I have been a resident of the South Bay for over two decades. My wife is a 40+ year resident, and she has been here in the South Bay all her life after graduating from RUHS. We can say for certain that the cost of rentals is at a historic high, on the very borderline of unsustainable prices.

I put together some thoughts:

What happens when rental prices become excessively priced?

- People who live here can’t renew their leases. This means having to either leave or find ways to break even.
- People who work in the South Bay Area will need to increase their incomes just to stay, putting cost-of-living pressures on businesses and employers.
- People who serve Redondo Beach but can’t afford to live here must commute longer distances to find affordable housing…thus increasing commute times and traffic.
-High rents translate to high rents in the business districts. Residents will no longer have basic services in the long run because businesses can’t afford high rents.
- Ironically, commercial office vacancies are at a historic high with high rents because of market pricing pressures.

Denser, in-fill housing is the best solution:

- Increases housing supply without the suburban sprawl of the single-family home. A single plot could help 43 more homes in this case versus just a single-family home.
- More walkable communities help get to local businesses without a car.
- Integration of businesses and residential as mixed-use zoning helps to support businesses with better foot traffic created by new customers.
- Free parking lots DO NOT GENERATE tax revenue. More foot traffic from on-site residents will increase patronage. Let’s convert some of these mostly empty lots into working properties that provide housing while improving small businesses.
-Multiuse zoning helps small businesses survive by expanding their customer base, extending operating hours with nearby apartments providing tax revenues while businesses who are suffering with excessive vacancies can pivot to serve the housing shortage. Flexibility gives the ability for the area to react to market forces. Otherwise, many businesses will go the way of empty malls and half-empty shopping centers.

As a lifelong resident of Redondo Beach in South Redondo, I support this project.

This project is consistent with zoning outlined in the city’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. In exchange for providing 3 very low income units, the developer is asking for modest waivers to heights, setbacks, and parking standards. Even with the parking waiver, there are more than 2 parking spaces per unit. This project fits the residential neighborhood and is supported by St. James Parish.

Concerns about parking and traffic can be effectively addressed with parking permits for the El Redondo neighborhood and the ongoing work by RBUSD and the City of Redondo to address school parking and pickup/dropoff. I also ask, is housing cars more important than housing people? The traffic study shows this project will not generate net new VMT. In fact, this location is highly walkable, bikeable, and transit-served: it’s 1 block from Redondo Union and City Hall and two blocks to the pier and a local shopping center. The walk score of the neighborhood is 87 and bike score is 74. This area is served by the Metro 232 and BCT 102 and 109. Younger homeowners are increasingly looking for walkable and bikeable neighborhoods and prefer to live car-lite.

Finally, I want to reiterate that the city’s housing element, approved by this commission, includes a commitment to affirmatively furthering fair housing. By providing affordable units and adding to our housing supply, we can combat historic patterns of segregation and lift barriers to housing opportunity. On page 122 of the Housing Element, on the issue of segregation and integration, it describes the city will “partner with developers to pursue affordable housing citywide, with the goal of achieving 100 lower income and 100 moderate income units over eight years. [It will] target affordable housing in census tracts impacted by high displacement risks and cost burden.” This goal describes exactly this neighborhood and this project. Please approve this project. It's a step in the right direction to address our local housing crisis.

I support this project and would like to see it built. The traffic report showed no appreciable impact to VMT/congestion, and being situated right near RUHS and Parras means students living here with their families can easily walk to school. Likewise, there is easy access to walk down to the waterfront. The location on PCH is also well served by Metro and Beach Cities Transit buses.

I’m a resident in Redondo and I rent. I would like someday to be able to afford a home but I do not see that being feasible with the current cost of home ownership for new buyers.

Some may say that this project having only 3 units designated as “affordable” implies it does not help make housing more affordable. Increasing the supply of market-rate housing is needed to make housing more affordable for everyone. I won’t qualify for affordable units but I certainly can’t afford to buy a market rate home either. Other cities in the US like Austin have shown that if you build enough housing, costs (including rents) come down. This is just supply and demand.

I also see this project is supported by the St. James parish as well as the Redondo chamber of commerce. I hope that it is approved. Thank you.

I’m writing to support the project at 122 and 126 N. Pacific Highway because California is in a major housing shortage, and we need to build where it makes sense. This project adds much-needed homes in a location that can handle growth, helping to ease the pressure on the housing market. If we want housing to be more affordable for current and future generations, we have to be willing to approve projects like this.

Redondo Beach, like every other city, has to meet its state housing goals (RHNA), and that’s not going to be easy. This project helps us get there, and on top of that, the developer is including three affordable units. That’s a rare win, and it means more people of different income levels can actually afford to live here. We always say we want more affordable housing, and here it is—let’s not turn it away.

None of us love change, and adding more housing can feel like a lot, but the reality is that new homes have to go somewhere. PCH is a major corridor, and building here makes way more sense than squeezing more homes into quiet neighborhoods. Plus, this area has solid public transit, so it’s likely to attract residents who don’t rely as much on cars, meaning less traffic impact. Of course, there are concerns about height and massing, but if we say no every time a project has those issues, we’ll never make room for the people who need housing. This is a smart, well-placed project, and I hope the city moves forward with it.

