N.1. 21-2244 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CALENDAR SCHEDULE FOR MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH DRAFT LAND USE PLAN AND MAP AND THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
The problem with Item N1 is that it assumes that the GPAC process has reached the point where it has in a fair and open manner. It has not.
At the last meeting, after more than two years of work seeking consensus, the staff "helicoptered in" an alleged resolution of an issue that we had been dealing with all along: that of how our zoning might deal with the issue of affordable housing. It is an issue that has plagued California for decades.
Suddenly, in a knee-jerk response to alleged threats from state officials, the staff indicated that zoning changes needed to be made without further consideration. This is a classic staff ploy. Let the public play while they figure out what the ultimate result will be. (You might want to watch an old BBC show called "Yes, Minister" to see this in action.)
I understand that the question in this agenda item is whether two or three meetings will be necessary to unravel this issue and come up with what the next steps will be. I believe it will be three at a minimum, if it is going to be part of a regular agenda since the details of these issues will be complicated and, frankly, contentious.
I would suggest, in its place, that you hold a special meeting just for this. No other agenda items. No closed sessions. That would allow us all to air our opinions and you can best decide the proper direction for the future.
As a member of the GPAC, I can tell you that we were ambushed at the December meeting. We spend two years carefully negotiating the future land use across Redondo Beach, real planning, and all of that was thrown away at the December meeting.
A consultant was brought in to run the December meeting, and subjected our prior, set decisions to a series of up or down votes to allow high-density residential development into our neighborhoods. Such decisions impact our city forever into the future, generating traffic congestion, stressing city services and finances, including police, fire, and infrastructure, overcrowding our schools, blighting our neighborhoods, and causing a myriad of other problems.
Such important, permanent decisions for the future of Redondo Beach should have been subject to proper public notification, but they weren’t. They were forced as up-or-down votes in the dark of night, many past the scheduled end of the GPAC meeting, when some members had already had to leave to attend to family responsibilities.
We spent two years and many hours of our time and hard work to agree upon workable plans for Redondo Beach, and one night of forced votes pushed on us by some consultant we have never heard of turned all of our efforts to illegitimacy. I cannot endorse or recommend the results of the GPAC or the staff report that claims to be the results of our work.
Let me suggest that the City Council devote 3 meetings to carefully review the real work we did as the GPAC, and not the slapped-together, rushed, and ill-considered document reflecting that one night in December when these votes trashing our work were pushed through.
What is the City Council’s role regarding the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)? I am particularly interested in the GPAC decisions that will affect businesses on 182nd St & Kingsdale Ave.
The problem with Item N1 is that it assumes that the GPAC process has reached the point where it has in a fair and open manner. It has not.
At the last meeting, after more than two years of work seeking consensus, the staff "helicoptered in" an alleged resolution of an issue that we had been dealing with all along: that of how our zoning might deal with the issue of affordable housing. It is an issue that has plagued California for decades.
Suddenly, in a knee-jerk response to alleged threats from state officials, the staff indicated that zoning changes needed to be made without further consideration. This is a classic staff ploy. Let the public play while they figure out what the ultimate result will be. (You might want to watch an old BBC show called "Yes, Minister" to see this in action.)
I understand that the question in this agenda item is whether two or three meetings will be necessary to unravel this issue and come up with what the next steps will be. I believe it will be three at a minimum, if it is going to be part of a regular agenda since the details of these issues will be complicated and, frankly, contentious.
I would suggest, in its place, that you hold a special meeting just for this. No other agenda items. No closed sessions. That would allow us all to air our opinions and you can best decide the proper direction for the future.
Thanks.
As a member of the GPAC, I can tell you that we were ambushed at the December meeting. We spend two years carefully negotiating the future land use across Redondo Beach, real planning, and all of that was thrown away at the December meeting.
A consultant was brought in to run the December meeting, and subjected our prior, set decisions to a series of up or down votes to allow high-density residential development into our neighborhoods. Such decisions impact our city forever into the future, generating traffic congestion, stressing city services and finances, including police, fire, and infrastructure, overcrowding our schools, blighting our neighborhoods, and causing a myriad of other problems.
Such important, permanent decisions for the future of Redondo Beach should have been subject to proper public notification, but they weren’t. They were forced as up-or-down votes in the dark of night, many past the scheduled end of the GPAC meeting, when some members had already had to leave to attend to family responsibilities.
We spent two years and many hours of our time and hard work to agree upon workable plans for Redondo Beach, and one night of forced votes pushed on us by some consultant we have never heard of turned all of our efforts to illegitimacy. I cannot endorse or recommend the results of the GPAC or the staff report that claims to be the results of our work.
Let me suggest that the City Council devote 3 meetings to carefully review the real work we did as the GPAC, and not the slapped-together, rushed, and ill-considered document reflecting that one night in December when these votes trashing our work were pushed through.
What is the City Council’s role regarding the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)? I am particularly interested in the GPAC decisions that will affect businesses on 182nd St & Kingsdale Ave.