1 Emily Bodkin
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 4:23 PM
To: Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt; James Light Cc: CityClerk; Joy Ford
Subject: OPPOSE ITEM L.1 — Proposed PI-2 Spot Zoning for BCHD/Sunrise PRIVATE Development Categories: Emily, Khatirah
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Good afternoon Mayor and Councilmembers:
We oppose Item L.1 as currently written and urge the Council to reject and remove the proposed PI-2 land-use designation entirely.
The agenda packet contains a material contradiction. The staff report states that the Council directed the FAR for Public Institutional properties to remain unspecified and that action on changes to Public Institutional properties was deferred. However, Attachment 4 continues to include PI-2 and associates it with a 1.25 FAR.
PI-2 should not be adopted for BCHD or any other property. Creating a second Public Institutional designation with substantially greater development potential is unnecessary, inequitable, and invites preferential treatment of selected properties.
The BCHD Prospect Avenue property should not receive greater development rights than other similarly situated P-CF properties. The proposed PI-2 designation appears designed to benefit the BCHD/Sunrise development, even though the property is surrounded by residential neighborhoods and would impose significant impacts on nearby residents.
The City should not adopt a land-use category that allows selected public properties to receive greater development rights than other comparable properties without clear, objective, and uniformly applied standards. Doing so raises serious concerns about unequal treatment and impermissible spot zoning.
Please:
1. Remove PI-2 entirely from the Land Use Element.
2. Do not assign PI-2 to BCHD or any other property.
3. Assign all former P-CF properties, including BCHD, to PI-1.
4. Correct all tables, maps, and references in Item L.1 that include PI-2 or a 1.25 FAR.
5. Continue Item L.1 if these changes cannot be completed before adoption.
The Council should not approve PI-2 under any circumstances. BCHD should be treated consistently with all other similarly situated Public Institutional properties.
Please reject Item L.1 as written and remove PI-2 entirely. 2 Respectfully,
Marcie Guillermo
Redondo Beach Resident