L1 - BLUE FOLDER — Redondo Beach City Council, August 4, 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
August 4, 2026
L.1 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL

PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT, ZONING ORDINANCE, LOCAL COASTAL

PROGRAM, AND COASTAL LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTING

ORDINANCE AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE FOCUSED GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED AMENDED C-2 AND
C-2-PD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ROOF TOP DINING

REGULATIONS
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2608-066 ADOPTING AN

ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2023050732)

FOR THE REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE,

ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED C-2 AND C-2-PD

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AMENDMENTS AND ROOF TOP DINING

REGULATIONS WITHIN THE ARTESIA AND AVIATION CORRIDOR

AREA PLAN
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2608-067 UPDATING

THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO IMPLEMENT A LAND

USE PLAN, GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
THAT SERVE AS THE FRAMEWORK TO EXPRESS THE COMMUNITY’S

DESIRED FUTURE FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OVER THE
SUBSEQUENT 20-30 YEARS
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2608-068 AMENDING THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM TO MAKE CONSISTENT AND IMPLEMENT THE CITY’S

UPDATED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND DIRECTING

STAFF TO SUBMIT THE AMENDED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN TO THE

COASTAL COMMISSION
INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. CC-3314-26 AMENDING TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING, CHAPTER 2 ZONING AND LAND

USE OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR

CONSISTENCY WITH AND TO IMPLEMENT THE UPDATE TO THE
CITY’S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT INCLUSIVE OF THE

LAND USE PLAN, GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION

MEASURES
INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. CC-3315-26 AMENDING TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING, CHAPTER 5 COASTAL LAND USE

PLAN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE OF THE REDONDO BEACH

MUNICIPAL CODE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH AND TO IMPLEMENT
THE UPDATE TO THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT

INCLUSIVE OF THE LAND USE PLAN, GOALS, POLICIES, AND

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

PROCEDURES

1. Open the public hearing, take testimony

2. Close the public hearing

3. Adopt Resolution No. CC-2608-066, adopting an Addendum to the Certified Program Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2023050732) for the Redondo Beach Focused General Plan Update, Zoning Ordinance update and Local Coastal Program Amendment

4. Adopt Resolution No. CC-2608-067, amending the General Plan Land Use Element

5. Adopt Resolution No. CC-2608-068, amending the Coastal Land Use Plan of the City’s Local Coastal Program

6. Introduce for first reading Ordinance No. CC-3314-26, amending Title 10, Chapter 2 Zoning and Land Use of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code

7. Introduce for first reading Ordinance No. CC-3315-26, amending Title 10, Chapter 5 Coastal Land Use Plan Implementing Ordinance of the Redondo Municipal Code
CONTACT: MARC WIENER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
• Public Communications
From: LINDA Zelik
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: BCHD/Sunrise private developmentItem L-1
Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 10:47:38 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor, City Council and City Attorney;
Please do not allow the BCHD board intimidate you into allowing this unfair and illegal action to "spot up zone" this property TO 1.25 FAR! We, as a long time residents living in the surrounding area, will be adversely affected by, not only the noise and pollution during building, but also will be forever impacted by the noise and increased traffic density. This will endanger the safety and wellbeing of children at Towers and many other nearby schools.

BCHD is surrounded by residential homes. Many other P-CF are in more commercial areas with far less negative impact on surrounding neighbors.

ALL other P-CF SITES have the legal 0.75 FAR density.

PLEASE do the right and legal thing in opposing this monstrosity to go forward.

OTHERWISE WE WILL BE OBLIGED TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION!
Sincerely, Linda and Joe Zelik
From: sinsheimer
To: CityClerk
Subject: Oppose Item L-1 (8/4/26)
Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 11:11:04 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney
It is unfair and illegal for the City to spot upzone the BCHD Prospect Ave site (assigning it to the new PI-2 zoning) when other similarly situated P-CF properties were all assigned to PI-1 zoning. PI-2 BCHD can get up to 550,000-sf of buildings with FAR 1.25 density). ALL OTHER P-CF SITES SUFFER WITH 0.75 FAR density and have much smaller development potential. BCHD is surrounded by residential homes. Many other P-CF are in more commercial areas with far less negative impact on surrounding neighbors.

The Council's January 20th 2026 meeting only considered the BCHD private Sunrise development for FAR 1.25 spot upzoning. No other P-CF was analyzed. This followed BCHD's threat to sue the City with taxpayer funds.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise is given benefit over RBUSD/Kensington.

