We oppose the additional housing and rezoning in the Galleria area. We have already absorbed housing units with the impending mega construction of the new mall. The north can not bear the burden. Share the responsibility between all districts in the city!
One cannot help but cringe hearing passionate arguments based on false information.
Also, cringe-worthy is hearing residents calling and writing from their single-family homes in the least-densely-housed neighborhood in the least-densely-housed city district, complaining to elected officials who live in 3-on-a-lot and 2-on-a-lot homes in much higher-density districts, that they are unfairly carrying the housing-density burden for the city.
These commenters also attack elected officials for votes not yet taken, on motions not made, on issues not yet discussed. What is happening here? It is a campaign by a councilperson who has no positive agenda, but sees political gain in dividing the city.
She has told these commenters to push the idea of re-zoning the AES property from “Parkland” to high-density residential. This is “Parkland” zoning, in another district, not hers or theirs – they do not offer up their own Anderson Park for such rezoning.
The entire city voted 6 times against placing residential development on the AES site – 6 times! It’s zoned as parkland.
The entire city voted 4 times to put a park on the AES site – 4 separate citywide votes of the residents. Did the councilperson tell the commenters those facts? Apparently not.
Did the councilperson disclose to the commenters her own communications with the real-estate developer who bought the AES site? Apparently not.
Did the councilperson point out to the commenters that commuter traffic generated from residential development at the AES site will be cut-through traffic in the commenters’ neighborhood? Apparently not.
This same councilperson wasted $12 million of taxpayer money voting to buy out the Fun Factory lease for a shopping mall and movie-theater-on-the-pier that the residents voted down weeks later.
She also voted to contract a mall developer for that shopping-mall and theater weeks before the voters rejected it. Her vote cost the taxpayers millions in lawsuits from the real estate developer.
Is this the councilperson to be relied upon to make good land use decisions and commitments for the city?
Is this councilperson giving you comments for this public forum?
I spent much of my life living and working in Redondo Beach. I oppose changing the P-CF zone to allow residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) on public land without requiring approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). This was presented to the City Council as a minor change in language, but make no mistake, this is a fundamental change to Public zoning and land use.
This is an extremely rare parcel of land zoned P-CF in Redondo Beach, it’s essential to keep this basic protection in place, both for the safeguarding of public land, and to provide public transparency and an avenue for public input.
The change was made at the nth hour, after being presented to the GPAC. On the final summary slide “Recommended Land Definitions” is the text: “Staff add after GPAC revisions”. This should be questioned, why would this major change be added? For the benefit of whom? Certainly not the public.
It turns out, there is only one parcel of P-CF zoned land that is currently being proposed as a commercial, for-profit RCFE development. The Beach Cities Health District is aggressively seeking a for-profit developer to build, operate and majority own a high-priced $12.5K per month RCFE.
Any such privatized RCFE should be limited to land zoned commercial or high density residential, not public land. The high-priced RCFE, according to their own feasibility study, would serve very few Redondo residents or Beach Cities residents that are the taxpayer owners.
Please don’t let this slide in, in the flurry of RHNA issues.
Ann Wolfson
I oppose additional housing in the Galleria area or rezoning the existing industrial areas along and around Kingsdale and 182nd St to Overlay. The 300 apartments planned for the Galleria project is enough. The single lane roads are not designed for or can safety handle additional traffic. 182nd St and Inglewood Ave already have a history of accidents and near misses. The roads are heavily utilized by Galleria area businesses, visitors, children and families in the Franklin Park and El Nido neighborhoods, Adams Middle School, Washington Elementary, the Child Development Center, Fulton Playfield, El Nido Park and also impacted by Torrance and other cut through traffic. Safety must be prioritized. Also some claim more housing should be in the Galleria area since it’s close to public transit. However public transit is available throughout the city. Housing should be shared equally throughout all five districts. Those of us that live in north have seen the buses and transit center empty or few riders for years. The train also has few riders and continues to decline, especially as safety continues to be an issue, it’s faster to drive and/or it doesn’t go where people want to go. Housing should be shared equally throughout all five districts for a fair quality of life for all and a One Redondo plan.
