J.1 BLUE FOLDER — Redondo Beach City Council, September 8, 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
September 8, 2026
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
• Public Communications
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Alison Lamberson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 5:48 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 [Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening aƩachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote YES on advancing the approved Phase 1 modernizaƟon of Seaside Lagoon without delay. Please reject any aƩempt to pause or derail this project for unveƩed commercial wave pool concepts.

Seaside Lagoon sits on sovereign public trust Ɵdelands protected by Coastal Act SecƟon 30213. We must not sacrifice low-cost public recreaƟon, free parkland, and our $8M+ state grant for private commercial interests.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Alison Lamberson, Redondo Beach resident and homeowner District 2, Alta Vista Sent from my iPhone BCHD HLC Public-Comment Sentiment Summary | September 4, 2026 BCHD Healthy Living Campus
Public-Comment Sentiment Summary
Easy Reader News, The Beach Reporter, BCHD meeting transcripts, and Final EIR public comments Prepared September 4, 2026
Executive Summary
Bottom line. The largest and most complete comment repository—the 2021 Final EIR record—shows a strongly negative public-comment pattern regarding the Healthy Living Campus (HLC) and/or its environmental impacts. BCHD records 303 written submissions and 17 oral comments during the Draft EIR review period, for 320 submissions total. A screening classification of those 320 records produced 297 negative, 22 neutral/mixed or procedural, and 1 clearly positive submission: 92.8% negative, 6.9% neutral/mixed, and 0.3% positive.

Important limitation. These percentages describe the comments that were submitted; they are not a public-opinion poll. Commenters are self-selected, some individuals submitted multiple comments, organized groups participated, and CEQA comment periods naturally attract impact-focused criticism. Newspaper letters/comments and meeting testimony have the same self-selection issue.

Sentiment Table
Comment
source Corpus used Positive Neutral / mixed Negative Interpretation BCHD Final EIR /
Appendix N
320 Draft EIR submissions:
303 written + 17 oral
1 (0.3%) 22 (6.9%) 297 (92.8%) Exhaustive for the formal 2021 DEIR comment period; strongest
quantitative source.

Easy Reader News 16 HLC-specific
letters/comments located
in the retrieved web corpus
6 (37.5%) 1 (6.3%) 9 (56.3%) Non-exhaustive media sample; shows both organized support and
opposition.

The Beach
Reporter
HLC coverage and
quoted/summarized public
feedback located in
accessible archive copies
Not reliably
countable
Not reliably
countable
Negative concerns
repeatedly
reported
Archive copies summarize public
themes but do not expose a
complete, stable denominator of
individual comments.

BCHD meeting
transcripts
Consolidated BCHD
transcript file; HLC appears
hundreds of times across
meeting records
Not yet
exhaustively
speakercoded
Not yet
exhaustively
speakercoded
Opposition/impact
concerns are
frequent
Useful corroboration, but a defensible
percentage requires meeting-bymeeting speaker de-duplication and coding.

Quantifiable
combined corpus
FEIR + retrieved Easy
Reader sample (n=336)
7 (2.1%) 23 (6.8%) 306 (91.1%) Dominated by the FEIR because it supplies 320 of 336 coded records; do
not present as a resident poll.

Sources for the table
• Beach Cities Health District, Environmental Impact Report page: https://bchd.org/healthy-livingcampus/environmental-impact-report/ • California CEQAnet, SCH No. 2019060258, Final EIR record and Appendix N:
https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2019060258/5
• BCHD Final EIR, Chapter 8/9 and Table 8-1; Library source: “BCHD_FEIR_For Print_090221-high compressed (1).pdf.”
• BCHD Appendix N; Library source: “Appendix N-Comments on Draft EIR-compressed.pdf.” • BCHD consolidated meeting transcript source: “BCHD Transcripts (plain text).txt.” • Easy Reader News representative HLC letter/comment pages: 2/22/2018; 12/5/2019; 12/19/2019; 10/15/2020; 9/8/2021; 6/2/2022; 7/14/2022; 8/18/2022; 9/26/2024; 12/12/2024.

BCHD HLC Public-Comment Sentiment Summary | September 4, 2026 • Beach Reporter archive copies indexed through BCHD’s HLC/news archive, including January 2019 and June 2020 HLC coverage.