If any P-CF site is assigned to PI-2 zoning, then ALL must be. City taxpayers should NEVER be restricted from using their property for the fullest benefit. The City's action discriminates AGAINST taxpayers who own the P-CF properties and discriminates against Kensington who is also a PRIVATE ASSISTED LIVING on PUBLIC LAND.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land, while local residents pay the taxes.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you,
Jeanne Sinsheimer
Long Time Redondo Beach Resident
1915 Spreckels lane
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Sent from my iPad
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 8:23:41 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development
Mayor, Council, City Attorney
It is unfair and illegal for the City to spot upzone the BCHD Prospect Ave site (assigning it to the new PI-2 zoning) when other similarly situated P-CF properties were all assigned to PI-1 zoning. PI-2 BCHD can get up to 550,000-sf of buildings with FAR 1.25 density). ALL OTHER P-CF SITES SUFFER WITH

0.75 FAR density and have much smaller development potential. BCHD is surrounded by residential homes. Many other P-CF are in more commercial areas with far less negative impact on surrounding neighbors.

The Council's January 20th 2026 meeting only considered the BCHD private Sunrise development for FAR 1.25 spot upzoning. No other P-CF was analyzed.

This followed BCHD's threat to sue the City with taxpayer funds.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

Further, if any P-CF site is assigned to PI-2 zoning, then ALL must be. City taxpayers should NEVER be restricted from using their property for the fullest benefit. The City's action discriminates AGAINST taxpayers who own the P-CF properties and discriminates against Kensington who is also a PRIVATE ASSISTED LIVING on PUBLIC LAND.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

From: William Shanney
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 10:18:29 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The Council's January 20th 2026 meeting only considered the BCHD private Sunrise development for FAR 1.25 spot upzoning. No other P-CF was analyzed.

This followed BCHD's threat to sue the City with taxpayer funds.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

William and Vivian Shanney
From: [email protected]
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 10:18:33 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Mayor, Council, City Attorney
It is unfair and illegal for the City to spot upzone the BCHD Prospect Ave site (assigning it to the new PI-2 zoning) when other similarly situated P-CF properties were all assigned to PI-1 zoning. PI-2 BCHD can get up to 550,000-sf of buildings with FAR 1.25 density). ALL OTHER PCF SITES SUFFER WITH 0.75 FAR density and have much smaller development potential.

BCHD is surrounded by residential homes. Many other P-CF are in more commercial areas with far less negative impact on surrounding neighbors.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

Long time South Bay residents,
George & Pam Afremow
From: M. Nava
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 10:36:47 AM
Some people who received this message 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.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land.

Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

Marcio Nava
From: Danny Fink
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 12:08:31 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.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Carl Paquette
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 4:31:21 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

Carl D. Paquette
From: Sharon
To: SHARON BURNS; CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford
Subject: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development Date: Sunday, August 2, 2026 7:41:30 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.

The Council's January 20th 2026 meeting only considered the BCHD private Sunrise development for FAR 1.25 spot upzoning. No other P-CF was analyzed.

This followed BCHD's threat to sue the City with taxpayer funds.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you,
Sharon Burns
District 2
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment 7/21/26 Non-Agenda: Objection to BCHD Spot Upzoning Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 4:20:30 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BCHD is being spot upzoned by the City of Redondo Beach following litigation threats.

BCHD is not a Redondo Beach agency. It is a regional agency that services 19 cities in LA County. 100% of the damages caused by BCHD accrue to Torrance and Redondo Beach residents while the benefits to same are 1/100th or less.

Clearly, P-CF Kensington is being damaged by BCHD's spot upzoning for Sunrise. BCHD CEO testified at Council that Sunrise REQUIRED FAR 1.25 OR IT WOULD PULL OUT FROM ITS BCHD DEAL. Sunrise should not be provided with a spot upzoning benefit over Kensington. Further, EVERY OTHER P-CF must be upzoned to FAR 1.25 for equity to the TAXPAYERS of REDONDO BEACH. We the taxpayers are disadvantaged with the need for another Article 27 election if the City damages us via spot upzoning of BCHD.

The January 20 2026 presentation by the Planning Department is compelling, and damning evidence that BCHD was rewarded only for threatening to sue the City with a SPOT UPZONING to FAR 1.25.