Good evening my name is Matthew Hinsley from District 3. I want to write to object the spectacle at the last meeting. I still say it was a missed opportunity to have, for example, Councilmember and Councilmember Lowenstein talk off-line and hash out something that they could agree on and not subject to the public to the noise and fighting that is taking place both tonight and online. It is completely unnecessary but here we are.
The AES site is the most controversial site under discussion. I want to provide some context that I considered on the Planning Commission. First, this cycle RHNA is 8 years from 2021 through 2029. The 50 acre AES site may be extended until Dec. 31, 2023. That leaves over 5 years for full remediation for other uses. AES has said publicly that site remediation is their responsibility. Also, in the history of AES is long and complicated. The residents voted for zoning change over 15 years ago to only parkland while AES was to remain a functioning powerplant. The residents also voted down zoning change to roughly 60% parkland and 40% commercial. The residents also voted down 600 housing units on the AES site. But in that measure 48% of residents did vote yes to housing at AES. Last when the city of Redondo Beach appealed our RHNA allocation HCD specially mentioned "...don't you have a retiring power plant?" To say that HCD definitely will not accept AES as a potential housing site is not correct. They may reject it, or reject other locations, but that is what a draft Housing Element is for. I have done a lot of research in the General Plan update history and GPAC, I self taught the RHNA 6th cycle methodology and process and history. If any councilmember wants to discuss this more I have plenty of ideas how the city can come to a conclusion to meet our housing in a better way than is proposed and discussed tonight.
The final decision needs to be 5-0 council, not a 3-2 vote because ultimately this General Plan update voted on of by the residents. You need every councilmember to approve and convince their residents to vote for this General Plan update. Don't waste our time with a 3-2 vote that ultimately gets voted down by the residents.
Please DO NOT adopt the GPAC's recommendations, specifically in areas where traffic (human and transportation) is already heavy, such as PCH between Ruby, Pearl, Torrance Blvd, Broadway and Catalina Avenue. Consider keeping PCH neighborhood commercial (pink color). This area is a gateway to the Harbor and beach, and as such the area is congested.
Also, do not allow the change in zoning designation from "public community facilities" to "public institutional" in the Beach Cities Health District area. Doing the zoning designation change will permit another Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly without a CUP (conditional use permit). If you allow this zoning designation change, then you must allow other zoning designation changes such as changing "public institutional" where City Hall is to another designation that allows housing high FRA commercial (red).
After speaking with some GPAC members, it became clear that Land Use definitions were changed from 2019 to 2021 GPAC presentations absent discussion at GPAC. Last meeting, the presentations were represented as GPAC recommendations. That appears untrue. Specifically, my concern is the insertion of RCFE into Public absent the requirement that the RCFE be publicly owned, financed and cost-based. If we are going to use our scarce public land resources for RCFE, then any such RCFE must be public RCFE, not a commercial RCFE camouflaged inside a joint venture. It must also have a maximum rent that is non-profit and cost-based, as are all other government activities.
Slipping redefinition of the Public land use into documents and representing that as a GPAC recommendation is offensive to taxpayers.
As a resident of District 4 I oppose any attempts to inequitably satisfy the state imposed RHNA requirements. There is no one Redondo Beach unless South Redondo accepts its equal share of the RHNA assignment.
Using the Tech District for housing is foolish. If anything we should be encouraging Northrop to create more jobs in that area instead of removing that option. Why not focus on creating jobs wherever possible by zoning mixed use along Catalina Ave south of Herondo and the AES site to reduce cross city traffic. As for the AES remediation excuse where is the documentation that the cost will be formidable? Has anyone verified that no one is willing to accept the burden?
District 4 is bereft of true representation. Obagi chooses to vote for his own personal agenda rather than the needs of his constitutents. I should not have to counter his motions.
I commend everyone who has stepped up to the arduous task of updating the city's land use plan for housing needs, including the GPAC, the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, and now the City Council. Housing policy is complex but done right, we can increase affordability, encourage transit ridership, and improve opportunities for people of all backgrounds and income levels. There is an opportunity to address the climate crisis and racial equity by adopting just housing policies. I have several comments to make with regards to the land use updates:
1. Thoughtfully consider the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, including their recommendations for areas that were not initially explored by the GPAC or highlighted on the Social PinPoint map.
2. Ensure that any housing built on public land allocated for the BCHD campus to be set aside for affordable units, such as non-profit and publicly-owned senior and assisted living (RCFE) rather than privately-operated units.
