The facilities are a reasonable attempt to help with a problem. The concept is fine, but a location on the waterfront in the middle of tourist district is a mistake. The harbor enterprise is already struggling and these facilities will not help it's image. They are better located in less visible parts of the City, not on a waterfront being promoted by the City as a desirable place to visit. There will be lost city fiscal impacts if visitors decide to go elsewhere. People don't seem to want them in their neighborhood, tourist probably think the same way.
I support providing housing and resources to our unhoused neighbors in a way that respects their dignity, and ask that the city council not pursue measures that criminalize encampments or loitering. The single most common determinant of becoming unhoused is lacking financial resources and stability, and there is a vicious cycle between losing these resources, becoming unhoused, and being unable to secure stable housing. People lack housing because housing prices have continued to go up while labor conditions for many have become more precarious. These hardships have only been exacerbated by the pandemic and the loss of jobs many have faced, and carceral and other punitive methods are completely inappropriate and unhelpful responses.
We are very much opposed to locating a homeless shelter in either Seaside Lagoon or Moonstone Park. We have had a boat in King Harbor for over ten years and are frequent users of the harbor and local businesses. This area is some of the most scenic in the City. Please consider a less obtrusive location.
Steven and Kathleen Davis
I am in full support of adding pallet shelters in the city of Redondo Beach with the exception that law enforcement does not use these shelters to further criminalize unhoused folks. If these shelters are offered in our city, they must be an OPTION for unhoused folks and we should look to offering other resources to our neighbors as well.
I am opposed to any homeless housing near residential and school areas. Especially, any temporary efforts as presented. While homelessness is a growing issue in these times and there are unfortunate families who could definitely use some assistance, what is being presented here is not the answer. If the facilities were family friendly and in fact targeted to those who have run into unforeseen circumstances(I am looking at you Covid-19), then there should be a program they can reach out to for assistance. This 'pallet shelter' is not that. Bringing a family with children into a fenced in area with potentially dangerous individuals due to mental health or drug dependency is tantamount to criminal endangerment. So, the question is who do you think is being helped by this 'facility'? I have been a coach for over twenty years and when running summer camps have had to roust the homeless that populated the area to make sure the children felt safe going to camp. Is the city going to provide additional security enforcement of the areas to protect the children and make them feel comfortable walking in their own neighborhoods?
I won't speak about every location listed because I don't live there and I think it is ridiculous for anyone to say they support this measure, but only if it isn't near me. The people that are saying "yes, please put the housing in someone else's neighborhood" is showing a level of selfishness that is sad.
That all being said I live in North Redondo and will speak about the Kingdale location to say that is across the street from both a park and residential area and two blocks from three schools Washington Elementary, Adam's Middle School(one of the only two middle schools in RBUSD), and the preschool that was Beach Cities Child Development Center is opening under new management.
Where do people think the overflow of individuals who don't get one of the 30 beds are going to go? Not where they came from. They will walk across the street and camp in the park on near the train tracks.
For a facility of this nature the location is extremely important because the safety of our children is the most important consideration.
Many of those opposing this plan are citing security concerns relating to families and children. If safety is the concern, it would make the community MORE safe to establish a program that takes homeless off the streets and gives them the opportunity to reintegrate into society. Multiple reports and white papers prove that HOUSED homeless are far less dangerous to the community than unhoused. The bigger question concerned home owners should be asking is, "is there enough funding and will-power to make this program successful?". There has to be a concerted effort and continued funding to make sure this program succeeds. The argument around costs and where to put the project are bunk. It costs far more to arrest, process and incarcerate the homeless than managing this program. The former seaside lagoon seems like the best place as it's separated from residential areas, there is adequate services in the area and it's currently unoccupied. Creating the "model program" for fighting homelessness will attract city leaders from all over the country and shine a light on a wonderful community.
I fully support and applaud the City Council's efforts to place temporary shelters in our City for homeless persons. I believe that Moonstone Park and Seaside Lagoon make the most sense since they are located near where there are higher numbers of homeless; they are the most inexpensive locations of the recommended options; and would be the least disruptive to residential and business areas.
I oppose the selection of either Moonstone Park or Seaside Lagoon as viable location for transitional housing. These are already high use areas by residents, visitors, boaters, recreational paddlers and Fire/Harbor Patrol and Coast Guard. As mentioned in the admin documents this is an emergency helicopter landing zone and was used just last week.