Example the record. Only BCHD was singled out for FAR upzoning in P-CF zoning. Only BCHD. Kensington is P-CF also. Kensington is a 100% private commercial development on taxpayer owned land. It is 100% EQUALLY SITUATED with BCHD. Further, the rest of the P-CF land should be fully available for FAR 1.25, OR, BCHD MUST BE KEPT AT THE

0.75 FAR of base P-I.

The City and BCHD developed the spot upzoning record by their own actions. No other P-CF parcels were even considered. Only the SPOT UPZONED BCHD. BCHD requested an illegal act on the record and was rewarded after spending tens or hundreds of thousands in taxpayer funds on lawyers to sue the City.

FYI to Impacted Residents Surrounding BCHD - You can ask BCHD for the TRUTH about CEO Bakaly's apparent misstatement with an email to [email protected] CEO Bakaly stated to the Redondo Beach Council that if the BCHD spot upzoning to FAR 1.25 <that would allow for about 550,000 square feet of development> was NOT APPROVED, then Sunrise Assisted Living would back out of its 217 unit "deal".

Here is full text of BCHD CEO Bakaly speaking at the 7/7/26 Council meeting claiming Sunrise must have FAR 1.25 for dense development.
https://youtu.be/c84JAlOnE9k?t=19341
Sunrise is demolishing 150,000-sf of the existing 250,000-sf prior to building the 217 unit private development on leased public land with a 99 year leasehold. Based on BCHD studies, due to facility rent costs and local need, 80% of the facility will be filled with NONRESIDENTS of the District based on uniform statistical measure.

Further, according to industry research below, no recent Sunrise facility exceeds 1000-sf average per until, meaning that we should expect a completed Sunrise project to be roughly the legacy 100,000-sf plus no more than 220,000-sf of new build. That is an FAR of roughly

0.71 (320,000/450,000). Sunrise should have NO LEGITIMATE BUSINESS INTEREST in FAR 1.25 as claimed by BCHD CEO Bakaly.

The BCHD Board owes the RESIDENT-TAXPAYER OWNERS of the District the TRUTH IN THIS MATTER. Sunrise has NO LEGITIMATE INTEREST in a FAR 1.25 Spot Upzoning of the current FAR 0.58 BCHD Site.

Development Living floor area Units Average sf/unit
Long Beach 80,000 90 889
Manhattan Beach 76,500 95 805
Glendale 81,000 84 964
Cupertino 81,000 90 900
Orange 75,000 90 833
Redwood City 79,000 88 898
Oceanside 78,000 90 867
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Joy Ford; Mike Witzansky
Subject: Public Comment Next RBCC Mtg: Why is CM Obagi Supporting a Plan to Limit the Buildout of City and School Sites
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 3:29:43 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

CM Obagi is on the record stating that he doesn't want to limit the value of public land. Yet, he fully supports spot upzoning only ONE SINGLE P-CF parcel because BCHD threatened to sue. The Cty and School District own all the rest of the P-CF. THEY MUST ALL BE UPGRADED TO FAR 1.25. There is NO REASON TO PUNISH City and School District taxpayers while benefiting BCHD with a SPOT UPZONING JUST BECAUSE BCHD HIRED A PRO-DEVELOPMENT LAWYER WITH TAXPAYER FUNDING!
Further, CM Obagi supports the same spot upzoning for P-SF, where ONLY the City-leased site "Annex" gets FAR 1.25. ALL P-SF also deserves the same flexibility.

IT'S TIME TO WALK THE TALK! ALL THE FARs GO UP, OR NONE OF THEM GO UP.

The following base engineering diagram is extracted from BCHD's Conditional Use Permit Filing at the City of Redondo Beach (2022).

IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE 4-STORY
HOSPITAL IS 51.5-FT TALL
The "Penthouse" is a single 952-sf room. It and the mechanical room it sits on are considered "roof projections" by BCHD's own architectural and engineering consultants and BCHD's CEO used his delegated Board of Directors authority to file 51.5-ft as the height of the 4-story Hospital at the City of Redondo Beach in 2022.

IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT - UNLESS BCHD LIED TO THE CITY OF

REDONDO BEACH IN ITS FILING

SO WHY DOES BCHD CONTINUE TO LIE TO THE MEDIA REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THE HOSPITAL?
What is the CEO's motivation to cover up his prior filing at the City? Why is the truth so damning?
This simple diagram, coupled with BCHD's own California Public Records Act response demonstrate that 99.7% of all square feet of buildings on the BCHD site are at 51.5-ft tall or SHORTER. The average building height (weighted by square feet of floor space) is less than 40-feet tall.