Coding Method
• Unit of analysis: one FEIR submission listed in Table 8-1 (not each sentence and not each agency response). This preserves BCHD’s own count of 303 written and 17 oral submissions. • Negative: opposes the HLC, urges rejection/reduction, or asserts adverse HLC impacts, deficiencies, risks, hazards, incompatibility, traffic/noise/air-quality effects, health effects, or inadequate mitigation. • Positive: clearly endorses proceeding with the HLC or the HLC/EIR without a material adverse-condition caveat. • Neutral/mixed: procedural or informational submissions, questions without a clear HLC/impact position, technical comments without a sufficiently clear overall stance, or conditional support that materially limits the project. • The FEIR percentages are a screening classification based on the complete Table 8-1 submission list and Chapter 9 response text. Ambiguous items were placed in neutral/mixed rather than forced into positive or negative.

What the Result Supports—and What It Does Not
Supported statement: “Among comments formally submitted during the 2021 Draft EIR review period, negative comments concerning the Healthy Living Campus and/or its impacts overwhelmingly predominated in this screening, at approximately 93% of submissions.”
Avoid: “93% of Beach Cities residents opposed the HLC.” The comment record is not a random or representative sample and cannot establish that proposition.

Media context: Easy Reader letters/comments show a much more mixed public-facing debate than the CEQA record.

The accessible Beach Reporter archive similarly reports repeated community concerns—traffic, height, neighborhood integration, community benefit and green space—while also reporting project revisions intended to answer those concerns. This difference is expected because CEQA comments are specifically solicited to identify deficiencies and impacts.

Recommended Next Step for a Publication-Grade Percentage For a fully reproducible appendix suitable for public distribution, the next version should include one row for every FEIR submission and every identified newspaper/transcript comment, with: date, commenter, source, comment ID/link, short stance rationale, positive/neutral/negative code, and a duplicate-commenter flag. That would allow both (1) submission-weighted percentages and (2) unique-commenter percentages, which is the better safeguard against prolific repeat commenters.
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Georgia <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 4:42 PM
To: James Light; Chadwick B. Castle
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Without Delay
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hello,
We are fortunate to live in District 2 and walk by the Seaside Lagoon all the time. Please move forward immediately with the approved Phase 1 modernization of the Seaside Lagoon.

Protect our State Funding: Millions in dedicated California State Parks grants carry strict deadlines. Any pause or redesign risks losing these funds and sticking local taxpayers with a bill.

Protect Public Parkland: Seaside Lagoon sits on public trust tidelands. The California Coastal Act, section 30213 protects low-cost public recreation. Public land must never be turned into a private commercial paywall.

Clean Water Compliance: Phase 1 installs the modern filtration system mandated by regional water and health boards to end ongoing discharge fines.

Please respect the public process, protect our tax dollars and keep Seaside Lagoon 100% public. Vote YES to advance Phase 1 now.

Respectfully,
Carmen Contreras Schadegg
Andrew Schadegg
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 4:41 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote YES on advancing the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon without delay.

Please reject any attempt to pause or derail this project for unvetted commercial wave pool concepts.

Seaside Lagoon sits on sovereign public trust tidelands protected by Coastal Act Section 30213. We must not sacrifice low-cost public recreation, free parkland, and our $8M+ state grant for private commercial interests.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Carrie Davis/South Redondo Beach/Alta Vista
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Colby Allerton <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 4:48 PM
To: James Light; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic Cc: Zein Obagi; CityClerk
Subject: Respectfully Develop Seaside Lagoon for the Public Interest and Redondo residents FIRST [You don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening aƩachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and City Councilmembers,
Please approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 without delay.

We don’t need more exclusive high fee addiƟons to our city, replacing exisƟng low cost or free waterfront opƟons.

The cost of living has become a terrible burden for much of the local populaƟon.

Low cost - or free! - parkland and water opƟons are crucial.

Keeping exisƟng water access for kayakers and SU paddle boarders etc. is crucial.

Adding year round bathrooms and upgrades to the lagoon area, and a free mulƟ-use park seasonally, would be a great move by the city.

Thank you,
Colby and Nina Allerton
homeowners, Redondo Beach
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Elaine Ketchmere <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 1:10 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Without Delay
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Redondo Beach City Councilmembers, As a local resident, I urge you to approve and move forward immediately with the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon.

Protect Our State Funding: Millions in dedicated California State Parks grants carry strict deadlines. Any pause or redesign risks losing these funds and sticking local taxpayers with the bill.

Protect Public Parkland: Seaside Lagoon sits on public trust tidelands. California Coastal Act Section 30213 protects low-cost public recreation. Public land must never be turned into a private commercial paywall.

True Community Benefit: Phase 1 delivers affordable summer family swimming, plus FREE off-season public access to the Great Lawn, while preserving drive-up ocean access for kayaks and SUPs.

Clean Water Compliance: Phase 1 installs the modern filtration system mandated by regional water and health boards to end ongoing discharge fines.