I am part of the Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club and we are a stakeholder leasee on Mole B. We are already dealing with unhoused in and around our location. It is a major concern for all our recreational programs but especially our kids program that runs May - September. We have been experiencing vandalism, make-shift shelters, drug use and other unsafe conditions. However, beyond that it is not a logical place for this project. It is on a crowded cul-de-sac, in an already congested parking area with limited access to public transport. I don't think the city has thought through the additional services needed to really make this impactful. Funding is just one part. We don't want to build it then rely on the police to manage it.
Housing for homeless is important, but harbor front accommodations in our big water sports and tourist hubs is a recipe for disaster, not to mention completely unfair to tax- payers like myself. As a home owner, I work hard to support my community, by paying property taxes, to keep crime out and keep the oceans and harbor clean. The ocean is a life source that needs to be nurtured and protected. Having a homeless population at either of the harbor locations will increase trash into our harbor, as well as pose a threat to our family safety. Many homeless are mentally ill and can be dangerous. Not the kind of draw we want for our families or our tourists. Let’s find them a great location inland, near career centers ad mental health services, and other municipal services that can help them. They won’t be looking for work at the harbor. If I lived harbor front for free, I’d sure be enjoying my million dollar view instead of looking for work. Put them near a transit station so they can get back on their feet. Let’s keep our harbor clean, safe, and tourist and family friendly.
Homelessness comes in many forms and affects so many people beyond just those with mental problems. Many Americans (and many in our own community) are struggling to pay their rent, stay in college or to hold onto their jobs, and just need the consistency of some basic but badly needed services to get back on their feet. I support the need for Redondo to lead in addressing the burgeoning crisis affecting our fellow citizens who are struggling to make ends meet and trying to get back on their feet. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to people who are fellow human beings in need (in fact, desperate need). No location will be perfect and appease everyone but too many people are falling below the poverty line and need some basic supports, including perhaps the most basic that the rest of us take for granted: shelter/safety.
Please do not consider Mole B (Moonstone Park) as an option for transitional housing for homeless. Other sites have permanent and better facilities. There will be conflict with the emergency helicopter landing zone and there will need to be more policing in the area. The congestion will also affect the operations of the fire department and Harbor Patrol.
The Kingsdale Site (Transit Site), although a greater initial cost, could be offset by funding already secured by the city. This is one of the most central locations with much greater access to public transportation and services that the homeless may require. Access to public transportation is vital in the movement and growth of the homeless as they seek employment and maintain those jobs. Selecting a site in the harbor will cost the city greater future financial loss due to a decrease in tourism dollars and revenue that would out-way the initial costs benefits. What is cheapest right now is not going to cost less in the future.
If Redondo Beach establishes itself as a welcoming beacon for the homeless in King Harbor, we may not be able to undo the surge of occupants that will migrate to this location. This needs to be taken very seriously from a community, economic and safety perspective.
I want to commend the city council of Redondo Beach for considering these pallet houses. If saw through you would be a leader and example for the South Bay cities by starting to address the tragic reality that many of our neighbors can't afford a place to sleep. I hope the council has the courage to stand up to the NIMBYS who care more about their property values than caring for their fellow humans. As a Christian I want to live in community that lives in to the teaching of the gospels to care for the poorest in our community. I don't want to live in a community that punishes people for being too poor to afford a home.
As someone who knows dozens of unhoused people all over the south bay through my involvement in Street Watch LA South Bay I can tell you that these pallet houses could greatly improve their lives and be a critical boon in helping them stabilize their lives. Most of these folks just need a little stability and help tonget them from the streets into a home. These houses would help the people i know beable to focus on getting and keeping a job instead of the myriad of problems that come with not having a door to lock.
Many of the negative stereotypes of unhoused people are rooted in prejudice and racism. Unhoused people are not any more dangerous than any other group of people, most of them are people who have been faced with problems that were too big for them to handle. The death of a loved one, a divorce, the loss of a job, these are the kinds of things that can start the dominos falling that lead to people ending up on the streets.
I am asking the city of Redondo Beach to lead our community towards a response to our unhoused neighbors that is guided by compassion and love, not unfounded concerns rooted in prejudice and racism. Please bring these life changing homes to the South Bay.
