It’s very disheartening to see a Council Member spread a social media misinformation campaign to perpetuate a North versus South “turf war” that is not in evidence.
The GPAC comprises members appointed by the previous Council, 10 members from South Redondo, 15 from North Redondo. The geographical areas the GPAC recommends to add RHNA housing overlays are close to major, public transit hubs, QUALIFYING to match the REQUIREMENTS of availability. The GPAC appears to have made its RHNA-compliance recommendations based on the reality of Redondo’s infrastructure and the expected requirements, not a north versus south issue. But all that said, the GPAC should not have been tasked with this matter, thrown hastily on their plate as a last-minute item added to their mission by City Staff last December, with little time to properly assess.
The biggest concern should be supporting the Mayor and Council, along with our Assembly Member Muratsuchi, in fighting this egregious, arbitrary, grossly unfair new housing number being slammed onto our City. We need to be joining other cities in getting that number reduced as there’s no rhyme, reason or methodology to reasonably have such a burden placed on ANY city, while NOT providing additional funding or resources to pay for the huge financial strain increased housing would have on our budget, infrastructure, City services, and schools.
We shouldn’t be supporting ANY increased housing that will never be affordable for those the program intends. Disingenuous, self-serving blogs, emails and social media posts to promote a ridiculous, juvenile, north versus south “turf war”are nothing more than a catalyst for the District 5 Council Member to continue to sew division and angst, unjustifiably. She really needs to stop plying would-be recruits with half-truths in the process to further her personal agenda. We can do much better by joining together to fight what’s being unfairly imposed on Redondo Beach and other cities in the State, while doing our best to minimize negative impacts we might be forced to impose.
I oppose more housing development on Kingsdale and 182nd which already is under heavy attack from all directions. There will already be units at the Galleria which will burden heavily 182nd St. with only one lane in each direction and crossing Inglewood Ave., an already hazardous intersection. That intersection has school crossing for children in both Adams Middle School and Washington Elementary.
Let's be fair. New housing developments can and should be spread out more strategically so as not to overburden and urbanize North Redondo any further. Especially near the already busy Inglewood Ave. Anymore stress on this narrow artery will become impassible. The idea of revitalizing is making improvements, not making matters worse with more concrete, steel and congestion. Nobody wants that, citizens north and south. Spread it out and make it as painless as possible for the entire city, please. Thanks.
Please consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission submitted & presented to you tonight. They are sensible, and they distribute the housing number more throughout the city trying to preserve the flavor of our city (beach town). I hope everyone agrees to decrease the housing RHNA buffer to 10% or lower from 20%.
North PCH and the area where city hall resides are ideal locations to add housing (35 units/ac) and commercial flexible with higher RFAs. On the other hand, central PCH and Torrance Blvd are very congested areas with pedestrians and cars, and high density housing will NOT alleviate the congestion of that area. Not sure if the GPAC members were not familiar how congested PCH central and Torrance Blvd roads are.
Please consider converting the RED island (Commercial, high RFA) between Ruby and Pearl to a PINK inland (Neighborhood Commercial) for a SMOOTH transition down to South PCH. The sidewalks and the roads around these blocks are narrower than other areas along PCH.
So. RB needs to take responsibility for their fair share in housing and zone for more of the housing. It has to be equal and fair between the North and South. No more pushing everything off onto North RB!
I strongly urge the council to adopt the modifications recommended by the planning commission to the GPAC recommended land use plan. It is unfair to put the majority of the new units in one section of the city. Please help preserve the quiet single family neighborhood way of life we enjoy here in North Redondo.
As a resident of District 4 I declare that the council member supposedly representing our district is grossly misrepresenting his support from our district. Further more I oppose any attempts to force more than an equal share of the RHNA requirements on North Redondo. South Redondo can comfortably absorb all of the RHNA requirements in the AES site and the GPAC & planning commission agree. Any attempts to claim that South Redondo doesn't need to contribute are being made by South Redondo residents and wannabes.
I believe we are one redondo and that is why we should have equitable distribution of the housing and same practices when it comes to zoning. Don’t know why south redondo is never even considered. Their lots located below Torrance Blvd east of pch are bigger than our lots zoned r2 and r3 already yet they are zoned r1. And they are still trying to more density in north. Parking and traffic are horrible as it is. I can’t imagine how long it will take to leave my street in the morning now. I have to wait 20 minutes just to get onto Inglewood in the morning for work as it is when I work 5 minutes away. Lived here 47 years. My neighborhood and the ones directly next to mine are being overwhelmed and truly can not take anymore people. The infrastructure can not absorb anymore. We all keep saying so and no one is listening. Please listen to use. Do a door to door survey to see how the neighborhood feels about the changes. A lot of residents are not aware these changes are coming. Mailers directly to our homes informing us are needed. Please help. Many of my neighbors are elderly and this is how they prefer their notices. This is my family,home ,neighborhood and community. Please dont destroy them
I am a resident of District 3. Housing should not be built adjacent the 405--this would expose people to significant negative health impacts via high volumes of chemicals from vehicle emissions as well as noise pollution. I think that the very low income threshold should be modified from 56,000 annual income to 45,000--the former remains twice the annual income of minimum wage income earners, and at least 1.5x the median income of adjunct university faculty.
