L.1. PC21-2308 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GPAC) RECOMMENDED LAND USE PLAN AND MAP
Discuss, receive public input/comments, consider, and make a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council on the Draft General Plan Land Use Plan/Map which will support and inform the Draft Housing Element Update and serve as the basis for the required environmental analysis (California Environmental Quality Act - CEQA) of the City's ongoing General Plan Update.
One of the areas for consideration unfairly lands in a spot at Kingsdale and 182nd where there is already way too much going on with little access due to the size of the roads. Current traffic can barely pass through at rush hour to the point of hazardous conditions for pedestrians and kids attending the 2 school, lots of accidents and unruly frustrated drivers. Consideration needs to be spread out further into more parts of Redondo including South.
Another factor is future plans for Metro. Not knowing which alternative will be chosen really adds to reasons why Kingsdale and 182nd should NOT be assumed that it could carry that much of the housing developmental burden. These plans can clearly be laid out more strategically.
The housing allocation needs to be equitable across South and North Redondo. It is unfair to dump everything into North Redondo.
Amy, resident of Christian Horvath’s district.
North redondo beach is already doing it’s share to accommodate more housing. Please zone 1,245 units in the 90277 part of town. There is availability in areas such as the 50 acre AES power plant site in District 2.
Why was the AES site purposely left out of GPAC plan? After 2 years of meetings and use of public funds- the GPAC comes up with a plan to shove all new housing while leaving AES out?
This is a very bias plan and unfair. We can do better with a plan that is fair and balanced between 90277 and 90278
The housing allocation submitted by the GPAC is unfair to the residents of North Redondo. The plan must be modified to put half of the new units in South Redondo and half in North Redondo. It is only fair that the burden of any new residential development be spread throughout the city and not dumped into one area.
It is my opinion that staff has not credited/counted the number of ADUs that are possible to be built. They claim that the State limits what they can count, the methodology is flawed and should be challenged. Furthermore, staff has as an objective a housing plan that passes muster with the State housing nazis. This should not be the objective. In fact if it meets approval with the State then I would argue that it demonstrates that they did not push hard enough against the State's methodology for counting ADUs. Let it be challenged by the State and then we can argue their issues.
One of the areas for consideration unfairly lands in a spot at Kingsdale and 182nd where there is already way too much going on with little access due to the size of the roads. Current traffic can barely pass through at rush hour to the point of hazardous conditions for pedestrians and kids attending the 2 school, lots of accidents and unruly frustrated drivers. Consideration needs to be spread out further into more parts of Redondo including South.
Another factor is future plans for Metro. Not knowing which alternative will be chosen really adds to reasons why Kingsdale and 182nd should NOT be assumed that it could carry that much of the housing developmental burden. These plans can clearly be laid out more strategically.
The housing allocation needs to be equitable across South and North Redondo. It is unfair to dump everything into North Redondo.
Amy, resident of Christian Horvath’s district.
North redondo beach is already doing it’s share to accommodate more housing. Please zone 1,245 units in the 90277 part of town. There is availability in areas such as the 50 acre AES power plant site in District 2.
Why was the AES site purposely left out of GPAC plan? After 2 years of meetings and use of public funds- the GPAC comes up with a plan to shove all new housing while leaving AES out?
This is a very bias plan and unfair. We can do better with a plan that is fair and balanced between 90277 and 90278
Minh Nguyen
Resident, District 5
The housing allocation submitted by the GPAC is unfair to the residents of North Redondo. The plan must be modified to put half of the new units in South Redondo and half in North Redondo. It is only fair that the burden of any new residential development be spread throughout the city and not dumped into one area.
It is my opinion that staff has not credited/counted the number of ADUs that are possible to be built. They claim that the State limits what they can count, the methodology is flawed and should be challenged. Furthermore, staff has as an objective a housing plan that passes muster with the State housing nazis. This should not be the objective. In fact if it meets approval with the State then I would argue that it demonstrates that they did not push hard enough against the State's methodology for counting ADUs. Let it be challenged by the State and then we can argue their issues.