My name is Jason Boxer and I support the building of pallet houses in Redondo Beach for our unhoused neighbors. As your neighbor in Manhattan Beach, I believe that we have a duty to support and empower the local unhoused population regardless of what city we live in. To lack secure housing today means being extremely vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, a public health risk that extends beyond city lines and increases the likelihood of community spread for everybody.
Additionally, I ask that the city not resume police enforcement of anti-camping and anti-loitering laws as a result of building the pallet housing. I think we can come up with alternatives for helping our unhoused neighbors rather than criminalization and police citations. We can strive to meet their needs out of a sense of empathy, providing better access to hygiene stations, showers and restrooms. I am encouraging my own City Council to take similar measures.
Thank you for all the hard work you do for the South Bay. I believe the Redondo Beach City Council is an example to neighboring municipal bodies of excellent public service.
I firmly support this project by the city and I hope it is the first of many plans to help our unhoused neighbors. Especially going into the colder winter months, flu season and with Covid present, this is more important than ever. I urge everyone to remember that shelter is a basic need and a right that everyone has, our unhoused neighbors are no different. I hope that this will be a positive drive from the city and not a way to criminalize these people that deserve our respect. Although 30 beds will not solve the homeless crisis it is a great place to begin and I hope we will get to see this plan enacted very soon.
I commend the city council for pursuing shelter and support for our unhoused neighbors in Redondo Beach and request that they move forward with this housing project. However, I would also like to caution against increased policing and criminalization towards unhoused folks as a result of this project- 30 beds will certainly not solve the issues which cause homelessness in our community and more work will need to be done. In the immediate- the unhoused community in Veteran's Park have identified bathrooms, showers, food, and other support as being immediate concerns for them and I encourage the council not to ignore these pressing basic needs while we debate pallet housing.
Likely those who oppose this project do not understand the legal risk our city is placing itself at by refusing to provide shelter for unhoused residents while policing and sweeping unhoused communities for sleeping in public space. The idea that Redondo Beach is some kind of magnet for unhoused people from all over the South Bay is simply not born out by the data from the homeless count or simple observation- in fact it is one of the few places in the South Bay which has fewer unhoused people than we did a few years ago (2017).
Cities can and have been sued for sweeping unhoused people who have no where else to go. By refusing to move forward with projects like this one Redondo places itself at risk for a lawsuit that would further diminish public funds at a time when our state is already facing dire budget constraints. If compassion and basic human decency aren't enough to compel people to support this work, perhaps a look at Martin v Boise, or some of the numerous ongoing lawsuits in Los Angeles around unlawful sweeps will pique their self interest enough to get on board.
I strongly support building the pallet housing at any of these locations. Redondo Beach desperately needs temporary housing options for our unhoused neighbors as that is an important first step into getting people into permanent housing. I also ask the council to not use this temporary shelter as an excuse to criminalize unhoused people in Redondo Beach by enforcing anti-camping and anti-loitering ordinances. These people are neighbors and members of our community who deserve respect, dignity and compassion from their city and the rest of the community.
1. The Admin Report states "$708,000 ... will cover all of the operating costs." On what is that based - has the City obtained a quote from a third-party like Mercy House, or Salvation Army, for operation and management of this project?
2. Will any of sites require a Coastal Development Permit from the Cal. Coastal Commission?
3. Has the City made further efforts since the 9/15 Meeting to find an alternative location outside of Redondo in SPA 8, e.g., has the City inquired as to any available vacant County-owned lots or structures, or engaged a real estate broker to assist?
4. Will opening the pallet shelter allow the City to enforce laws that prevent homeless encampments in our parks and public right-of-ways?
5. Will Redondo’s shelter be limited to those who are from or have prior connection to Redondo, and if not, will it become a magnet for homeless persons from outside the city? Bellflower and Whittier limited access to their shelters, and San Clemente limited access to its designated homeless camping site, to those who demonstrated they were at some point a resident of their respective city.
6. Will the City maintain the right to terminate, or move, the shelter at any time, as needed? Or, e.g, will the County Funding Agreement require the shelter stay open a minimum of 13 months?