3. Consider the socioeconomic and racial gaps between North and South Redondo, and how increasing the number of units in South Redondo can help to bridge these gaps. Increase more multifamily zoning in strategic areas, such as commercial zones, near job centers, and transit opportunities. Allow more duplexes to be built in R1 zones, both through ADUs and increasing to R2. As someone who grew up in South Redondo neighborhoods, I am often dismayed to see new houses being built on large lots that maximize to the setbacks, when the same lots could easily accommodate a tasteful duplex or triplex. I know I'm in the minority on this, but as a young adult who cares about climate and social justice issues, I see that housing is one way to address historical wrongs.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
This feels like an exercise in Whackamole. The reasoning for these proposed zoning in North Redondo is just not based on reality and will bring so much more congestion, traffic, and people to an already congested area. Parking is non existent now, so where are the new cars going to park? I don't feel you have had enough input from people who are on the ground and living in these areas. I live close to Artesia and have seen it become a ghost town and very run down over the last 10 years. The big hit for us in this area is when Albertson's grocery pulled and and we never got a replacement until last year. But Grocery Outlet is a horrible replacement for a thriving area. And I have not heard anything from our newly elected Councilman Zein Obagi for District 4 where I live. He certainly knew how to communicate when he was running for office, and not nothing.
I was surprised to read the general plan and see the addition of Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) added as an allowed use for land zoned for Public/Institutional use. This seems to be a way to back-door the Beach Cities Health District expansion which includes such a facility that will be run by a for-profit company and will house mainly people from outside the beach cities.
Please do not include RCFE as an allowed use for any Public/Institutional zoning.
Please consider equitably sharing the housing allocation between North and South Redondo. Do not put the majority of the housing in N. Redondo. Utilize the AES property for housing.
1) We should not block all the freeway access and access leaving the beach cities with hundreds more homes and vehicles.
2) We need workforce housing for teachers and essential workers. AES has plenty of land and can accommodate workforce housing.
Thank you for your consideration
I am not opposed to the states required RHNA designation as much as I am opposed to the disdain and lack of real representation of racial equity in understanding redlining by the residents and the council of redondo. I do not agree that the AES site, knowing quite well how untested the residual chemicals may leave eveniromental harm for future residents. I oppose the proposed plans for placing residents in the one of 3 possible designated thorough ways 2 of which near the 405 interstate.This does not absolve the city from placing nearly 1500 potential residents who desire to have affordable housing in one of the absolute worst regions in Redondo be an appropriate solution for low income residents. This in fact is a direct cause of redlining our city and our districts. This matter can also be cause for future liitagaion by the Coastal Commission for lack of access to the water, simply because the city have failed to properly zone for low income housing near the water. This is a missed opportunity for low income residential / mixed use near the often times, large and vacant parking lots of seaside lagoon and the former site of Ruby's. it is incredibly remiss and direlect for council to pass on the chance to purchase and lease this land for future housing units and designate them for affordable living. Again, by not taking this opportunity to place affordable units near the water the city leaves itself yet again vulnerable to future litigations adding to the already exasperated lawsuits at tax payer expense simply because, white residents feel it more appropriate that north redondo both D4 and D5 continue to pack on the burden of more housing. The future of the Galleria are not counted in the projected number, and neither are both the commercial and industrial regions of D4/D5 zoned for housing development. No one complained about the development of the Shade Hotel blocking the harbor view because it brought in revenue,yet remains an unsightly and undesirable location for residents with its high prices.
I urge council to consider areas of south redondo for better locations to accomadte the RHNA.
https://sandiego.surfrider.org/redlining-coastal-access-inequity/
North Redondo should not have more than its share of additional housing. I live near Manhattan Beach Blvd and Lincoln School and have witnessed too many frustrated drivers whizzing thru stop signs to make the light on Manhattan Beach Blvd without any regard for children on scooters and bicycles. Any more traffic could never have a good outcome. There is no available street parking now. I find it incomprehensible to add any additional homes to our now heavily populated area.
I oppose the full burden of RHNA being placed in North Redondo. Once again, its North Redondo residents and it council members who must provide the burden of proof and demand equity on this particular issue. The City Council should serve all of Redondo, not just a few.
