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 18, 2026
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Public Communications
Why hedge and fence height are public safety items - per Council 7/21 meeting Quoted from the youtube transcript..
Legal Team - "department concerns included preserving sight lines for first responders, uh public safety concerns, whether that was traffic obstruction or crime prevention, and also AD ADA compliance requirements."
City Manager: "you've got the public safety element, whether it be police or fire, uh where front yard visibility is key for public safety."
Transportation Eng: "36 certainly would be helpful compared to the 42, especially if you're at a lot line with a with a hedge and you and the driver and the pedestrian cannot see each other."
Obagi (Councilmember) — safety as the reason not to raise the limit:
"once you hear every concern, public safety concern that every one of these department heads or departments voiced, you're like, wow, this is much this is much more significant than just going, you know, from 42 in to 6 feet." Closure Spike Analysis — Redondo Beach Code Enforcement Weekly closures of hedge, fence, and vegetation sightline cases since the Comcate migration (5/27/26) 5 5/25
1 6/1
1 6/8
2 6/15
6 6/22
5 6/29
4 7/6
0 7/13
3 7/20
4 7/27
6 8/3
36 8/10
36 closures
the week of 8/10 — 9.3x the average of
every other post-pause week (3.9/wk)
9 in 9 minutes
Properties on 3 streets closed 10:36–10:45 AM, 8/10 — a confirmed floor; more closures that day show only a date, no time of day. 14 blocks — the driving/walking distance between these 9 properties, confirmed by map.
Generic boilerplate — all 9 closed with the exact same sentence: "If you have any further issues in the future we encourage you to submit another issue." The flagship: 9 properties, 3 streets, 9 minutes — 8/10 Time Address Street
10:36 AM 1716 Marshallfield Ln Marshallfield
10:36 AM 1902 Pullman Ln A Pullman
10:41 AM 1922 Marshallfield Ln Marshallfield
10:41 AM 2004 Marshallfield Ln Marshallfield
10:42 AM 2011 Marshallfield Ln A Marshallfield
10:42 AM 2016 Marshallfield Ln Unit A Marshallfield
10:43 AM 2100 Marshallfield Ln Marshallfield
10:43 AM 2401 Marshallfield Ln Marshallfield
10:45 AM 2304 Clark Ln A Clark
Closures since the pause, by officer
Officer Closures Avg days open Median
Milca Venegas-Martinez 42 47.9 56
Norma Cook 15 3.8 3
Isabella Colindres 10 17.3 7
Milca Venegas-Martinez closures dated 8/10 specifically: 18 total. Some have exact timestamps (10:36–10:45 AM); others show only a closure date, no time of day.
Source: Access Redondo / Comcate case export, filtered to hedge/fence/vegetation sightline cases (RBMC §10-2.1524, §10-5.1524, §4-10.02(c)(1)), post-migration (5/27/26 onward). 7 non-enforcement cases excluded. n=73. Generated 2026-08-18.
Suspected Ghost Closures & Administrative Closures — Full Detail 57 of 73 total closures (78%) happened on 11 batch days. Where timestamps exist, they show same-minute processing, not review.
Suspected Ghost Closures — Minute-Level Timing
Four batch days have exact timestamps, not just a date. Same-minute closures across unrelated properties and streets — the clearest evidence that no individual inspection occurred. 5/27 — 4 cases in 18 minutes
Norma Cook
8:59 AM 1810 Huntington Ln
9:05 AM 1820 Huntington Ln
9:06 AM 2004 Huntington Ln A
9:17 AM 2107 Huntington Ln
7/08 — 3 cases in 10 minutes
Norma Cook
9:59 AM 1820 Pullman Ln
10:00 AM 1812 Pullman Ln A
10:09 AM 1804 Pullman Ln
8/10 — 9 cases in 9 minutes
Milca Venegas-Martinez
10:36 AM 1716 Marshallfield Ln
10:36 AM 1902 Pullman Ln A
10:41 AM 1922 Marshallfield Ln
10:41 AM 2004 Marshallfield Ln
10:42 AM 2011 Marshallfield Ln A
10:42 AM 2016 Marshallfield Ln Unit A
10:43 AM 2100 Marshallfield Ln
10:43 AM 2401 Marshallfield Ln
10:45 AM 2304 Clark Ln A
8/11 — 5 cases in 12 minutes
Norma Cook
3:13 PM 1818 Belmont Ln No 1
3:15 PM 1906 Belmont Ln
3:17 PM 1912 Belmont Ln A
3:24 PM 2000 Belmont Ln
3:25 PM 2002 Belmont Ln Unit A
Suspected Administrative Closures — All 11 Batch Days
Every day with 2+ same-day closures, 57 of 73 cases total (78%). The minute-level days above are drawn from this same set. 5/27 4 cases
Norma Cook
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
1810 Huntington Ln 1d
1820 Huntington Ln 1d
2004 Huntington Ln A 1d
2107 Huntington Ln 1d
6/23 2 cases
Milca Venegas-Martinez