7. Has the City considered the San Clemente model - i.e., provide a vacant lot with tents, toilets, etc, where people can be sheltered and receive services, and require any homeless camping only occur there? The approach withstood legal challenge and was apparently successful in transitioning homeless from the streets to better environs to the point where there were so few people remaining in the designated camping site that it was closed.
8. Has the City taken into consideration the experience of the Venice shelter in formulating its plans for a pallet shelter and/or designated homeless camping site?
9. Will there be rules - no weapons, drugs, alcohol, fires, quiet time?
10. What has been pallet success in moving people to permanent housing, and how can that be applied to ensure success here?
Consideration for this housing should include access to food, jobs, and major public transportation. The Kingsdale location offers close access to buses and Aviation is close to the metro. Kingsdale has Sprouts and Target nearby for food and is already segregated from area neighborhoods by a train track to the left and busy road to the south.
I object to the use of Moonstone park for several reasons: (1) We are park poor in Redondo. This undeveloped park gets good use for kite flying, picnics, sunset viewing, tossing a ball with a child. What does the Parks and Rec commission say? (2) Lanakila and Nahoa Outrigger Canoe Clubs are next door and have faced vandalism already due to the unhoused with repeated destruction of their bathroom lock. Also there would be further trespassing use of the club's fresh water. (3) The area already face litter and drug needles etc on the rocks (4) High value assets (canoes) are at risk (5) boaters who frequently get on the water pre-dawn with headlamps face security risk . (5) Moonstone isn't convenient to food or much transit or jobs. (6) The area is already not very well patrolled or lit (7) The site is required for emergency helicopter landing and it's convenient access to Harbor Patrol is key for rescues. (8) State Coastal Commission likely involved for such a coastal site. (9) Already limited parking would be problematic. It is often full on weekends at certain times.
The Portofino Hotel opposes the Pallet housing location at Seaside Lagoon. There are several surrounding hotels within hundreds of yards of the site, and it would detract from guest experience as they drive or walk by, and view the site from their guest rooms. This will result in loss of revenue for surrounding hotels as well Transient Occupancy Tax for the city, which is a top revenue source.
The facilities are a reasonable attempt to help with a problem. The concept is fine, but a location on the waterfront in the middle of tourist district is a mistake. The harbor enterprise is already struggling and these facilities will not help it's image. They are better located in less visible parts of the City, not on a waterfront being promoted by the City as a desirable place to visit. There will be lost city fiscal impacts if visitors decide to go elsewhere. People don't seem to want them in their neighborhood, tourist probably think the same way.
I support providing housing and resources to our unhoused neighbors in a way that respects their dignity, and ask that the city council not pursue measures that criminalize encampments or loitering. The single most common determinant of becoming unhoused is lacking financial resources and stability, and there is a vicious cycle between losing these resources, becoming unhoused, and being unable to secure stable housing. People lack housing because housing prices have continued to go up while labor conditions for many have become more precarious. These hardships have only been exacerbated by the pandemic and the loss of jobs many have faced, and carceral and other punitive methods are completely inappropriate and unhelpful responses.
We are very much opposed to locating a homeless shelter in either Seaside Lagoon or Moonstone Park. We have had a boat in King Harbor for over ten years and are frequent users of the harbor and local businesses. This area is some of the most scenic in the City. Please consider a less obtrusive location.
Steven and Kathleen Davis
I am in full support of adding pallet shelters in the city of Redondo Beach with the exception that law enforcement does not use these shelters to further criminalize unhoused folks. If these shelters are offered in our city, they must be an OPTION for unhoused folks and we should look to offering other resources to our neighbors as well.
I am opposed to any homeless housing near residential and school areas. Especially, any temporary efforts as presented. While homelessness is a growing issue in these times and there are unfortunate families who could definitely use some assistance, what is being presented here is not the answer. If the facilities were family friendly and in fact targeted to those who have run into unforeseen circumstances(I am looking at you Covid-19), then there should be a program they can reach out to for assistance. This 'pallet shelter' is not that. Bringing a family with children into a fenced in area with potentially dangerous individuals due to mental health or drug dependency is tantamount to criminal endangerment. So, the question is who do you think is being helped by this 'facility'? I have been a coach for over twenty years and when running summer camps have had to roust the homeless that populated the area to make sure the children felt safe going to camp. Is the city going to provide additional security enforcement of the areas to protect the children and make them feel comfortable walking in their own neighborhoods?