BCHD'S CEO'S MEDIA RECORD ON HOSPITAL HEIGHT
The BCHD CEO cannot seem to help himself. He repeatedly lies to the Easy Reader News regarding the 51.5-foot height (per BCHD's own Pre-CUP filing and CERTIFIED FEIR) of the 4-story hospital.

The CEO lied in the EasyReader - NOT ONCE - BUT TWICE. WHY THE COVERUP? CEO BAKALY MEDIA LIE #1 - BCHD seeks “Expressions of Interest” for campus site, ER News July 3, 2025
“This is a lot smaller and we hope to get lots of interest,” said Tom Bakaly, BCHD chief executive. “It’s far less cumbersome. It’s much more of a clear slate.” The request calls for Floor-Area-Ratio of no larger than 1.25 – meaning the amount of square-footage that may be built per the equivalent in ground space. The campus’ current F.A.R. is under 1.0. Height is to be limited to 60 feet – that of the four-story main hospital building, not counting its tower.

FACT: THE 4-STORY HOSPITAL IS 51.5-FEET - NOT 60-FEET.

CEO BAKALY MEDIA LIE #2 - Beach Cities Health District board chooses Sunrise, to evict Silverado residents in one year ER News June 8, 2026 Is 51.5 feet correct for the wings (of the 4-story hospital building)? "I don't know" Bakaly said.

The CEO used his BOARD-DELEGATED AUTHORITY to file the
Conditional Use Permit Application at the City of Redondo Beach. Clearly the CEO KNOWS the correct height of the hospital - yet - he continues his cover-up and lies.

THIS PATTERN OF LIES TO THE PUBLIC CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO

CONTINUE
The CEO executed the CERTIFIED FEIR for the Board with delegated authority.

The CEO filed the Pre-CUP application at the City of Redondo Beach using Board-delegated authority.

Yet the CEO continues to either lie directly about the height of the 4-story hospital building, or, he claims no knowledge of his own, authorized filing at the CITY OF REDONDO BEACH.

BCHD pays EXECUTIVES like the CEO 20 cents of EVERY DOLLAR SPENT at BCHD. They CANNOT be allowed to LIE TO RESIDENT-TAXPAYERS! As public agencies and organizations that review BCHD, you need to support the resident-taxpayers and FORCE BCHD TO STOP LYING about the height of the buildings!

51.5-feet OR SHORTER is the height of 311,000 of the 312,000-sf of the campus structures.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Sean Scully; Marc Wiener; Mike Witzansky; Joy Ford; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Paige Kaluderovic; Garth Meyer; Scott Behrendt
Subject: Public Comment: General Plan Materials Must be Expunged of P-I, PI-1, PI-2 references Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 12:24:07 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Based on the Council's decision and commitment not to place P-I land use, PI-1 zoning and PI-2 zoning on the ballot this fall for Article 27 approval, all references to P-I land use and PI-1, PI-2 zoning categorizations need to be expunged from the General Plan and General Plan materials incorporated into the Plan prior to any Council vote. Currently PI, PI-1 and PI-2 appear in the materials that were sent out in the Agenda Packet.

From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Mike Witzansky; Joy Ford; Marc Wiener
Cc: CityClerk; [email protected]; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Garth Meyer
Subject: Public Comment: The Proposed PI-1 and PI-2 Zoning in the General Plan demonstrate prima facie spot upzoning for BCHD in PI-2 after threat of Litigation
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2026 8:01:37 AM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Record All Agencies and the Local Redondo Beach BCHD homes According to the public record in the City of Redondo Beach Council agenda for 8/4/26 , the City states that PI-1 and PI-2 zoning are IDENTICAL, except for density, and PI-2 (BCHD's Spot Upzoning) is nearly TWICE as dense as PI-1:

There is clearly, word for word, no difference in use between PI-1 and PI-2.

If PI-1 and PI-2 have identical uses then PI-2 is demonstrated to be a politically motivated spot zoning and is illegal.

PI-2 has no differentiation from PI-1, other than the City allows nearly double the density. Further, the City has demonstrated in its January 20, 2026 meeting that the only parcel that was considered for FAR 1.25 (the PI-2) was Beach Cities Health District following an open litigation threat to the Council by BCHD. Clearly, PI-2 was developed to spot upzone BCHD.