Please respect the public process, protect our tax dollars, and keep Seaside Lagoon 100% public. Vote YES to advance Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Elaine Ketchmere
203 N Lucia Ave
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: George Maxwell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 4:02 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote YES on advancing the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon without delay. Please reject any attempt to pause or derail this project for unvetted commercial wave pool concepts.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
George Maxwell, District 3/Golden Hills
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Georgina Artiga <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 8:53 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; [email protected]; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Without Delay
[You don't oŌen get email from jgddarƟ[email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening aƩachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Redondo Beach City Councilmembers, As a local resident, I remember going to sea side since I was in middle school. I urge you to approve and move forward immediately with the approved Phase 1 modernizaƟon of Seaside Lagoon.

Protect Our State Funding: Millions in dedicated California State Parks grants carry strict deadlines. Any pause or redesign risks losing these funds and sƟcking local taxpayers with the bill.

Protect Public Parkland: Seaside Lagoon sits on public trust Ɵdelands. California Coastal Act SecƟon 30213 protects lowcost public recreaƟon. Public land must never be turned into a private commercial paywall.

True Community Benefit: Phase 1 delivers affordable summer family swimming, plus FREE off-season public access to the Great Lawn, while preserving drive-up ocean access for kayaks and SUPs.

Clean Water Compliance: Phase 1 installs the modern filtraƟon system mandated by regional water and health boards to end ongoing discharge fines.

Please respect the public process, protect our tax dollars, and keep Seaside Lagoon 100% public. Vote YES to advance Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Georgina ArƟga
Resident since 1987
2507 HunƟngton lane north redondo
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Glen Aikin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 2:04 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: RE: Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Without Delay CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

TO:
[email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Mayor Light and Redondo Beach City Councilmembers, As a local resident, I urge you to approve and move forward immediately with the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon.

Protect Our State Funding: Millions in dedicated California State Parks grants carry strict deadlines.

Any pause or redesign risks losing these funds and sticking local taxpayers with the bill.

True Community Benefit: Phase 1 delivers affordable summer family swimming, plus FREE offseason public access to the Great Lawn, while preserving drive-up ocean access for kayaks and SUPs.

Clean Water Compliance: Phase 1 installs the modern filtration system mandated by regional water and health boards to end ongoing discharge fines.

Please respect the public process, protect our tax dollars, and keep Seaside Lagoon 100% public.

Vote YES to advance Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Glen Aikin
26712 Rolling Vista Dr
Lomita, CA 90717
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 1
Emily Bodkin
From: Holly Hancock <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 12:07 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; CityClerk Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote YES on advancing the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon without delay.

Please reject any attempt to pause or derail this project for unvetted commercial wave pool concepts.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Holly Hancock
1530 Harper Ave.

Redondo Beach, CA 90278
District 4
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: John Pena <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 12:10 PM
To: [email protected]; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Seaside Lagoon Project
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

TO: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Dear Mayor Light and Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote YES on advancing the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon without delay. Please reject any attempt to pause or derail this project for unvetted commercial wave pool concepts.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

I am in total agreement with this message. I am born and raised in Redondo Beach. I attended Beryl Heights, Hillcrest Jr. High, and Redondo Union. I have lived in Redondo and Torrance my entire 67 years of life. I grew up spending most of my summers in the Saltwater Lagoon as we called it. The memories are some of the best in my lifetime. Carefree days swimming and diving with neighborhood friends and enjoying what our community had to offer.

Making new friends along the way. This is what community is all about. Not an elite members wave pool.

We have plenty of nice surf right here on our beautiful beaches. The Seaside Lagoon was established for families and young children to enjoy and play in the salt water safely. Do not take this iconic place and turn it into a greedy money making Business!
I urge you to just make improvements, heat the water as it originally was, make the water system compliant with state/environmental regulations, add a nice affordable snack bar as it once had and put some nice shaded lounging feature in the park.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 Think and families and community and not greed and money. That is what has always made Redondo a special place.

I thank you for hearing me out. I’m a lifer here and my heart and soul are in this city. #SaveOurSeasideLagoon #SOSRedondoBeach #RedondoBeach #KeepItPublic #CoastalAccess #PublicTrustDoctrine
Sincerely,
John Peña
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Joyce Topping <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 11:42 AM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Reject "Pay to Surf" / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Councilmembers,
I urge you to vote YES on advancing the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon and reject "Pay to Surf" commercial concepts that privatize our waterfront.