Something shady is happening right now with our public zoning. In the DEIR for BCHD's Healthy Living Campus, it actually says the property is on Public Institutional, yet there's been no change from Public Community Faciltiy (P-CF) to Public Institutional (P/I) . It seems the writers of the DEIR presumed this change was certain and wrote it in as though it were a "done deal?" Page 135 of the DEIR actually claims, "The campus, which is located within Redondo Beach, is designated P (Public or Institutional) land use within the Redondo Beach General Plan." This is untrue—it is zoned P-CF right now and should stay that way.
The BCHD project should be denied on the basis of the zoning grounds alone. Too few people, least of all BCHD reps themselves, seem interested in the zoning question, yet it's critical. This proposall should only be on a commercial or high residential density zone. I asked BCHD how they thought it was okay to put a commercial RCFE, grossly out of scale with its surroundings, on a P-CF zone. They expressed an odd certaintly that there would be no issue, perhaps because Silverado exists. That was an exception, and as we've seen from the colossal renderings, this would be no Silverado. Their lack of concern is making sense now—it was likely due to this play to quietly switch to Public Institutional which would allow them no hold ups getting their plan approved. Residential Care Facilities today are not "by rights" allowed on Public Community Facility-zoned land, but can be allowed if okayed by City Council and the Planning Commission with a Conditional Use Permit, which obviously would kill the BCHD plan if that vote didn't go their way.
A sudden change to this zoning to include RCFEs outright would set a precedent and contribute to the demise of our much needed public zones that are intended to actually be used for the public. It would cause long-term negative repercussions to our city and our neighbors in Torrance. It would make it okay to blindly hand over public land for private profit. Public means "for all." This zoning change—and don't be fooled, it's a zoning change, not a wording change—must not be approved.
I don’t understand all the political or administrative issues involved here, but it is my understanding that the Council may consider revision of land use planning rules to both (1) permit residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) to be located on Public Land (P or P-CF) and (2) allow such facilities to escape the conditional use permit process that currently applies to virtually all uses of public lands. I oppose such revisions.
Presently, in this area the only proposed use of public lands for an RCFE-like facility is the “redevelopment” of the Beach Cities Health District property on Prospect Avenue. It would erect over 200 apartments in a truly huge building—higher and wider than Torrance Memorial Medical Center—and the BCHD project would sit in a residential area painfully visible to neighbors in Redondo and Torrance. These would be very expensive units, renting for more than $12,000 per month. The admitted reason for this real estate development is to increase District cash flow which is dropping substantially, and renting apartments to old people appears to be a money maker.
As Redondo declared when it approved the Kensington facility, converting from a school property to RCFE use replaces a public use with a private use. The same thing is planned for the BCHD redevelopment. Make no mistake: BCHD proposes to own and operate a private-use facility.
As it is, there are already many RCFE facilities on private land in Redondo and surrounding cities, and there will be more as the population ages. It makes no sense allow RCFEs on scarce public lands. But there is more. Namely, BCHD, as a health care district, lacks legislative authority to own and operate a residential facility, including its proposed RCFE, on its land. I would hope that Redondo would not give BCHD a pass when healthcare district law does not permit residential facilities such as the proposed RCFE.
(Granicus failed earlier, so I sent the above to the city clerk...)
I oppose the full burden of RHNA being placed in North Redondo. The North Tech area hosts major employers such as DHL, an Amazon Distribution Center, UBER Greenlight and 3 brand new hotels. Industrial land with easy access to freeways and proximity to LAX and the ports is highly desirable. Putting housing on this site further lowers our Job/Housing ratio. This proposal is not even credible. While the AES Site is one of Redondo’s most desirable areas for housing. It is near the Beach Bike path, many restaurants and the pier area.
This is talking about the Tech District near the Metro C Line. We do not need to build ALL 1,000 units on that land.
If housing gets denied at the Tech District, then the city and the RBUSD could at least construct a new joint (6-12) Middle and High School so that Redondo Union High, Mira Costa High (MBUSD), and Adams Middle Schools do not feel overcrowded in the next 20 years. By 2018, RUHS was already at the end of their rope with having too many students--including the majority of the 8th grade students from Hermosa Beach and some other kids from neighboring school districts.
Redondo Beach Resident,
Alexandros Martinez
P.S. Aviation High School (1957-1982) and 7th and 8th grade at Lincoln (Lincoln Elementary was K-8 until the late 1990s) were all missed opportunities for me and my neighbors who lived near Lincoln and TRW.