Further PI-1 has an up to FAR 0.75 while PI-2 has a full 1.25 by right according the wording in the City's table reproduced above.

As a property owner and taxpayer within 1/4-mile of the proposed PI-2 BCHD parcel, I have legal standing in this matter and will be damaged both in terms of property value reduction and resident health based on BCHD's planned actions that are being sanctioned by the City only after threat of litigation by the City.

Spot Upzoning is ILLEGAL and so it PI-2 for BCHD. The January 20, 2026 RBCC record is clear, only BCHD was even considered for upzoning - and that is the DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING.

From: Bryan Stone
To: CityClerk
Cc: James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt Subject: Public Input on Item L.1 – Support for C-2/C-2-PD Amendments and Rooftop Dining with Call for Broader Property-Rights Reforms
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 2:37:44 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Members of the City Council:

I am writing to provide input on Item L.1, the public hearing regarding amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Program, and related documents, including Resolutions CC-2608-066 and CC-2608-067. I support the proposed changes that increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio from 0.60 to 1.50, raise the height limit to 45 feet (three stories), and explicitly allow rooftop dining in the C-2 and C-2-PD zones within the Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan. These adjustments expand what property owners may do with their land and remove prior barriers to commercial activity. Allowing greater intensity and rooftop dining is a positive step that respects private property rights, encourages voluntary investment, and lets market demand, not outdated restrictions, shape the corridor’s future.

These reforms will help attract private reinvestment, create jobs, and strengthen the local tax base without requiring new public spending. They also promote more efficient use of existing commercial land, support small businesses and restaurants, and foster vibrant, walkable gathering places that benefit residents and visitors alike.

Activating rooftops for dining adds community amenities while making better use of already developed space.

At the same time, I urge the Council to view these amendments as only a partial improvement. The extensive new design mandates (mandatory transparency percentages, ceiling heights, step-backs, materials, and shade requirements), the continued reliance on an Administrative Use Permit for rooftop dining, and the limitation of the reforms to a single corridor still represent significant government control over private land use. True respect for property rights would make higher density and outdoor/rooftop dining by-right citywide, subject only to clear, objective health and safety standards rather than discretionary approvals and aesthetic prescriptions.

I ask that you adopt the resolutions and introduce the ordinances as presented, while directing staff to return with broader recommendations that further reduce zoning barriers across Redondo Beach’s commercial areas. Local self-reliance and economic vitality are best advanced when owners, entrepreneurs, and customers, not detailed municipal blueprints, determine how commercial property is used.

Thank you for considering this input.

Sincerely,
Bryan Stone
22511 Fisk Lane
Redondo Beach
From: Frank Briganti
To: CityClerk
Subject: Re: L-1 Oppose
Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 9:27:05 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Oppose L-1 motion on 8/4
Would you forwarrd this to all council members & city attorney.

Thanks frank
Sent from my iPad
From: Darryl Boyd
To: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Cc: Stephen Sprengel; Mike Witzansky; Andrew Winje; CityClerk; James Light; Paige Kaluderovic; Joy Ford Subject: Re: Public Comment: Serious concerns over BCHD lack of construction protocols and failure of responsibility as a CEQA lead agency
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 10:43:47 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

City Clerk, please add my comments to the Public Record.

Once again I am in agreement with Mark Nelson. We have serious public safety, noise, and traffic issues on N Prospect Ave. The 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents are the most vulnerable and impacted daily and nightly.

We are beyond the point of frustration here. This street and Beryl Heights neighborhood has become a ghetto with constant speeding and reckless driving, loud illegal and purposely backfiring exhausts, loud audio with cell phone calls, booming bass, and rap music. Traffic backs up in front of our homes and we get to hear all of it. Drivers are gunning off of green lights, and just grinding not driving, through the N Prospect Ave. corridor. At times it sounds and looks like the 405 freeway is on top of us. Other times it sounds like a landing strip at LAX. And then there is the most recent nickname " The Prospect Dragstrip".

BCHD continues to disrespect us, doing whatever they want and forcing their will upon us, yesterday allowing a huge truck delivering heavy equipment and construction material to park on N Prospect across from our homes, running at idle for an hour with over 80DB nearing 90DB of noise carrying over to our homes. Every sound, even people's voices from the parking lot across the street carries and bounces off of the 514 building straight over at us here.

See the videos below of the truck illegally parked on N Prospect Ave. left at idle, delivering to BCHD. It's not just the noise, this is a public safety issue.

