iPad
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; City Council; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; Los Angeles Mayor"s Office; [email protected]; [email protected]; Representative Ted Lieu; James Light; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Kevin Cody; Letters; [email protected]; Steve Napolitano; Mike Witzansky; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment - Unless BCHD LIED to the City of Redondo - The CEO is LYING TO THE EASY READER NEWS Date: Sunday, June 28, 2026 4:03:03 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

99.7% of the BCHD campus square footage is 51.5-feet OR SHORTER. Only the "Penthouse" is taller and it's only 954-sqft of the 312,000 sqft total.

From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 11:01:10 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Long time South Bay residents Pam & George Afremow
From: kevork Ajamian
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 10:03:29 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.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

From: Rosann Taylor
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 9:28:38 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Rosann Taylor
Resident on Diamond St
From: M. Nava
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 10:28:52 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Marcio N
From: Tim Ozenne
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 7:39:55 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

All:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 8:21:20 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.
mike woolsey
From: Louis Friedman
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 7:39:37 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.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Louis Friedman
From: Mike and Jill
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 7:41:03 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD threatened to sue the City using taxpayer funds to require commercial upzoning. That was wrong! Redondo voters must be allowed to vote on the increase in BCHD's Floor Area Ratio (the density of commercial construction on our public land) as a separate item on the ballot. Do not let your fear of BCHD lawsuits disenfranchised the voters of Redondo Beach.

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE needs to be a separate item on the ballot.

If it isn’t separated, I will vote “no” on the general plan, and encourage other voters to also vote “no”.

It’s time for BCHD to make their case directly to the voters.

Thank you.

Mike Jamgochian
Clark Lane
District 3 Redondo Beach
From: Jennifer McAulay
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26 Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 8:02:27 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.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

BCHD threatened to sue the City using taxpayer funds to require commercial UPZONING.

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Jennifer McAulay
--
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.

From: Paul Schlichting
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 7/7/26Council Meeting - BCHD F.A.R. VOTE MUST BE SEPARATE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN

ZONING VOTE
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 9:19:20 AM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney, and City Manager:

STAND UP FOR PRINCIPAL AND LAW...
... ALL DEVELOPERS THINK THAT THE MAGIC THREAT IS "THREATEN TO SUE" - AS HA BEEN DONE ON PRIOR PROJECTS, INCLUDING DENSE HOUSING ON SOUTH PCH.

Do your JOBS - Or quit your job, and stop taking taxpayers' money for caving to some or your "buddy developers". 98% of the day-to-day stuff is "no-brainer easy". These are the moments when the public expects you to stand up - THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES ...
... BCHD threatened to sue the City using taxpayer funds to require commercial UPZONING. That was wrong! Redondo voters MUST BE ALLOWED to vote on the coerced increase in BCHD's Floor Area Ratio (the density of commercial construction on our public land) as a separate item on the ballot. Do not let your fear of BCHD lawsuits DISENFRANCHISE the VOTERS of Redondo Beach.

BCHD FAR 1.25 VOTE MUST BE A SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT! Thank you.

Paul Schlichting
South Broadway, Redondo Beach, CA
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment July 7 Meeting - Allow a vote on BCHD FAR Separate of the other Article 27 issues Date: Monday, June 29, 2026 12:56:43 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD threatened to SUE THE CITY with TAXPAYER MONEY. Don't be intimidated.

Allow voters to pick the FAR of BCHD. NO FAR is better than 1.25. Residents can fight it out at the planning commission in the CUP and PCDR.

Don't be a serial abuser. BCHD threatened YOU. Don't THREATEN VOTERS with a BUNDLED VOTE.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: Communications; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Martha Koo; Jane Diehl Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; City Council; [email protected]; info; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; Los Angeles Mayor"s Office; [email protected]; [email protected]; Representative Ted Lieu; James Light; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Garth Meyer; Kevin Cody; Letters; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mike Witzansky; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment: BCHD EXECUTIVE PAY IS 36% of TOTAL EMPLOYEE COSTS AT BCHD - 10% OR LESS IS THE

NORMAL BENCHMARK
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 1:23:38 PM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I challenge anyone to benchmark any local agency and find another that CHARGES TAXPAYERS 36% of total employee costs for EXECUTIVES. THERE ARE NONE.