Seaside Lagoon sits on sovereign public trust tidelands protected by the California Coastal Act, which explicitly prioritizes low-cost recreation. We must not sacrifice affordable family swimming and our free off-season parkland for exclusive commercial interests.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Joyce ToppingDistrict 2230 The Village Unit 205Redondo Beach You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Leslie Ogg <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 4:05 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Without Delay
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Redondo Beach City Councilmembers, As a local resident, l urge you to approve and move forward immediately with the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon.

Protect Our State Funding: Millions in dedicated California State Parks grants carry strict deadlines. Any pause or redesign risks losing these funds and sticking local taxpayers with the bill.

True Community Benefit: Phase 1 delivers affordable summer family swimming, plus FREE off-season public access to the Great Lawn, while preserving drive-up ocean access for kayaks and SUPs.

Clean Water Compliance: Phase 1 installs the modern filtration system mandated by regional water and health boards to end ongoing discharge fines.

Please respect the public process, protect our tax dollars, and keep Seaside Lagoon 100% public. Vote YES to advance Phase 1 now.

Leslie Ogg
313 N Gertruda Ave
Redondo Beach
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Lindsay Murdock <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 5:11 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Lindsay Murdock
(1100 Esplanade, Redondo)
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Lulu Belle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 8:48 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Generations of South Bay residents and visitors have consistently come to this area to spend time with their families and friends and invest in the local economy. Please consider the generations in the future that will not have access to your area because they can't afford to take their families there. As a kid, my dad would take me down there every weekend. My suspicion is that he didn't have a whole lot of money to spend. It was fun and beautiful, and I loved our time there. It was a huge part of my childhood. Make the priority preserving the area for the residents and visitors' quality of life instead of just catering to the affluent. It was written into public policy for a reason.

Please protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Jenifer Downing
South Bay Native
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Margaret Gillmore <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2026 3:20 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; [email protected]; Scott Behrendt; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Without Delay
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Redondo Beach City Councilmembers, As a local resident, I urge you to approve and move forward immediately with the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon.

Protect Our State Funding: Millions in dedicated California State Parks grants carry strict deadlines. Any pause or redesign risks losing these funds and sticking local taxpayers with the bill.

True Community Benefit: Phase 1 delivers affordable summer family swimming, plus FREE off-season public access to the Great Lawn, while preserving drive-up ocean access for kayaks and SUPs.

Clean Water Compliance: Phase 1 installs the modern filtration system mandated by regional water and health boards to end ongoing discharge fines.

Please respect the public process, protect our tax dollars, and keep Seaside Lagoon 100% public. Vote YES to advance Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Margaret Gilmore
511 Avenue F, Redondo Beach
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Marianne Teola <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 9:37 AM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; [email protected]; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Without Delay
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Redondo Beach City Councilmembers, As a local resident, I urge you to approve and move forward immediately with the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon.

Protect Our State Funding: Millions in dedicated California State Parks grants carry strict deadlines. Any pause or redesign risks losing these funds and sticking local taxpayers with the bill.

True Community Benefit: Phase 1 delivers affordable summer family swimming, plus FREE off-season public access to the Great Lawn, while preserving drive-up ocean access for kayaks and SUPs.

Clean Water Compliance: Phase 1 installs the modern filtration system mandated by regional water and health boards to end ongoing discharge fines.

Please respect the public process, protect our tax dollars, and keep Seaside Lagoon 100% public. Vote YES to advance Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Marianne Teola
District 3
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 7:25 PM
To: CityClerk
Cc: info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment: We need to get BCHD CEO TOM BAKALY to STOP LYING CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

The following message from BCHD CEO Bakaly was circulated by Tara Stabile of Hermosa Beach, CA, to parties interested in a swimming pool for Hermosa Beach. CEO Bakaly implied to the HPI (Hermosa Pool Group) that the FAR 1.25 was required for a swimming pool. THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE.

HERE'S WHAT'S HAPPENING: Through Hermosa Pool Initiative's conversations with the Beach Cities Health District, the proposed Sunrise Senior Living Center has agreed to make their originally planned seniors-only pool into a much larger, much more community accessible swimming pool on the BCHD campus. BCHD CEO Tom Bakalay has alerted HPI that they need community support on a vote being taken tonight to move the project forward, and therefore, more forward the plans for a swimming pool in the South Bay — a pool accessible to residents in all three of the Beach Cities who already pay an annual tax to support BCHD.

Getting this pool is important to the three cities because there is the land available and Sunrise will pay to build it. It is a pool that appears to be built at no additional cost to us, and therefore, it's essential that we support it. If you live in Redondo, please
submit an E-COMMENT SHOWING YOU SUPPORT IT
AND WHY. The detractors are very vocal.