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
1821 Huntington Ln A 28d
2021 Huntington Ln A 28d
6/29 2 cases
Milca Venegas-Martinez
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
2000 Huntington Ln 34d
2009 Huntington Ln A 34d
7/08 4 cases
Norma Cook
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
1804 Pullman Ln 1d
1812 Pullman Ln A 1d
1820 Pullman Ln 1d
2023 Harriman Ln 15d
7/23 2 cases
Isabella Colindres / Milca Venegas-Martinez
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
2117 Huntington Ln A 4d — Isabella Colindres
413 Avenue D 15d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
7/28 2 cases
Norma Cook
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
2013 Pullman Ln 4d
2017 Belmont Ln No A 4d
8/05 4 cases
Milca Venegas-Martinez
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
1757 Axenty Way 24d
1900 Clark Ln 17d
2023 Harriman Ln 12d
2101 Pullman Ln 12d
8/08 2 cases
Isabella Colindres
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
1909 Perkins Ln 29d
922 S Pacific Coast Hwy 39d
8/10 9 cases
Milca Venegas-Martinez
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
1206 Blossom Ln 62d
1307 Harkness Ln 62d
1601 Lomax Ln 56d
2210 Aviation Way 56d
2802 Vail Ave 69d
2808 Vail Ave 66d
2846 Pinckard Ave 55d
707 N Prospect Ave 66d
813 N Maria Ave 62d
8/11 22 cases
Norma Cook (5) / Milca Venegas-Martinez (17)
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
1818 Belmont Ln No 1 3d — Norma Cook
1906 Belmont Ln 3d — Norma Cook
1912 Belmont Ln A 3d — Norma Cook
2000 Belmont Ln 3d — Norma Cook
2002 Belmont Ln Unit A 3d — Norma Cook
1004 N Prospect Ave 57d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
1126 Vincent St 43d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
1716 Marshallfield Ln 34d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
1902 Pullman Ln A 34d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
1922 Marshallfield Ln 62d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2000 Nelson Ave Unit A 60d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2004 Marshallfield Ln 62d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2011 Marshallfield Ln A 62d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2016 Marshallfield Ln Unit A 62d — Milca Venegas-Martinez 2025 Bataan Rd 73d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2100 Marshallfield Ln 62d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2123 Robinson St 68d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2201 Bataan Rd 70d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2304 Clark Ln A 34d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2401 Marshallfield Ln 62d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
2511 Blossom Ln 70d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
818 S Juanita Ave 43d — Milca Venegas-Martinez
8/14 4 cases
Isabella Colindres
ADDRESS DAYS OPEN BEFORE CLOSING
1720 S Elena Ave 59d
1816 Belmont Ln 6d
1915 Belmont Ln 6d
2015 Belmont Ln A 20d
From: Mark Nelson
To: [email protected]; CityClerk; Garth Meyer
Subject: Public comment Beach Cities Health District destroying the canopy of trees Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 5:50:42 PM
Attachments: IMG_2159.MOV
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
So what is it that beach cities health district dislikes so much about trees? They've been taking down this tree all afternoon and you can see the piles of limbs behind it. Perhaps it's the canopy they dislike or the shade? Perhaps it's the exchange of carbon dioxide for oxygen? Whatever it is it's completely antithetical to the board of directors and their interest in planting trees. This simply reinforces the neighbor's case at Beach cities doesn't care about the health of surrounding neighbors.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Miles Burkart
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for 8/18/2026 Council Meeting — Blue Folder Submission (3 Files) Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:47:40 AM
Attachments: 01_Council-07-21-26_Safety-Testimony.pdf
02_Closure-Spike-Analysis.pdf
03_Closed-Cases-Evidence-Packet.pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear City Clerk,
Please accept the attached 3 PDF files as official public comment and supplemental backup material for the City Council meeting today, August 18, 2026. These files relate to Item J, Public Participation on Non-Agenda Items.