BCHD-TruckDeliveryProspect1.mp4
BCHD-TruckDeliveryProspect2.mp4
Because there is no noise remediation in place, no traffic calming devices installed like speed tables, and laws and ordinances at the State, County, and City levels go un-inforced, we get pummeled with noise day and night. There is no longer "Quality of Life" here. Many of us have lived here for over 30 years. We recognize the many negative changes that have impacted our legal right to peaceful enjoyment of our homes and our properties. This Mayor and City Council need to stop shilling for Tom Bakaly and BCHD and step up for Residents and their constituents. Our District 3 Council Member who has been an absentee and not representing us for over a year now needs to either get involved and step it up for us or be replaced in the next coming election cycle. We need our Police Department to start enforcing traffic laws and ordinances over here more consistently.

These are serious issues that need immediate resolution. You all work for US, the Residents of Redondo Beach. Our taxes pay your salaries. We are tired of excuses. Please step things up and do what we pay you to do and what you all know needs to be done here. We watch our tax dollars being wasted all over the City for misplaced priorities. Stop delaying and denying our legal right to live in a safe, healthy, and peaceful environment.

Darryl Boyd
bcc: 500-600 N Prospect Ave. Residents
and other concerned Redondo Beach Residents
Darryl Boyd - Broker/Owner, MRP, SFR, CPTS
Specialized Court Services:

Expert Witness - Probate & Trust Valuation Disputes
Substitute Administration - Probate Cases
DARRYL B. BOYD, BROKER
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310) 490-0139 Direct cellular
[email protected]
DarrylBoydBroker.com
CA DRE #01178871
On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 8:00 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

This is the second time that we know of that BCHD contractors blocked one lane of Prospect for 30 minutes or more for loading. BCHD is planning 6 months or more of demolition in 2027-28 and then up to 4 years of construction 2028-2031. BCHD's CEO is uninformed regarding the BCHD certified FEIR that requires trucks and loading to occur ON THE CAMPUS as well as the certified FEIR ban on heavy truck traffic down Beryl St past Towers Elementary.

It's clear that BCHD is incapable of controlling construction activity, noise and traffic.Before accidents occur from BCHD's lack of permit adherence, the City needs to step up enforcement.

Furthermore, BCHD's vendors and contractors park across from residential homes, with 85dB noise levels and and toxic air emissions.

The event on 8/3/26 went from before 10AM to 1030 blocking a northbound lane. The prior event also blocked northbound traffic, but for a longer duration.

This is unacceptable for BCHD's current construction in the 510 N Prospect building.

BCHD is the lead CEQA agency and is responsible for measurement, monitoring and mitigation of construction impacts and adherence to both certified FEIR restrictions as well as, enforcement of City construction rules.

We need the City to intervene, and intervene immediately. BCHD and its vendors cannot disrupt the neighborhood through 2031 while it learns how to act like a lead agency.

BCHD Vendors Block Prospect.MP4
From: Darryl Boyd
To: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
Cc: CityClerk; Mike Witzansky; Joy Ford; Marc Wiener; CityClerk; [email protected]; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Garth Meyer Subject: Re: Public Comment: The Proposed PI-1 and PI-2 Zoning in the General Plan demonstrate prima facie spot upzoning for BCHD in PI-2 after threat of Litigation
Date: Sunday, August 2, 2026 12:39:29 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I agree with Mark Nelson and request that my response is also added to the Public Record.

My property, property value, my mental & physical health as well as my family's mental & physical health, and our right to peaceful enjoyment of our property & our quality of life are under direct threat by the actions of this City Council & Beach Cities Health District. I too have legal standing in this issue as do the Residents of 500-600 N Prospect Ave. in this attempt at ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Reconsider what you are trying to force upon us. We will not stand for it or accept it.

Darryl Boyd
bcc: 500-600 N Prospect Ave Residents
& other concerned Redondo Beach Residents
Darryl Boyd - Broker/Owner, MRP, SFR, CPTS
Specialized Court Services:

Expert Witness - Probate & Trust Valuation Disputes
Substitute Administration - Probate Cases
DARRYL B. BOYD, BROKER
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310) 490-0139 Direct cellular
[email protected]
DarrylBoydBroker.com
CA DRE #01178871
On Sat, Aug 1, 2026, 8:01 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:

There is clearly, word for word, no difference in use between PI-1 and PI-2.