Hermosa is 10% executive pay as a share of total employee costs and it is the closest in size to BCHD. The other Cities are less. BCHD is 350% out of any reasonable BENCHMARK.

The result is that each BCHD EXECUTIVE oversees, ON AVERAGE, a tiny revenue due to the excessive number of executives.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: PRR; [email protected]; CityClerk; Paige Kaluderovic; Sean Scully; Marc Wiener; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; James Light; info Subject: Re: California Public Records Act Request to BCHD and Public Comment All Agencies Date: Sunday, June 21, 2026 8:59:29 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

NON RESPONSIVE TO CPRA QUESTION. BCHD PROVIDED NO VALID RESPONSE.

BCHD conducted no analysis of the health impacts of the excessive noise above FTA level.

NONE. BCHD Misrepresents this by providing a link to non-responsive text in an attempt to avoid stating NO DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE.

On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 5:17 PM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records requests received 4/20/26 that reads:

REQUEST
Provide documents demonstrating the expected rate of health damages to residents surrounding the proposed HLC construction project that will be caused by the significant exceedance of FTA noise thresholds approved by the BCHD Board in the FEIR.

FACT BASE BACKGROUND
The following is a summary from the BCHD FEIR for the HLC demonstrating that BCHD plans to subject surrounding neighborhoods and campus users to dangerous noise levels:

1. Threshold Exceedance: Construction is expected to last over five years and will exceed Federal Transit Authority (FTA) noise thresholds for both daily and 30-day average residential standards.

2. Reason for Unavoidable Impact: The extreme height of the proposed buildings and the site's position on a hill make standard noise barriers (limited to 31 feet) ineffective at higher elevations, meaning noise cannot be fully mitigated for nearby sensitive receptors.

3. Regulatory Context: Because these impacts cannot be reduced to "less than significant" levels, the BCHD Board of Directors had to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the project, acknowledging that its public benefits outweigh these unavoidable environmental costs.

4. Health Damages: BCHD's now disgraced environmental consultant Wood PLC apparently provided guidance to BCHD to ignore the peer-reviewed health damages provided by commenters.

Further, dozens of peer-reviewed studies of health damages from BCHD's planned noise levels were ignored by BCHD and its now disgraced oil-field services company that prepared the EIR.

As an example:

Peer-reviewed research indicates that exceeding transit noise standards, such as those established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), triggers physiological stress responses that lead to cardiovascular, metabolic, and cognitive impairments. While the FTA's specific daily and monthly criteria are used for environmental impact assessments to mitigate community annoyance, health studies show that physiological risks begin at levels often lower than these regulatory thresholds.

Summary of Research Findings

1. Cardiovascular Impact: Chronic exposure to transportation noise (road, rail, and aircraft) triggers a "noise reaction model" where sound activates the sympathetic nervous system and the HPA axis. This leads to elevated stress hormones (cortisol, adrenaline), vascular inflammation, and oxidative stress. Meta-analyses consistently show a 2–5% increase in the risk of ischemic heart disease and stroke for every 10 dB(A) increase in long-term noise.

2. Metabolic Disorders: Noise exposure is strongly linked to Type 2 diabetes and obesity. One major study found that a 10 dB increase in road traffic noise was associated with a 17% increase in obesity and an 11% increase in diabetes risk.

3. Sleep and Mental Health: Noise is a primary cause of fragmented sleep, reducing REM and slow-wave sleep phases essential for recovery. This disruption is a precursor to hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

4. Cognitive Development: In children, chronic transit noise exposure is associated with impaired reading comprehension, memory loss, and hyperactivity, with risk increasing by 9–11% per 10 dB(A).

