I oppose the addendum to the BCHD EIR. The City of Torrance and StopBCHD have called out and challenged the many flaws. But where is the City of Redondo Beach? Where is our Mayor and our City Council Members to support & protect us especially the absentee District 3 Council Member? The Residents of 500-600 N Prospect Ave. and neighboring Beryl Heights Community have had enough. You have forced us to fight you, so it's on!
NO to BCHD's OVERDEVELOPMENT SCAM.

BCHD is a one hit wonder CEQA agency. Torrance is seasoned and experienced with 100s of CEQA actions. Torrance clearly objects to BCHD's defective CEQA action. Further, StopBCHD and its members object to material errors. Both Torrance and StopBCHD have submitted formal statements to the CEQA adminstrative record on the flaws of BCHD and invalid modifications attempted by BCHD.

Questions for the Public Record
Resolution 610 and the Addendum to the Healthy Living Campus Final EIR

To the Beach Cities Health District Board of Directors:
Please include these questions in the public record for the board’s consideration of Resolution 610 and the proposed EIR addendum. I request written responses that identify the evidence supporting the District’s answers.

Environmental findings and the addendum
1. What environmental testing and investigations have BCHD, Sunrise, or their consultants conducted since the 2021 EIR was certified? Which results has BCHD received and reviewed in preparing the addendum?
2. How do the findings regarding contaminated soil, soil vapor, groundwater, and hazardous building materials compare with the conditions and assumptions analyzed in the 2021 EIR?
3. What evidence supports the addendum’s conclusion that the revised project will not produce new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified?
4. Is Sunrise conducting or planning additional environmental testing during the extended due-diligence period? When does BCHD expect the results?
5. If additional testing identifies conditions or potential impacts not addressed in the addendum, how will BCHD determine whether additional environmental review, revised mitigation, or further board action is necessary?

Hillside stability and neighboring properties
1. What technical analysis supports the addendum’s conclusions regarding the stability of the hillside east of the campus?
2. Does that analysis address the revised Sunrise building location and the proposed demolition, excavation, grading, foundations, construction activities, and drainage—including potential effects on Torrance homes below the slope?
3. Has BCHD consulted with the City of Torrance regarding the revised project’s potential effects on the hillside? How will BCHD address any technical concerns Torrance raises?

Construction and mitigation
1. What analysis demonstrates that the revised 27-month construction schedule will not increase peak daily dust, emissions, noise, vibration, or truck activity compared with the assumptions in the 2021 EIR?
2. The addendum proposes to remove the Events Management Plan and outdoor-pool noise restrictions because it says an outdoor pool and events are not included in the revised project. Yet the project description lists a pool, aquatic classes, community space, and community events. 3. Where will the pool and events be located, and what evidence supports removing those noise protections?
4. What monitoring, exposure limits, notification procedures, and stop-work thresholds will protect nearby residents and schoolchildren from contaminated soil, soil vapor, and dust during demolition and construction? Which agency will oversee compliance?

Due diligence and financial responsibility
1. What are the reasons for extending Sunrise’s due-diligence period to February 1, 2027? Which environmental, geotechnical, title, survey, parking, or other matters remain unresolved?
2. Under the existing agreement, who is responsible for the costs of investigating, remediating, monitoring, transporting, and disposing of preexisting contamination? What limits, conditions, indemnities, or insurance requirements affect that responsibility?
3. If due diligence identifies higher costs or additional regulatory requirements, could Sunrise request changes to rent, cleanup responsibility, deadlines, financing conditions, or community benefits? Which changes would require a public board vote, and which could be approved under the CEO’s delegated authority?
4. What financial obligations, carrying costs, lost revenues, or other exposures would BCHD face if Sunrise terminates the agreement or the project is delayed? Under what circumstances must BCHD return deposits or reimburse expenses?

Project description and community benefits
1. The addendum’s floor-area table lists 98,662 square feet of existing building area and 279,000 square feet for Sunrise, but states a total of 337,662 square feet. Please explain the discrepancy and confirm the campus floor-area calculation.
2. The proposed leased area increases from approximately 4.6 acres to 5.13 acres. Is this solely a correction to the measurement of the same boundaries, or does the revised lease include additional land?
3. What community benefits—including pool access—will be legally enforceable? Who will pay for their operation, maintenance, and insurance, and what process will apply if those benefits are later changed or discontinued?

Additional Question:
If Sunrise's ongoing environmental investigations identify previously undisclosed contamination, geotechnical conditions, or drainage impacts after approval of this Addendum, will BCHD commit to a documented evaluation under CEQA Guidelines §15162 before any further discretionary project approvals, and make that evaluation available to the public?

Thank you for considering these questions and including them in the public record.
Sheila W. Lamb