I won't speak about every location listed because I don't live there and I think it is ridiculous for anyone to say they support this measure, but only if it isn't near me. The people that are saying "yes, please put the housing in someone else's neighborhood" is showing a level of selfishness that is sad.
That all being said I live in North Redondo and will speak about the Kingdale location to say that is across the street from both a park and residential area and two blocks from three schools Washington Elementary, Adam's Middle School(one of the only two middle schools in RBUSD), and the preschool that was Beach Cities Child Development Center is opening under new management.
Where do people think the overflow of individuals who don't get one of the 30 beds are going to go? Not where they came from. They will walk across the street and camp in the park on near the train tracks.
For a facility of this nature the location is extremely important because the safety of our children is the most important consideration.
Many of those opposing this plan are citing security concerns relating to families and children. If safety is the concern, it would make the community MORE safe to establish a program that takes homeless off the streets and gives them the opportunity to reintegrate into society. Multiple reports and white papers prove that HOUSED homeless are far less dangerous to the community than unhoused. The bigger question concerned home owners should be asking is, "is there enough funding and will-power to make this program successful?". There has to be a concerted effort and continued funding to make sure this program succeeds. The argument around costs and where to put the project are bunk. It costs far more to arrest, process and incarcerate the homeless than managing this program. The former seaside lagoon seems like the best place as it's separated from residential areas, there is adequate services in the area and it's currently unoccupied. Creating the "model program" for fighting homelessness will attract city leaders from all over the country and shine a light on a wonderful community.
Yes, I am for pallet housing but against the criminalization of those who would be against using this housing.
I fully support and applaud the City Council's efforts to place temporary shelters in our City for homeless persons. I believe that Moonstone Park and Seaside Lagoon make the most sense since they are located near where there are higher numbers of homeless; they are the most inexpensive locations of the recommended options; and would be the least disruptive to residential and business areas.
I oppose the selection of either Moonstone Park or Seaside Lagoon as viable location for transitional housing. These are already high use areas by residents, visitors, boaters, recreational paddlers and Fire/Harbor Patrol and Coast Guard. As mentioned in the admin documents this is an emergency helicopter landing zone and was used just last week.
I am part of the Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club and we are a stakeholder leasee on Mole B. We are already dealing with unhoused in and around our location. It is a major concern for all our recreational programs but especially our kids program that runs May - September. We have been experiencing vandalism, make-shift shelters, drug use and other unsafe conditions. However, beyond that it is not a logical place for this project. It is on a crowded cul-de-sac, in an already congested parking area with limited access to public transport. I don't think the city has thought through the additional services needed to really make this impactful. Funding is just one part. We don't want to build it then rely on the police to manage it.
Housing for homeless is important, but harbor front accommodations in our big water sports and tourist hubs is a recipe for disaster, not to mention completely unfair to tax- payers like myself. As a home owner, I work hard to support my community, by paying property taxes, to keep crime out and keep the oceans and harbor clean. The ocean is a life source that needs to be nurtured and protected. Having a homeless population at either of the harbor locations will increase trash into our harbor, as well as pose a threat to our family safety. Many homeless are mentally ill and can be dangerous. Not the kind of draw we want for our families or our tourists. Let’s find them a great location inland, near career centers ad mental health services, and other municipal services that can help them. They won’t be looking for work at the harbor. If I lived harbor front for free, I’d sure be enjoying my million dollar view instead of looking for work. Put them near a transit station so they can get back on their feet. Let’s keep our harbor clean, safe, and tourist and family friendly.
Homelessness comes in many forms and affects so many people beyond just those with mental problems. Many Americans (and many in our own community) are struggling to pay their rent, stay in college or to hold onto their jobs, and just need the consistency of some basic but badly needed services to get back on their feet. I support the need for Redondo to lead in addressing the burgeoning crisis affecting our fellow citizens who are struggling to make ends meet and trying to get back on their feet. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to people who are fellow human beings in need (in fact, desperate need). No location will be perfect and appease everyone but too many people are falling below the poverty line and need some basic supports, including perhaps the most basic that the rest of us take for granted: shelter/safety.