Given the history of redlining in Redondo Beach as well as less formal discrimination, and in order to provide better housing solutions than what could be provided by creating high density housing adjacent the 405, housing southeast of Torrance Blvd currently encoded as single family residential density should be modified to low or medium residential density.
Once again, I am reaching out to the council in an effort to represent the needs of North RB where where I own my home, which has already taken on the tremendous task of hosting the pallet shelters for our homeless population.
North Redondo Beach is already doing more than it’s fair share to accommodate more housing. We are already overcrowded. Please remove the 1,000 units in the Tech District and equitably re-zone the units throughout the 90277 part of town as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Please consider the planning commission’s recommendation that identified additional sites in South Redondo Beach that would create an equitable plan.
You need to be fair and zone 1,245 units in S RB.
As a homeowner in North Redondo, and I am sick and tired of the north getting dumped on. Once again counsel has dumped these issues on North Redondo and it must stop. Between the homeless pallet housing and now having to house more people, I have had it.
North Redondo has for many years taken on the burden that South Redondo refuses to have in “Their town”…first it was the pallet program for 6 months in NR at the promise of it being moved to SR after the first 6 months. Stand behind what you promised the residents of Redondo Beach 6 months ago Counsel before trying to shove more changes down our throats!!!!
YOU MUST zone 1,245 units in the 90277 part of town.
As north Redondo residents, this plan greatly impacts our home values, we are already overcrowded in NR…You must balance between the north and south. . It is very apparent that there is no effort to balance and we are asking that North RB is valued and treated equally.
Please go back to the drawing boards and come up with a fair solution. THAT IS YOUR JOB!!!!!
enough is enough. It’s high time for South Redondo to step up and take the lions share of this rezoning & pallet shelter burden.
It’s very disheartening to see a Council Member spread a social media misinformation campaign to perpetuate a North versus South “turf war” that is not in evidence.
The GPAC comprises members appointed by the previous Council, 10 members from South Redondo, 15 from North Redondo. The geographical areas the GPAC recommends to add RHNA housing overlays are close to major, public transit hubs, QUALIFYING to match the REQUIREMENTS of availability. The GPAC appears to have made its RHNA-compliance recommendations based on the reality of Redondo’s infrastructure and the expected requirements, not a north versus south issue. But all that said, the GPAC should not have been tasked with this matter, thrown hastily on their plate as a last-minute item added to their mission by City Staff last December, with little time to properly assess.
The biggest concern should be supporting the Mayor and Council, along with our Assembly Member Muratsuchi, in fighting this egregious, arbitrary, grossly unfair new housing number being slammed onto our City. We need to be joining other cities in getting that number reduced as there’s no rhyme, reason or methodology to reasonably have such a burden placed on ANY city, while NOT providing additional funding or resources to pay for the huge financial strain increased housing would have on our budget, infrastructure, City services, and schools.
We shouldn’t be supporting ANY increased housing that will never be affordable for those the program intends. Disingenuous, self-serving blogs, emails and social media posts to promote a ridiculous, juvenile, north versus south “turf war”are nothing more than a catalyst for the District 5 Council Member to continue to sew division and angst, unjustifiably. She really needs to stop plying would-be recruits with half-truths in the process to further her personal agenda. We can do much better by joining together to fight what’s being unfairly imposed on Redondo Beach and other cities in the State, while doing our best to minimize negative impacts we might be forced to impose.
I oppose more housing development on Kingsdale and 182nd which already is under heavy attack from all directions. There will already be units at the Galleria which will burden heavily 182nd St. with only one lane in each direction and crossing Inglewood Ave., an already hazardous intersection. That intersection has school crossing for children in both Adams Middle School and Washington Elementary.
Let's be fair. New housing developments can and should be spread out more strategically so as not to overburden and urbanize North Redondo any further. Especially near the already busy Inglewood Ave. Anymore stress on this narrow artery will become impassible. The idea of revitalizing is making improvements, not making matters worse with more concrete, steel and congestion. Nobody wants that, citizens north and south. Spread it out and make it as painless as possible for the entire city, please. Thanks.