Below is the message from BCHD explaining the vote tonight as well as addressing other concerns:
"We need your support as the Redondo Beach City Council considers the City’s proposed General Plan Update, a critical document that governs how development is managed throughout the city, including standards that apply to public institutions like Beach Cities Health District (BCHD).

BCHD’s current zoning does not include a defined FAR cap, and the proposed General Plan would introduce one for the first time.

An important element of the General Plan is a proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) cap for Public/Institutional properties, including BCHD. FAR governs how much density can be built on a given site. In January, following months of public input, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt a 1.25 FAR for the BCHD Campus.

Tomorrow night, at its July 7 meeting, the City Council is expected to discuss the adoption of the Land Use Element and other proposed zoning ordinances, which include the FAR for Public/Institutional properties. A final vote is expected in late July or early August.

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!
2 Please contact the City Council to have them maintain the 1.25 FAR for BCHD’s campus that was approved in January. A 1.25 FAR will provide important flexibility for our campus and our partners to meet the health needs of our community into the future.

After Council approval, FAR changes in the General Plan will need to be approved by voters in November.

The Council will discuss election details at the July meetings, including whether to have all FAR changes in the General Plan in one ballot measure or whether to separate issues into multiple ballot questions.

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."
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 5:50 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - non-agenda - City Council and Planning Commission next meeting CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Send an email to the City Council and the Planning Commission:

[email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected] , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
Subject: Public Comment - Neighbors Deserve a Full Safety Analysis of the Four, 38-foot, Cryogenic Tanks at Impulse Space
Council Members, Commissioners, City Manager, City Attorney:

At the recent Planning Commission meeting, we were told that liquid Nitrogen and liquid Argon are not explosive and not toxic. We were also told by RBFD that they cannot conduct any analysis of the gasses because they do not have a HAZMAT unit. We were then told that LA County HAZMAT would conduct the analysis.

In an email from August 27 by Specialist Doom of LACoFD, the City and the Residents were informed by LA County that no analysis would be conducted for residents of a catastrophic rupture of any of the tanks. LA County did make it clear that there was an asphyxiation risk from both Argon and Nitrogen and that they would have their teams analyze the health and safety impacts on first responders.

So neighbors are in a position where we know:
1) the tanks can explode,
2) the liquids inside are at -300 degrees F,
3) the liquids will roll out over the neighborhoods after a tank explosion, 4) the liquids will re-gasify to Argon or Nitrogen gas, both of which displace oxygen required for life, 5) LA County sees risk to first responders from the gas and the risk of asphyxiation, and 6) NO AGENCY WILL CONDUCT ANY SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS' SAFETY.

That is unacceptable.

The City is obligated to protect resident health and safety. Until a full analysis and mitigations are completed to protect the neighbors, we demand that no permits are issued.

If any tanks are relocated, they must be required to have safety walls that will stop a catastrophic release from flowing off the Impulse Space property. If Impulse won't allow that, then this is clearly an unsafe situation for residents also.

Please act quickly as this situation is stressing residents who are in the blast and gas zone. 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 7:02 PM
To: Communications
Cc: CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Chadwick B. Castle; Brad Waller; Mike Witzansky; [email protected]; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; Scott Behrendt Subject: Public Comment - BCHD's Q&A is Trash - literally.

CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Tell the truth. Stop wasting $1M a year on PR. Taxpayers don't want to pay to fund 8 people in a propaganda department at BCHD. That's more than 10% of the full time employees IN THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION!
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 8:27 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public comment: yet another construction violation by Beach city health District CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening aƩachments or links.

Beach ciƟes had excavaƟon equipment out digging fooƟngs or whatever they're doing on Labor Day morning. The police were just called. It's a specifically banned HOLIDAY for construcƟon. It's quite clear that Beach ciƟes, despite the fact that they cerƟfied an EIR has no interest in monitoring their own construcƟon.

Sent from my iPhone
1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 9:10 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment - CM3's D3 Public Meeting on Labor Day at 4PM CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

PUBLIC COMMENT D3 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING – LABOR DAY 2026

MEETING ACCESSIBILITY: We are in a period of moderate to elevated COVID, yet, this is now the 2nd time we have requested remote participation and it is not provided. Per LACDPH, “Overall Activity Level: Wastewater surveillance indicates moderate to elevated viral activity across Southern California and Los Angeles County.” I have standing may pursue a US DOJ ADAAA opinion on the denial of remote public access for District meetings.