Good evening,
Please do not consider Mole B (Moonstone Park) as an option for transitional housing for homeless. Other sites have permanent and better facilities. There will be conflict with the emergency helicopter landing zone and there will need to be more policing in the area. The congestion will also affect the operations of the fire department and Harbor Patrol.
The Kingsdale Site (Transit Site), although a greater initial cost, could be offset by funding already secured by the city. This is one of the most central locations with much greater access to public transportation and services that the homeless may require. Access to public transportation is vital in the movement and growth of the homeless as they seek employment and maintain those jobs. Selecting a site in the harbor will cost the city greater future financial loss due to a decrease in tourism dollars and revenue that would out-way the initial costs benefits. What is cheapest right now is not going to cost less in the future.
If Redondo Beach establishes itself as a welcoming beacon for the homeless in King Harbor, we may not be able to undo the surge of occupants that will migrate to this location. This needs to be taken very seriously from a community, economic and safety perspective.
Thank you,
Bo Ng
Dear City Council.
I want to commend the city council of Redondo Beach for considering these pallet houses. If saw through you would be a leader and example for the South Bay cities by starting to address the tragic reality that many of our neighbors can't afford a place to sleep. I hope the council has the courage to stand up to the NIMBYS who care more about their property values than caring for their fellow humans. As a Christian I want to live in community that lives in to the teaching of the gospels to care for the poorest in our community. I don't want to live in a community that punishes people for being too poor to afford a home.
As someone who knows dozens of unhoused people all over the south bay through my involvement in Street Watch LA South Bay I can tell you that these pallet houses could greatly improve their lives and be a critical boon in helping them stabilize their lives. Most of these folks just need a little stability and help tonget them from the streets into a home. These houses would help the people i know beable to focus on getting and keeping a job instead of the myriad of problems that come with not having a door to lock.
Many of the negative stereotypes of unhoused people are rooted in prejudice and racism. Unhoused people are not any more dangerous than any other group of people, most of them are people who have been faced with problems that were too big for them to handle. The death of a loved one, a divorce, the loss of a job, these are the kinds of things that can start the dominos falling that lead to people ending up on the streets.
I am asking the city of Redondo Beach to lead our community towards a response to our unhoused neighbors that is guided by compassion and love, not unfounded concerns rooted in prejudice and racism. Please bring these life changing homes to the South Bay.
Thank you for your time,
Matt Zarro
My name is Jason Boxer and I support the building of pallet houses in Redondo Beach for our unhoused neighbors. As your neighbor in Manhattan Beach, I believe that we have a duty to support and empower the local unhoused population regardless of what city we live in. To lack secure housing today means being extremely vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, a public health risk that extends beyond city lines and increases the likelihood of community spread for everybody.
Additionally, I ask that the city not resume police enforcement of anti-camping and anti-loitering laws as a result of building the pallet housing. I think we can come up with alternatives for helping our unhoused neighbors rather than criminalization and police citations. We can strive to meet their needs out of a sense of empathy, providing better access to hygiene stations, showers and restrooms. I am encouraging my own City Council to take similar measures.
Thank you for all the hard work you do for the South Bay. I believe the Redondo Beach City Council is an example to neighboring municipal bodies of excellent public service.
Sincerely,
Jason Boxer
I firmly support this project by the city and I hope it is the first of many plans to help our unhoused neighbors. Especially going into the colder winter months, flu season and with Covid present, this is more important than ever. I urge everyone to remember that shelter is a basic need and a right that everyone has, our unhoused neighbors are no different. I hope that this will be a positive drive from the city and not a way to criminalize these people that deserve our respect. Although 30 beds will not solve the homeless crisis it is a great place to begin and I hope we will get to see this plan enacted very soon.
I commend the city council for pursuing shelter and support for our unhoused neighbors in Redondo Beach and request that they move forward with this housing project. However, I would also like to caution against increased policing and criminalization towards unhoused folks as a result of this project- 30 beds will certainly not solve the issues which cause homelessness in our community and more work will need to be done. In the immediate- the unhoused community in Veteran's Park have identified bathrooms, showers, food, and other support as being immediate concerns for them and I encourage the council not to ignore these pressing basic needs while we debate pallet housing.
Likely those who oppose this project do not understand the legal risk our city is placing itself at by refusing to provide shelter for unhoused residents while policing and sweeping unhoused communities for sleeping in public space. The idea that Redondo Beach is some kind of magnet for unhoused people from all over the South Bay is simply not born out by the data from the homeless count or simple observation- in fact it is one of the few places in the South Bay which has fewer unhoused people than we did a few years ago (2017).