North should not bear the burden and new housing should be split between the two parts of the city
We oppose the additional housing and rezoning in the Galleria area. We have already absorbed housing units with the impending mega construction of the new mall. The north can not bear the burden. Share the responsibility between all districts in the city!
One cannot help but cringe hearing passionate arguments based on false information.
Also, cringe-worthy is hearing residents calling and writing from their single-family homes in the least-densely-housed neighborhood in the least-densely-housed city district, complaining to elected officials who live in 3-on-a-lot and 2-on-a-lot homes in much higher-density districts, that they are unfairly carrying the housing-density burden for the city.
These commenters also attack elected officials for votes not yet taken, on motions not made, on issues not yet discussed. What is happening here? It is a campaign by a councilperson who has no positive agenda, but sees political gain in dividing the city.
She has told these commenters to push the idea of re-zoning the AES property from “Parkland” to high-density residential. This is “Parkland” zoning, in another district, not hers or theirs – they do not offer up their own Anderson Park for such rezoning.
The entire city voted 6 times against placing residential development on the AES site – 6 times! It’s zoned as parkland.
The entire city voted 4 times to put a park on the AES site – 4 separate citywide votes of the residents. Did the councilperson tell the commenters those facts? Apparently not.
Did the councilperson disclose to the commenters her own communications with the real-estate developer who bought the AES site? Apparently not.
Did the councilperson point out to the commenters that commuter traffic generated from residential development at the AES site will be cut-through traffic in the commenters’ neighborhood? Apparently not.
This same councilperson wasted $12 million of taxpayer money voting to buy out the Fun Factory lease for a shopping mall and movie-theater-on-the-pier that the residents voted down weeks later.
She also voted to contract a mall developer for that shopping-mall and theater weeks before the voters rejected it. Her vote cost the taxpayers millions in lawsuits from the real estate developer.
Is this the councilperson to be relied upon to make good land use decisions and commitments for the city?
Is this councilperson giving you comments for this public forum?
We are still cringing.
I spent much of my life living and working in Redondo Beach. I oppose changing the P-CF zone to allow residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) on public land without requiring approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). This was presented to the City Council as a minor change in language, but make no mistake, this is a fundamental change to Public zoning and land use.
This is an extremely rare parcel of land zoned P-CF in Redondo Beach, it’s essential to keep this basic protection in place, both for the safeguarding of public land, and to provide public transparency and an avenue for public input.
The change was made at the nth hour, after being presented to the GPAC. On the final summary slide “Recommended Land Definitions” is the text: “Staff add after GPAC revisions”. This should be questioned, why would this major change be added? For the benefit of whom? Certainly not the public.
It turns out, there is only one parcel of P-CF zoned land that is currently being proposed as a commercial, for-profit RCFE development. The Beach Cities Health District is aggressively seeking a for-profit developer to build, operate and majority own a high-priced $12.5K per month RCFE.
Any such privatized RCFE should be limited to land zoned commercial or high density residential, not public land. The high-priced RCFE, according to their own feasibility study, would serve very few Redondo residents or Beach Cities residents that are the taxpayer owners.
Please don’t let this slide in, in the flurry of RHNA issues.
Ann Wolfson
I oppose additional housing in the Galleria area or rezoning the existing industrial areas along and around Kingsdale and 182nd St to Overlay. The 300 apartments planned for the Galleria project is enough. The single lane roads are not designed for or can safety handle additional traffic. 182nd St and Inglewood Ave already have a history of accidents and near misses. The roads are heavily utilized by Galleria area businesses, visitors, children and families in the Franklin Park and El Nido neighborhoods, Adams Middle School, Washington Elementary, the Child Development Center, Fulton Playfield, El Nido Park and also impacted by Torrance and other cut through traffic. Safety must be prioritized. Also some claim more housing should be in the Galleria area since it’s close to public transit. However public transit is available throughout the city. Housing should be shared equally throughout all five districts. Those of us that live in north have seen the buses and transit center empty or few riders for years. The train also has few riders and continues to decline, especially as safety continues to be an issue, it’s faster to drive and/or it doesn’t go where people want to go. Housing should be shared equally throughout all five districts for a fair quality of life for all and a One Redondo plan.