MEETING CONSISTENCY: Councilmembers should have established schedules for meetings to be held in Zoom equipped locations. It’s my understanding D5 hasn’t had a meeting since May 2025 and D1 recently had its first meeting in an extended time. I believe this D3 meeting is the first since Easter Saturday. Constituents deserve standing meetings with remote access.

SPECIFIC D3 ISSUES
(1) The City’s bias toward allowing illegal acts by BCHD is becoming increasingly problematic. Spot up zoning the parcel to FAR 1.25 when other P-CF property is zoned at a significantly lower FAR is a clear admission of spot zoning by the City and conferring an unjustified special privilege.

REFERENCE: Under California law, illegal "spot zoning" occurs when a small parcel or specific property is targeted for a use classification or development standard radically different from surrounding, similarly situated properties, thereby conferring an unjustified special privilege or imposing a discriminatory burden on the property owner without public necessity. (See Avenue 6E Investments, LLC v. City of Yuma (9th Cir. 2016) 818 F.3d 493; Arcadia Development Co. v. City of Morgan Hill (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 157; AWR Corp. v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 270). (June 18, 2026 memo to City of Redondo Beach by Special Counsel to BCHD)

(2) BCHD has clearly stated in the media that the public will have no review of the proposed private developer plan for the PUBLIC OWNED parcel on Prospect prior to permit filing. At that point, the private developer will have been hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars invested.

IT IS UNACCEPTABLE FOR A PUBLIC AGENCY TO DENY ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC FOR A FIVE GENERATION, 99 YEAR

PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

(3) The Planning Commission should immediately begin a public review process to remediate the public damages from BCHD’s refusal of transparency to taxpayers with standing meetings to review the current status of the proposed use of PUBLIC LAND.

(4) According to a detailed, custom hedonic pricing model and an over 6,000 property commercial database of home characteristics and values, within ¼ mile of BCHD the home values are reduced by over $60M. The literature supports a finding of devaluation consistent with the custom model. The foundation of the model is a current campus build out of:

ESTABLISHED FACTS FROM BCHD AND ENGINEERING MEASUREMENT

99.7% (311,000 sf) at 51.5-ft or shorter

0.3% (952 sf) at 76-ft for mechanical use
BCHD pre-CUP at the City declares building height at 51.5-ft BCHD pre-CUP declares above 51.5-ft to be “PROJECTIONS” which are mechanical, not habitable 2 Setback of over 100-feet to any 51.5-ft building
Stair stepping within the 100-foot setback to visually reduce the massing 312,000 sf total surface buildings, 250,000 sf habitable space Current FAR of 0.58
Site is elevated 30-feet above adjacent residential and up to 70-feet above Torrance residents ANY DEVELOPMENT must respect the current terrain and that clearly includes the site elevation (5) The literature fully supports additional value loss beyond the $60M current level if the size, noise, emissions, lighting, privacy level, etc. are changed in a negative fashion for surrounding property.

(6) The City has repeatedly failed to police the RBMC regarding construction at BCHD. Yet again today, BCHD (as general contractor on the permit) violated construction restrictions with demolition and footing digging on a prohibited holiday. RBPD was required to come out twice to shut BCHD construction down, because the first time RBPD gave them a warning (whatever that means – construction continued as the RBPD drove away).

(7) BCHD also ignores the RB health related ordinance O-3193-19 that prohibits smoking in public places, such as city streets and sidewalks. BCHD and its tenants send smokers off site to the sidewalk to smoke. BCHD needs to manage its own smoking issues, not send cancer to residents.

(8) 500-600 N Prospect Ave Frontage – speed enforcement, parking enforcement, No U-Turn enforcement, Wrong way traffic enforcement, and noise reduction

(9) 4-Lane N Prospect Ave Main Road – speed enforcement, speed tables, noise enforcement, safety protection from high speed vehicle incursions onto the frontage

GENERAL CITY ISSUES
(1) Seaside lagoon – City has spent $3M of the $10M grant on planning – need to proceed with a water quality compliant project inside the timeframe of the remaining $7M. Further, need a consultant to examine the planning process and determine what other decisions besides ignore 2050 sea level rise lurk in the current plan

(2) Wave pool – The City needs to recognize that for Phase 1 of the lagoon, the wave pool analysis time has passed. Analysis of a wave pool needs to be relegated to a future phase and an open bid when/if the time comes for a project

(3) 50,000 gallon liquid nitrogen and liquid argon storage at 2477 MBB requires a safety review. RB Planning deferred to RBFD. RBFD deferred to LA County Fire. LACoFire stated that they would only conduct analysis for first responder safety. RESIDENTS REQUIRE AND DESERVE A SAFETY REVIEW prior to any permits being granted for the tanks. Argon is heavier than oxygen and a rupture will quickly force out breathable air in the areas where it sinks. Because the tanks are 200-feet from residences, they probably require blast walls, containment shielding, and perhaps an emergency sump as safety measures.