Files attached:
01_Council-07-21-26_Safety-Testimony.pdf
02_Closure-Spike-Analysis.pdf
03_Closed-Cases-Evidence-Packet.pdf
I request that they be included in the Blue Folder distribution and uploaded to the public agenda portal for council and public review.
Could you please reply to confirm receipt and successful distribution of all 3 files? Thank you for your assistance,
Miles Burkart
14-Year Resident
From: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Garth Meyer
Subject: Re: Public Comment All Agencies: We are holding the City of Redondo Beach ACCOUNTABLE for attempted SPOT UPZONING of BCHD"s Parcel
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 4:49:04 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Perhaps the City of Redondo Beach could invest in a resource to help it write proper Recitals? The League of California Cities (City Attorneys' Department) outlines strict standards for municipal drafters:
"Recitals are used to build the administrative record and demonstrate that the council considered relevant evidence... The recitals must clearly establish the legislative intent, authority, and factual foundation for the specific regulation.
Irrelevant or disconnected recitals undermine the ordinance by creating ambiguity or exposing the city to claims that the ordinance was enacted arbitrarily."
— League of California Cities, City Attorneys' Department Municipal Drafting Guidelines
Surely City Staff and Counsel can recognize that an Ordinance regarding Commercial land use and zoning cannot be built on a preference for Spot Upzoning a single parcel with Public-Institutional land use and zoning, even if the Mayor and Council don't.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 8:00 AM Stop BCHD <[email protected]> wrote:
The City is doing everything it can to destroy the neighborhoods surrounding the BCHD parcel by upzoning the site to a floor area ratio of 1.25. The site is currently built to FAR
0.58. BCHD CEO Bakaly testified to the Council that if the planned 100% private development didn't receive FAR 1.25, the developer would kill the deal. Why must the DEVELOPER HAVE A 550,000 SQFT DEVELOPMENT CAP? Property values surrounding the site are suppressed by the FAR 0.58 buildout. FAR 1.25 will further destroy property value, quality of life, and resident health.
On August 11, the Redondo Beach City Council approved an ordinance with an unrelated, irrelevant recital indicating preference for BCHD FAR 1.25. The ordinance was 100% focused on Commercial zoning, so the gratuitous BCHD WHEREAS was unrelated and surplusage.
We demonstrated that at the Council and built a litigation record should the recital ever see the light of day in use by BCHD or the City.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 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: Stop BCHD
To: Communications; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Garth Meyer
Subject: Re: Public Comment All Agencies: We are holding the City of Redondo Beach ACCOUNTABLE for attempted SPOT UPZONING of BCHD"s Parcel
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 2:41:08 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
The following is from the City of Redondo Beach recording of the 8/11/26 Council meeting.
Councilmember Obagi clearly and cogently explains what the Mayor denied - that is - the vote is about a very narrow Commercial land use/zoning issue. Thanks to CM Obagi, we have proof positive from an elected official that the recital (Whereas) that refers to Public Institutional land use and BCHD FAR 1.25 is irrelevant to the legislation. As such, it is clearly surplusage and should have been removed. CMs Obagi and Behrendt are lawyers...THEY KNOW BETTER than to pack irrelevant crap into recitals. https://youtu.be/ghFPQAJY-O4?t=9536
Thank you to CM Obagi for the clear explanation of the legislation and the irrelevance of the BCHD FAR 1.25 recital to the legislation.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 8:00 AM Stop BCHD <[email protected]> wrote:
The City is doing everything it can to destroy the neighborhoods surrounding the BCHD parcel by upzoning the site to a floor area ratio of 1.25. The site is currently built to FAR
0.58. BCHD CEO Bakaly testified to the Council that if the planned 100% private development didn't receive FAR 1.25, the developer would kill the deal. Why must the DEVELOPER HAVE A 550,000 SQFT DEVELOPMENT CAP? Property values surrounding the site are suppressed by the FAR 0.58 buildout. FAR 1.25 will further destroy property value, quality of life, and resident health.
On August 11, the Redondo Beach City Council approved an ordinance with an unrelated, irrelevant recital indicating preference for BCHD FAR 1.25. The ordinance was 100% focused on Commercial zoning, so the gratuitous BCHD WHEREAS was unrelated and surplusage.
We demonstrated that at the Council and built a litigation record should the recital ever see the light of day in use by BCHD or the City.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 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: [email protected]
To: CityClerk
Subject: SUBJECT: OPPOSE ITEM L-1 (8/4/26) DUE TO PI-2 ILLEGAL SPOT ZONING OF BCHD/Sunrise Private Development
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2026 3:53:44 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
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. DEBBIE CLARK