APA Bibliography & Summaries
Cai, Y.
,
Ramakrishnan, R.
, &
Rahimi, K.
(2021). Long-term exposure to traffic noise and mortality: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Environment International, 146, 106303.

This meta-analysis synthesized data from multiple cohort studies to evaluate the relationship between long-term transportation noise and mortality. The researchers found a robust association between road traffic noise and mortality from ischemic heart disease (IHD), with a pooled relative risk of 1.03 per 10 dB increase. The study concludes that while evidence for other mortality types remains weak, the link to cardiovascular death is significant enough to warrant stricter public health interventions.

Foraster, M.
, Eze, I. C.,
Schaffner, E.
,
Vienneau, D.
,
Héritier, H.
, Endes, S., ... & Probst-Hensch, N. (2018). Long-term exposure to transportation noise and its association with adiposity markers and development of obesity. Environmental Health Perspectives, 126(10), 107005.

The study suggests that noise-induced stress leads to cortisol release, which promotes central fat accumulation, identifying noise as a modifiable risk factor for metabolic disease.

Münzel, T.
, Schmidt, F. P., Steven, S., Herzog, J., Daiber, A., & Sørensen, M. (2018). Environmental noise and the cardiovascular system. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 71(6), 688-697.

This review details the biological mechanisms by which environmental noise causes vascular damage. It introduces the "noise reaction model," explaining how even low-level nighttime noise triggers the release of stress hormones, leading to oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction. The authors emphasize that these physiological changes occur even when the individual does not feel "annoyed," highlighting the hidden cardiovascular threat posed by urban transit environments.

Stansfeld, S. A., & Clark, C. (2015). Health effects of noise exposure in children. Current Environmental Health Reports, 2(2), 171-178.

The study highlights that children are particularly vulnerable as they lack the coping mechanisms adults use to mitigate the psychological stress of a noisy environment.

Wang, M., Kuang, X., & Zhang, J. (2023). Long-term exposure to traffic noise and risk of incident cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1205315.

This 2023 update analyzed 23 longitudinal studies to quantify the dose-response relationship between transit noise and cardiovascular events. The meta-analysis revealed that for every 10 dB increment of road noise, the risk of heart failure increased by 5% and stroke by 3.4%. It established that these risks are often linear and begin at noise levels as low as 35-40 dB(A), well below typical regulatory mitigation thresholds.

Please refer to Table 11-1, Section MM-NOI 1-3c, in Section 11.0 (Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program) of the Final EIR: Final EIR for the Districts Healthy Living Campus Master Plan 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: Monday, April 20, 2026 11:41 AM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Cc: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Marc Wiener <[email protected]>; Joy Ford <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]> Subject: California Public Records Act Request to BCHD and Public Comment All Agencies

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
California Public Records Act Request to BCHD and Public Comment City Councils, City Attorneys, Planning Commissioners

FACT BASE BACKGROUND
The following is a summary from the BCHD FEIR for the HLC demonstrating that BCHD plans to subject surrounding neighborhoods and campus users to dangerous noise levels:

Threshold Exceedance: Construction is expected to last over five years and will exceed Federal Transit Authority (FTA) noise thresholds for both daily and 30-day average residential standards.

Reason for Unavoidable Impact: The extreme height of the proposed buildings and the site's position on a hill make standard noise barriers (limited to 31 feet) ineffective at higher elevations, meaning noise cannot be fully mitigated for nearby sensitive receptors.

Regulatory Context: Because these impacts cannot be reduced to "less than significant" levels, the BCHD Board of Directors had to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to approve the project, acknowledging that its public benefits outweigh these unavoidable environmental costs.

Health Damages: BCHD's now disgraced environmental consultant Wood PLC apparently provided guidance to BCHD to ignore the peer-reviewed health damages provided by commenters.