Cities can and have been sued for sweeping unhoused people who have no where else to go. By refusing to move forward with projects like this one Redondo places itself at risk for a lawsuit that would further diminish public funds at a time when our state is already facing dire budget constraints. If compassion and basic human decency aren't enough to compel people to support this work, perhaps a look at Martin v Boise, or some of the numerous ongoing lawsuits in Los Angeles around unlawful sweeps will pique their self interest enough to get on board.
I strongly support building the pallet housing at any of these locations. Redondo Beach desperately needs temporary housing options for our unhoused neighbors as that is an important first step into getting people into permanent housing. I also ask the council to not use this temporary shelter as an excuse to criminalize unhoused people in Redondo Beach by enforcing anti-camping and anti-loitering ordinances. These people are neighbors and members of our community who deserve respect, dignity and compassion from their city and the rest of the community.
1. The Admin Report states "$708,000 ... will cover all of the operating costs." On what is that based - has the City obtained a quote from a third-party like Mercy House, or Salvation Army, for operation and management of this project?
2. Will any of sites require a Coastal Development Permit from the Cal. Coastal Commission?
3. Has the City made further efforts since the 9/15 Meeting to find an alternative location outside of Redondo in SPA 8, e.g., has the City inquired as to any available vacant County-owned lots or structures, or engaged a real estate broker to assist?
4. Will opening the pallet shelter allow the City to enforce laws that prevent homeless encampments in our parks and public right-of-ways?
5. Will Redondo’s shelter be limited to those who are from or have prior connection to Redondo, and if not, will it become a magnet for homeless persons from outside the city? Bellflower and Whittier limited access to their shelters, and San Clemente limited access to its designated homeless camping site, to those who demonstrated they were at some point a resident of their respective city.
6. Will the City maintain the right to terminate, or move, the shelter at any time, as needed? Or, e.g, will the County Funding Agreement require the shelter stay open a minimum of 13 months?
7. Has the City considered the San Clemente model - i.e., provide a vacant lot with tents, toilets, etc, where people can be sheltered and receive services, and require any homeless camping only occur there? The approach withstood legal challenge and was apparently successful in transitioning homeless from the streets to better environs to the point where there were so few people remaining in the designated camping site that it was closed.
8. Has the City taken into consideration the experience of the Venice shelter in formulating its plans for a pallet shelter and/or designated homeless camping site?
9. Will there be rules - no weapons, drugs, alcohol, fires, quiet time?
10. What has been pallet success in moving people to permanent housing, and how can that be applied to ensure success here?
Scott & Evelyn Acosta Behrendt
Consideration for this housing should include access to food, jobs, and major public transportation. The Kingsdale location offers close access to buses and Aviation is close to the metro. Kingsdale has Sprouts and Target nearby for food and is already segregated from area neighborhoods by a train track to the left and busy road to the south.
I object to the use of Moonstone park for several reasons: (1) We are park poor in Redondo. This undeveloped park gets good use for kite flying, picnics, sunset viewing, tossing a ball with a child. What does the Parks and Rec commission say? (2) Lanakila and Nahoa Outrigger Canoe Clubs are next door and have faced vandalism already due to the unhoused with repeated destruction of their bathroom lock. Also there would be further trespassing use of the club's fresh water. (3) The area already face litter and drug needles etc on the rocks (4) High value assets (canoes) are at risk (5) boaters who frequently get on the water pre-dawn with headlamps face security risk . (5) Moonstone isn't convenient to food or much transit or jobs. (6) The area is already not very well patrolled or lit (7) The site is required for emergency helicopter landing and it's convenient access to Harbor Patrol is key for rescues. (8) State Coastal Commission likely involved for such a coastal site. (9) Already limited parking would be problematic. It is often full on weekends at certain times.
The Portofino Hotel opposes the Pallet housing location at Seaside Lagoon. There are several surrounding hotels within hundreds of yards of the site, and it would detract from guest experience as they drive or walk by, and view the site from their guest rooms. This will result in loss of revenue for surrounding hotels as well Transient Occupancy Tax for the city, which is a top revenue source.