As a South Bay resident who values responsible housing, I support the proposed development at 122 & 126 N. Pacific Coast Highway. This project will provide much-needed housing while considering community needs.

The developer has taken steps to address traffic and parking concerns, exceeding the state-required minimum with 93 spaces. The location also promotes public transit use, easing congestion. A traffic study confirms the project will generate fewer peak-hour trips than the previous use.

Designed to complement Redondo's character, the project includes green spaces and thoughtful architecture. Its all-electric homes align with sustainability goals and maintain the city’s environmental commitment. Additionally, the redevelopment brings vibrancy, attracting new residents who will contribute to the local economy.

This project is also important to St. James Catholic Church, which supports the redevelopment as it will provide financial resources for much-needed upgrades to better serve the community.

I encourage the Commission to approve this project while ensuring continued consideration for parking, architectural integrity, and sustainability. Redondo Beach thrives when we plan thoughtfully, and this project is a step in the right direction.

The state of California has made a huge issue about the lack of affordable housing. Though the state has failed to provide affordability for future projects they have rigorously taken away citizens rights to have a choice in zoning and land use.
Only 3 affordable units out of 43 is an insufficient number of affordable units.
If the state was sincere about gaining affordable housing, the politicians would have set the required number of affordable units much higher for all projects.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed condominium development behind my provate residence at 807 El Redondo Ave. While I understand the need for growth and development in our community, I have significant concerns about the potential impact this project may have on residents in the surrounding area.

One of my primary concerns is that the new development would obstruct the view that many homeowners, including myself, currently enjoy. This change could negatively affect property values and the overall aesthetic of our neighborhood.

Additionally, the increase in residential units would undoubtedly lead to higher traffic congestion and parking challenges. Our streets are already heavily used, and adding more vehicles without adequate infrastructure improvements could create safety hazards for pedestrians and drivers alike.

I respectfully request that the committee carefully consider these concerns and explore potential solutions, such as revising the project’s height, providing additional parking spaces, or conducting a thorough traffic impact study. I appreciate your time and consideration and would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues further at an upcoming meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Dan and Susan Campbell

I oppose this new construction on two points: three affordable units is too few and the height of the construction is too high and will essentially create a "wall" along PCH.

As a resident of Redondo Beach for my whole life (24 years) I have seen many changes to the beautiful city and this is one I will not stand for! Over time the development has become a valid thing to keep Redondo current and accommodating to all residents. When the development for this property was proposed, all of the neighbors on El Redondo began expressing their concern for the neighborhood. Overall, we already have many parking issues on El Redondo due to the high school students and parents parking on El Redondo daily. If this development was to occur, the parking would only become worse as the development states in the plan for two visitor parking spaces! How many people in a 42 unit property would have family members, friends, significant others, etc. visiting during the year especially on holidays. This development does not warrant any planning for the visitors of the 42 units that seems within reason. In return the residents of El Redondo will be the victims of the parking fiasco that currently stands to worsen if this development continues. Then you have to consider the fact that El Redondo has no parking permits which may be necessary in the case the parking fiasco worsens! Even with this solution, how can the residents of El Redondo guarantee that the city will not decide to include the houses in the back behind us in the permit parking then voiding the concerns of the residents once again! Next, there will be more traffic in the already small one way alley behind El Redondo which is going to cause more traffic for the high school during drop off times as tenants will be leaving for work causing the fiasco of leaving your home in the morning to be impossible. The best options for the development would be to designate the parking spaces in the lot behind 809 El Redondo to be visitor/overflow parking for these 42 units as there is no other way to have the necessary parking needed for this kind of development. By doing this, you would eliminate the issue of a three story home causing obstruction of the view for the two homes at 809 El Redondo & 807 El Redondo which would maintain their property value as well. Overall revision is necessary. Amber Dufresne

Hello,
I am the owner and resident for the property 809 El Redondo behind the potential development. I am directly affected as they will be building a three story home behind my house. They are offering two visitor parking spaces for 43 units. The parking and congestion situation on El Redondo is already bad with the high school and additional units on the street will only make it worse. Where will these people be parking, of course El Redondo! We are the only ones left in the area who does not have permit parking. We chose to do this to give the kids and parents a place to park however if this development happens, as presented, we may be forced to do so. This making it insanely ridiculous to park in front of my own house. I am the one of those two houses which will not only lose our view and have someone's window directly behind us but you will also be reducing the value of my property. To my knowledge it is not allowed to build a three story home in Redondo Beach. Why is this even being considered? I am very opposed to this as my balcony which faces the small parking area in the alley would be looking into someone's window and theirs looking into my balcony and windows. I will have no privacy. I am also concerned about my property if the retaining wall is taken down or broken during the construction process my whole yard and home would fall onto that development property behind the wall. I am profoundly opposed to this happening! Please do not allow more than a two story building with more visitor parking spaces behind me as a resident of 66 years in Redondo Beach, I am appalled that this is even being considered! Redondo Beach is a beautiful city and I would like to see it stay this way. I understand that change is necessary however, please take into consideration the neighborhood, parking, and affects on the neighbors.

Linda Dufresne

Absolutely not. Not in that location which is already traffic congested. Not that many units. And certainly not if only 3 of them are affordable, unless the total number of units doesn't exceed 15 (20%), which is my understanding of the state mandate.

Jill Klausen
31-year resident
Only four blocks from this location