Good Evening Council Members:
Please consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission submitted & presented to you tonight. They are sensible, and they distribute the housing number more throughout the city trying to preserve the flavor of our city (beach town). I hope everyone agrees to decrease the housing RHNA buffer to 10% or lower from 20%.
North PCH and the area where city hall resides are ideal locations to add housing (35 units/ac) and commercial flexible with higher RFAs. On the other hand, central PCH and Torrance Blvd are very congested areas with pedestrians and cars, and high density housing will NOT alleviate the congestion of that area. Not sure if the GPAC members were not familiar how congested PCH central and Torrance Blvd roads are.
Please consider converting the RED island (Commercial, high RFA) between Ruby and Pearl to a PINK inland (Neighborhood Commercial) for a SMOOTH transition down to South PCH. The sidewalks and the roads around these blocks are narrower than other areas along PCH.
Thanks for your consideration.
Marcie Guillermo
So. RB needs to take responsibility for their fair share in housing and zone for more of the housing. It has to be equal and fair between the North and South. No more pushing everything off onto North RB!
I strongly urge the council to adopt the modifications recommended by the planning commission to the GPAC recommended land use plan. It is unfair to put the majority of the new units in one section of the city. Please help preserve the quiet single family neighborhood way of life we enjoy here in North Redondo.
As a resident of District 4 I declare that the council member supposedly representing our district is grossly misrepresenting his support from our district. Further more I oppose any attempts to force more than an equal share of the RHNA requirements on North Redondo. South Redondo can comfortably absorb all of the RHNA requirements in the AES site and the GPAC & planning commission agree. Any attempts to claim that South Redondo doesn't need to contribute are being made by South Redondo residents and wannabes.
I believe we are one redondo and that is why we should have equitable distribution of the housing and same practices when it comes to zoning. Don’t know why south redondo is never even considered. Their lots located below Torrance Blvd east of pch are bigger than our lots zoned r2 and r3 already yet they are zoned r1. And they are still trying to more density in north. Parking and traffic are horrible as it is. I can’t imagine how long it will take to leave my street in the morning now. I have to wait 20 minutes just to get onto Inglewood in the morning for work as it is when I work 5 minutes away. Lived here 47 years. My neighborhood and the ones directly next to mine are being overwhelmed and truly can not take anymore people. The infrastructure can not absorb anymore. We all keep saying so and no one is listening. Please listen to use. Do a door to door survey to see how the neighborhood feels about the changes. A lot of residents are not aware these changes are coming. Mailers directly to our homes informing us are needed. Please help. Many of my neighbors are elderly and this is how they prefer their notices. This is my family,home ,neighborhood and community. Please dont destroy them
I am a resident of District 3. Housing should not be built adjacent the 405--this would expose people to significant negative health impacts via high volumes of chemicals from vehicle emissions as well as noise pollution. I think that the very low income threshold should be modified from 56,000 annual income to 45,000--the former remains twice the annual income of minimum wage income earners, and at least 1.5x the median income of adjunct university faculty.
Given the history of redlining in Redondo Beach as well as less formal discrimination, and in order to provide better housing solutions than what could be provided by creating high density housing adjacent the 405, housing southeast of Torrance Blvd currently encoded as single family residential density should be modified to low or medium residential density.
Once again, I am reaching out to the council in an effort to represent the needs of North RB where where I own my home, which has already taken on the tremendous task of hosting the pallet shelters for our homeless population.
North Redondo Beach is already doing more than it’s fair share to accommodate more housing. We are already overcrowded. Please remove the 1,000 units in the Tech District and equitably re-zone the units throughout the 90277 part of town as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Please consider the planning commission’s recommendation that identified additional sites in South Redondo Beach that would create an equitable plan.
You need to be fair and zone 1,245 units in S RB.
As a homeowner in North Redondo, and I am sick and tired of the north getting dumped on. Once again counsel has dumped these issues on North Redondo and it must stop. Between the homeless pallet housing and now having to house more people, I have had it.
North Redondo has for many years taken on the burden that South Redondo refuses to have in “Their town”…first it was the pallet program for 6 months in NR at the promise of it being moved to SR after the first 6 months. Stand behind what you promised the residents of Redondo Beach 6 months ago Counsel before trying to shove more changes down our throats!!!!
YOU MUST zone 1,245 units in the 90277 part of town.
As north Redondo residents, this plan greatly impacts our home values, we are already overcrowded in NR…You must balance between the north and south. . It is very apparent that there is no effort to balance and we are asking that North RB is valued and treated equally.
Please go back to the drawing boards and come up with a fair solution. THAT IS YOUR JOB!!!!!
enough is enough. It’s high time for South Redondo to step up and take the lions share of this rezoning & pallet shelter burden.