Further, dozens of peer-reviewed studies of health damages from BCHD's planned noise levels were ignored by BCHD and its now disgraced oil-field services company that prepared the EIR. As an example:

Summary of Research Findings
Cardiovascular Impact: Chronic exposure to transportation noise (road, rail, and aircraft) triggers a "noise reaction model" where sound activates the sympathetic nervous system and the HPA axis. This leads to elevated stress hormones (cortisol, adrenaline), vascular inflammation, and oxidative stress. Meta-analyses consistently show a 2–5% increase in the risk of ischemic heart disease and stroke for every 10 dB(A) increase in long-term noise.

Metabolic Disorders: Noise exposure is strongly linked to Type 2 diabetes and obesity. One major study found that a 10 dB increase in road traffic noise was associated with a 17% increase in obesity and an 11% increase in diabetes risk.

Sleep and Mental Health: Noise is a primary cause of fragmented sleep, reducing REM and slow-wave sleep phases essential for recovery. This disruption is a precursor to hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

Cognitive Development: In children, chronic transit noise exposure is associated with impaired reading comprehension, memory loss, and hyperactivity, with risk increasing by 9–11% per 10 dB(A).

APA Bibliography & Summaries
Cai, Y.
,
Ramakrishnan, R.
, &
Rahimi, K.
(2021). Long-term exposure to traffic noise and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International, 146, 106303.

This longitudinal study investigated the impact of road, rail, and aircraft noise on weight gain and obesity over an eight-year period. The findings demonstrated that road traffic noise, in particular, was significantly associated with increases in Body Mass Index (BMI) and waist circumference. The study suggests that noise-induced stress leads to cortisol release, which promotes central fat accumulation, identifying noise as a modifiable risk factor for metabolic disease.

Münzel, T.
, Schmidt, F. P., Steven, S., Herzog, J., Daiber, A., & Sørensen, M. (2018).

Environmental noise and the cardiovascular system. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 71(6), 688-697.

Stansfeld, S. A., & Clark, C. (2015). Health effects of noise exposure in children. Current Environmental Health Reports, 2(2), 171-178.

Focusing on younger populations, this study reviewed the cognitive and physiological impacts of transit noise in school and home settings. The research found that chronic exposure to aircraft and road noise was linearly associated with impaired reading comprehension and recognition memory. The study highlights that children are particularly vulnerable as they lack the coping mechanisms adults use to mitigate the psychological stress of a noisy environment.

It established that these risks are often linear and begin at noise levels as low as 35-40 dB(A), well below typical regulatory mitigation thresholds.

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: PRR; Kevin Cody; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk; James Light; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; info; Garth Meyer; [email protected]
Subject: Re: CPRA - loan financing for all ALLCOVE requirements Date: Sunday, June 21, 2026 8:55:58 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Despite the simple fact that VOTERS REFUSED TO PAY FOR ALLCOVE IN MEASURE

BC - BCHD PLANS TO FORCE VOTERS/RESIDENT-TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR ALLCOVE AGAINST THEIR STATED INTENTION.

CPRA to BCHD: Where in Measure BC did BCHD disclose that an adverse outcome would lead to FORCED PAYMENT BY VOTERS?
On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 10:38 AM PRR <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mr. Nelson,
Please see below (in red) for the District’s response to your public records requests received 6/1/26 that reads:

Provide documents that reflect any loan obligations of the District associated with ALLCOVE There are no responsive records.

Provide documents demonstrating any expected borrowing by the District for any ALLCOVE purpose, operations, building, materials, etc.

Please see attached Project Funding Update slide from the June 8, 2026 Finance Committee Presentation
Provide documents demonstrating the most recent total of all expected costs of developing the ALLCOVE facility
Please see Project Overview - allcove Beach Cities section in the attached CEO Report – May 2026
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.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2026 2:46 PM
To: PRR <[email protected]>
Subject: CPRA - loan financing for all ALLCOVE requirements

EXTERNAL EMAIL - CAUTION
Provide documents that reflect any loan obligations of the District associated with

ALLCOVE
Provide documents demonstrating any expected borrowing by the District for any ALLCOVE purpose, operations, building, materials, etc.

Provide documents demonstrating the most recent total of all expected costs of developing the ALLCOVE facility