(4) Proposed sale of 417 S PCH Project Site and its REDEVELOPMENT – the City needs to oppose any scope creep on the project plan and have PUBLIC MEETINGS and TRANSPARENCY as the project proceeds.

(5) SPENDING – The City seems to be wasting a lot of taxpayer funding on frivolous projects. For example, changing the logo, changing the street signs, vehicle logo replacements, banners, art, etc. Until the basics (safety, security, and mandatory infrastructure) are fully funded, the nice to haves like logos, signs and art need to be suspended.

1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2026 8:00 AM
To: CityClerk; CityClerk; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected]; Brad Waller; Mike Witzansky; Chadwick B. Castle; info; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt; Zein Obagi; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell Subject: Fwd: LTE: BCHD's Privatization of 5 Acres of Public Land is Likely the Most Opposed Agency Action Ever in Redondo Beach
Attachments: BCHD_HLC_Public_Comment_Sentiment_Summary_2026-09-04.docx CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Public Comment - All Agencies
Subject: LTE: BCHD's Privatization of 5 Acres of Public Land is Likely the Most Opposed Agency Action Ever in Redondo Beach
It's no secret that BCHD has been largely ignoring public comments and opposition to its proposed private development on public land. The size of the proposal has varied from 800,000-sf to the current 540,000-sf (FAR 1.25). The proposed height has been from 60-feet to 133.5-feet as stated in the BCHD Environmental Impact Report.

Using a commercially licensed instance of ChatGPT in a Medium thinking mode, data was collected from public documents and the internet to determine the levels of public support and opposition to the BCHD proposed privately developed, owned, and operated Healthy Living Campus. The results are nothing short of appalling.

Using multiple public documents and meetings, ChatGPT found that 91.1% of all public input was negative regarding BCHD's proposal. That includes both the project itself and the characteristics of the project. Only 0.3% of public input was positive. Overall, ChatGPT found:

The largest and most complete comment repository—the 2021 Final EIR record—shows a strongly negative public-comment pattern regarding the Healthy Living Campus (HLC) and/or its environmental impacts. BCHD records 303 written submissions and 17 oral comments during the Draft EIR review period, for 320 submissions total. A screening classification of those 320 records produced 297 negative, 22 neutral/mixed or procedural, and 1 clearly positive submission: 92.8% negative, 6.9% neutral/mixed, and 0.3% positive.

Comments from the Easy Reader News, Beach Reporter, and BCHD meeting transcripts were also primarily negative. In short, this project was rejected by the public and yet BCHD continues to allow a 100% private developer a 99-year lease for a 100% private development.

Obviously the current Board and Executive team at BCHD is tone deaf to public opinion. As a 4-year volunteer at BCHD, I can assure residents that BCHD uses its roughly $1M per 2 marketing/communications to spin a 99.7% negative or neutral comment base into a public mandate to destroy 5 acres of public land for 5 generations with a private development.

Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach

1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:44 AM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Public Comment: BCHD is Hiding the proposed project CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links. 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Mary Minchella <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 7:33 PM
To: Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi; James Light Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

We are all so tired of these wealthy, elitist developers creating overdone restaurants, private clubs, and framing their own desires as “good for the public.” Not everything has to be exclusive to those with wealth! I’m advocating not only for the “poor” but for normal, middle-class residents here who are struggling: we can’t afford private memberships and $20 cocktails and $500 to go to a concert in our own backyard! Please put an end to this. Things can be made nicer and upgraded without being “exclusive” or top tier.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Mary Minchella
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Eleanor Manzano
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:49 PM
To: Emily Bodkin
Subject: FW: URGENT: BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Here you go…for tonight
From: Patrick Healy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:48 PM
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>
Subject: URGENT: BLUE FOLDER ITEM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

BLUE FOLDER ITEM

REDONDO BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 8, 2026
Agenda Item J.1 — Public Participation on Non-Agenda Items From: Patrick Healy
Subject: Request for Accuracy in the City-Signed Rebuttal to the Argument Against Measure ART
Mayor Light and Members of the City Council:

I submitted the official Argument Against Measure ART. My argument addressed the measure itself: the cost and timing of the Special Municipal Election, changes in zoning capacity, reductions or removal of residential uses, the combination of numerous land-use decisions into one vote, the 53-page measure text, and the continuing need for environmental and coastal review.

I did not attack or disparage any elected official.