If PI-1 and PI-2 have identical uses then PI-2 is demonstrated to be a politically motivated spot zoning and is illegal.

Further PI-1 has an up to FAR 0.75 while PI-2 has a full 1.25 by right according the wording in the City's table reproduced above.

Spot Upzoning is ILLEGAL and so it PI-2 for BCHD. The January 20, 2026 RBCC record is clear, only BCHD was even considered for upzoning - and that is the DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING.

From: Phillips Lee
To: CityClerk
Subject: Reject BCHD"s custom spot upzoning
Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 7:02:24 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.

Reject BCHD's custom spot upzoning of P.I.-2 that allows over 500,000 sqft of buildings in the middle of residential Torrance and Redondo Beach neighborhoods.

Lee Phillips
From: Patty
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: Stop this project. The 3 beach cities pay taxes for an acute care hospital, not for a private for profit company to come in and destroy the neighborhood.

Date: Sunday, August 2, 2026 7:42:07 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.

SUBJECT: I OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development
Mayor, Council, City Attorney
It is unfair and illegal for the City to spot upzone the BCHD Prospect Ave site (assigning it to the new PI-2 zoning) when other similarly situated P-CF properties were all assigned to PI-1 zoning. PI-2 BCHD can get up to 550,000-sf of buildings with FAR 1.25 density). ALL OTHER P-CF SITES SUFFER WITH 0.75 FAR density and have much smaller development potential. BCHD is surrounded by residential homes. Many other P-CF are in more commercial areas with far less negative impact on surrounding neighbors.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER PCF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

Patricia Mintuj
From: Rosann Taylor
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: SUBJECT: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development
Date: Sunday, August 2, 2026 8:28:15 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
i concur with this letter.

Rosann Taylor
Diamond St. resident
Mayor, Council, City Attorney
It is unfair and illegal for the City to spot upzone the BCHD Prospect Ave site (assigning it to the new PI-2 zoning) when other similarly situated P-CF properties were all assigned to PI-1 zoning. PI-2 BCHD can get up to 550,000-sf of buildings with FAR 1.25 density). ALL OTHER P-CF SITES SUFFER WITH 0.75 FAR density and have much smaller development potential. BCHD is surrounded by residential homes. Many other P-CF are in more commercial areas with far less negative impact on surrounding neighbors.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.
--
Aloha!
♀

From: Stop BCHD
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: SUBJECT: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development
Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 6:50:25 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

SUBJECT: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development
Mayor, Council, City Attorney
It is unfair and illegal for the City to spot upzone the BCHD Prospect Ave site (assigning it to the new PI-2 zoning) when other similarly situated P-CF properties were all assigned to PI-1 zoning. PI-2 BCHD can get up to 550,000-sf of buildings with FAR 1.25 density). ALL OTHER P-CF SITES SUFFER WITH 0.75 FAR density and have much smaller development potential. BCHD is surrounded by residential homes. Many other P-CF are in more commercial areas with far less negative impact on surrounding neighbors.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

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; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: SUBJECT: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development
Date: Sunday, August 2, 2026 7:23:54 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.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living.

Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

Further, if any P-CF site is assigned to PI-2 zoning, then ALL must be. City taxpayers should NEVER be restricted from using their property for the fullest benefit. The City's action discriminates AGAINST taxpayers who own the PCF properties and discriminates against Kensington who is also a PRIVATE ASSISTED LIVING on PUBLIC LAND.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

Denise Dangelo
Resident of Redondo Beach
From: Stephen Parker
To: CityClerk; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; James Light; Joy Ford Subject: SUBJECT:OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development
Date: Monday, August 3, 2026 9:30:34 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The Council's January 20th 2026 meeting only considered the BCHD private Sunrise development for FAR 1.25 spot upzoning. No other P-CF was analyzed.

This followed BCHD's threat to sue the City with taxpayer funds.

Kensington, on RBUSD property, is situated exactly the same as Sunrise. It is P-CF zoned, and provides assisted living. Clearly BCHD/Sunrise if being illegally benefitted over RBUSD/Kensington.

BCHD is not even a Redondo Beach agency. It serves all of LA County SPA-8 by contract, an area of 1.4M people. It gives away the benefits of our local land and dumps the damages on local residents.

PI-2 should be abolished and BCHD should be assigned to PI-1 like ALL OTHER P-CF land. Any other action is ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING.

Thank you.

Redondo Beach City CouncilAugust 4, 2026

Redondo Beach City Council
August 4, 2026