Good evening my name is Matthew Hinsley from District 3. I want to write to object the spectacle at the last meeting. I still say it was a missed opportunity to have, for example, Councilmember and Councilmember Lowenstein talk off-line and hash out something that they could agree on and not subject to the public to the noise and fighting that is taking place both tonight and online. It is completely unnecessary but here we are.
The AES site is the most controversial site under discussion. I want to provide some context that I considered on the Planning Commission. First, this cycle RHNA is 8 years from 2021 through 2029. The 50 acre AES site may be extended until Dec. 31, 2023. That leaves over 5 years for full remediation for other uses. AES has said publicly that site remediation is their responsibility. Also, in the history of AES is long and complicated. The residents voted for zoning change over 15 years ago to only parkland while AES was to remain a functioning powerplant. The residents also voted down zoning change to roughly 60% parkland and 40% commercial. The residents also voted down 600 housing units on the AES site. But in that measure 48% of residents did vote yes to housing at AES. Last when the city of Redondo Beach appealed our RHNA allocation HCD specially mentioned "...don't you have a retiring power plant?" To say that HCD definitely will not accept AES as a potential housing site is not correct. They may reject it, or reject other locations, but that is what a draft Housing Element is for. I have done a lot of research in the General Plan update history and GPAC, I self taught the RHNA 6th cycle methodology and process and history. If any councilmember wants to discuss this more I have plenty of ideas how the city can come to a conclusion to meet our housing in a better way than is proposed and discussed tonight.
The final decision needs to be 5-0 council, not a 3-2 vote because ultimately this General Plan update voted on of by the residents. You need every councilmember to approve and convince their residents to vote for this General Plan update. Don't waste our time with a 3-2 vote that ultimately gets voted down by the residents.
Please DO NOT adopt the GPAC's recommendations, specifically in areas where traffic (human and transportation) is already heavy, such as PCH between Ruby, Pearl, Torrance Blvd, Broadway and Catalina Avenue. Consider keeping PCH neighborhood commercial (pink color). This area is a gateway to the Harbor and beach, and as such the area is congested.
Also, do not allow the change in zoning designation from "public community facilities" to "public institutional" in the Beach Cities Health District area. Doing the zoning designation change will permit another Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly without a CUP (conditional use permit). If you allow this zoning designation change, then you must allow other zoning designation changes such as changing "public institutional" where City Hall is to another designation that allows housing high FRA commercial (red).
Thanks,
Marcie Guillermo
After speaking with some GPAC members, it became clear that Land Use definitions were changed from 2019 to 2021 GPAC presentations absent discussion at GPAC. Last meeting, the presentations were represented as GPAC recommendations. That appears untrue. Specifically, my concern is the insertion of RCFE into Public absent the requirement that the RCFE be publicly owned, financed and cost-based. If we are going to use our scarce public land resources for RCFE, then any such RCFE must be public RCFE, not a commercial RCFE camouflaged inside a joint venture. It must also have a maximum rent that is non-profit and cost-based, as are all other government activities.
Slipping redefinition of the Public land use into documents and representing that as a GPAC recommendation is offensive to taxpayers.
As a resident of District 4 I oppose any attempts to inequitably satisfy the state imposed RHNA requirements. There is no one Redondo Beach unless South Redondo accepts its equal share of the RHNA assignment.
Using the Tech District for housing is foolish. If anything we should be encouraging Northrop to create more jobs in that area instead of removing that option. Why not focus on creating jobs wherever possible by zoning mixed use along Catalina Ave south of Herondo and the AES site to reduce cross city traffic. As for the AES remediation excuse where is the documentation that the cost will be formidable? Has anyone verified that no one is willing to accept the burden?
District 4 is bereft of true representation. Obagi chooses to vote for his own personal agenda rather than the needs of his constitutents. I should not have to counter his motions.
I commend everyone who has stepped up to the arduous task of updating the city's land use plan for housing needs, including the GPAC, the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, and now the City Council. Housing policy is complex but done right, we can increase affordability, encourage transit ridership, and improve opportunities for people of all backgrounds and income levels. There is an opportunity to address the climate crisis and racial equity by adopting just housing policies. I have several comments to make with regards to the land use updates:
1. Thoughtfully consider the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, including their recommendations for areas that were not initially explored by the GPAC or highlighted on the Social PinPoint map.