The rebuttal signed by the Mayor and four Councilmembers refers to me four times as “the sole opponent.” That is not how the Los Angeles County Registrar describes my status.

The County’s published list states:
“Opponents: Patrick Healy.”
2 That identifies me as the person officially listed in opposition. It does not say that I am “the sole opponent,” nor does it establish that I am the only resident or voter who opposes Measure ART. If the rebuttal intended merely to describe the official filing, “sole listed opponent” or “sole signer of the official Argument Against” would have been accurate.

The rebuttal also materially recasts several of my arguments:

1. Election cost and timing
I expressly wrote that the Special Municipal Election was “consolidated with the statewide election.” I did not claim that the City created an unconsolidated, stand-alone election.

My argument concerned the reported $250,000 cost, the timing four months before the regular municipal election, and the absence of identified urgency. The rebuttal’s statement that the City “did not create a separate election solely for Measure ART” answers a claim I did not make.

2. Zoning capacity
I wrote that Measure ART increases zoning capacity, but that zoning capacity does not guarantee feasible, financed, approved, or completed development.

The rebuttal says I “admit” that increased capacity “is the catalyst” for restaurants, shops, jobs, gathering spaces, and rooftop dining. Those predicted results are the proponents’ conclusion. They were not my admission.

3. A clearer proposal
I asked voters to require “a clearer, fully explained proposal” at the regular municipal election. The rebuttal reduces that position to merely asking voters to “wait,” while asserting that Measure ART would be unchanged.

I did not ask the City to resubmit the identical proposal. I asked for a clearer proposal that gives voters meaningful choices.

4. Separate ballot questions
I wrote that clear property-level comparisons and, “where appropriate,” separate ballot questions were needed. The rebuttal removes that qualification and characterizes my position as arbitrarily fragmenting commercial-corridor regulations.

My concern was the combination of distinct residential, commercial, inland, coastal, and neighborhood decisions into one all-or-nothing vote.
3 Reasonable people may disagree about Measure ART. But disagreement should be directed at the arguments actually made.

I respectfully ask the Mayor and Councilmembers who signed the rebuttal to:
• clarify that I was the sole listed signer of the official Argument Against, not necessarily the “sole opponent” among Redondo Beach residents; • acknowledge that I never alleged an unconsolidated election; • stop presenting the proponents’ predictions as matters I “admitted”; and • address the substantive concerns I actually raised.

One resident’s argument does not become less legitimate because only one person met the filing requirements and signed it. Democratic participation should be answered with facts and respect, regardless of how many names appear beneath an argument.

Patrick Healy
Sources:

Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, “Final Measures Appearing on the Ballot,” September 5, 2026:
https://content.lavote.gov/docs/rrcc/documents/final-measures-appearing-on-theballot-9-5-26.pdf City of Redondo Beach, November 3, 2026 Election — Measure ART documents:
https://www.redondo.org/departments/city_clerk/upcoming_elections/index.php 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Natalie Thome <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2026 1:15 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; [email protected]; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 Without Delay
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Redondo Beach City Councilmembers, As a local resident, I urge you to approve and move forward immediately with the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon.

Protect Our State Funding: Millions in dedicated California State Parks grants carry strict deadlines. Any pause or redesign risks losing these funds and sticking local taxpayers with the bill.

True Community Benefit: Phase 1 delivers affordable summer family swimming, plus FREE off-season public access to the Great Lawn, while preserving drive-up ocean access for kayaks and SUPs.

Clean Water Compliance: Phase 1 installs the modern filtration system mandated by regional water and health boards to end ongoing discharge fines.

Please respect the public process, protect our tax dollars, and keep Seaside Lagoon 100% public. Vote YES to advance Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Natalie Thome
2401 Alvord Lane
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Shirley P <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 8:57 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Mayor Light and Councilmembers, I urge you to vote YES on advancing the approved Phase 1 modernization of Seaside Lagoon without delay. Please reject any attempt to pause or derail this project for unvetted commercial wave pool concepts.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now.

Sincerely,
Shirley Palmo: north redondo
Sent from my iPhone
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 1 Emily Bodkin
From: Tony Liakos <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2026 4:36 PM
To: James Light; Brad Waller; Chadwick B. Castle; Scott Behrendt; Paige Kaluderovic; Zein Obagi Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Reject Privatization / Approve Seaside Lagoon Phase 1 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Protect our public park and approve Phase 1 now. We don't need more exclusivity for rich surf bros - please do what is best for the entire community, not just the ultra wealthy.

Sincerely,
Tony Liakos
209 N Juanita Ave
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Redondo Beach City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

Redondo Beach City Council
September 8, 2026