2. Ensure that any housing built on public land allocated for the BCHD campus to be set aside for affordable units, such as non-profit and publicly-owned senior and assisted living (RCFE) rather than privately-operated units.
3. Consider the socioeconomic and racial gaps between North and South Redondo, and how increasing the number of units in South Redondo can help to bridge these gaps. Increase more multifamily zoning in strategic areas, such as commercial zones, near job centers, and transit opportunities. Allow more duplexes to be built in R1 zones, both through ADUs and increasing to R2. As someone who grew up in South Redondo neighborhoods, I am often dismayed to see new houses being built on large lots that maximize to the setbacks, when the same lots could easily accommodate a tasteful duplex or triplex. I know I'm in the minority on this, but as a young adult who cares about climate and social justice issues, I see that housing is one way to address historical wrongs.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
This feels like an exercise in Whackamole. The reasoning for these proposed zoning in North Redondo is just not based on reality and will bring so much more congestion, traffic, and people to an already congested area. Parking is non existent now, so where are the new cars going to park? I don't feel you have had enough input from people who are on the ground and living in these areas. I live close to Artesia and have seen it become a ghost town and very run down over the last 10 years. The big hit for us in this area is when Albertson's grocery pulled and and we never got a replacement until last year. But Grocery Outlet is a horrible replacement for a thriving area. And I have not heard anything from our newly elected Councilman Zein Obagi for District 4 where I live. He certainly knew how to communicate when he was running for office, and not nothing.
I was surprised to read the general plan and see the addition of Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) added as an allowed use for land zoned for Public/Institutional use. This seems to be a way to back-door the Beach Cities Health District expansion which includes such a facility that will be run by a for-profit company and will house mainly people from outside the beach cities.
Please do not include RCFE as an allowed use for any Public/Institutional zoning.
Lee Coller
Redondo Beach Resident, District 3
Please consider equitably sharing the housing allocation between North and South Redondo. Do not put the majority of the housing in N. Redondo. Utilize the AES property for housing.
1) We should not block all the freeway access and access leaving the beach cities with hundreds more homes and vehicles.
2) We need workforce housing for teachers and essential workers. AES has plenty of land and can accommodate workforce housing.
Thank you for your consideration
I am not opposed to the states required RHNA designation as much as I am opposed to the disdain and lack of real representation of racial equity in understanding redlining by the residents and the council of redondo. I do not agree that the AES site, knowing quite well how untested the residual chemicals may leave eveniromental harm for future residents. I oppose the proposed plans for placing residents in the one of 3 possible designated thorough ways 2 of which near the 405 interstate.This does not absolve the city from placing nearly 1500 potential residents who desire to have affordable housing in one of the absolute worst regions in Redondo be an appropriate solution for low income residents. This in fact is a direct cause of redlining our city and our districts. This matter can also be cause for future liitagaion by the Coastal Commission for lack of access to the water, simply because the city have failed to properly zone for low income housing near the water. This is a missed opportunity for low income residential / mixed use near the often times, large and vacant parking lots of seaside lagoon and the former site of Ruby's. it is incredibly remiss and direlect for council to pass on the chance to purchase and lease this land for future housing units and designate them for affordable living. Again, by not taking this opportunity to place affordable units near the water the city leaves itself yet again vulnerable to future litigations adding to the already exasperated lawsuits at tax payer expense simply because, white residents feel it more appropriate that north redondo both D4 and D5 continue to pack on the burden of more housing. The future of the Galleria are not counted in the projected number, and neither are both the commercial and industrial regions of D4/D5 zoned for housing development. No one complained about the development of the Shade Hotel blocking the harbor view because it brought in revenue,yet remains an unsightly and undesirable location for residents with its high prices.
I urge council to consider areas of south redondo for better locations to accomadte the RHNA.
https://sandiego.surfrider.org/redlining-coastal-access-inequity/
North Redondo should not have more than its share of additional housing. I live near Manhattan Beach Blvd and Lincoln School and have witnessed too many frustrated drivers whizzing thru stop signs to make the light on Manhattan Beach Blvd without any regard for children on scooters and bicycles. Any more traffic could never have a good outcome. There is no available street parking now. I find it incomprehensible to add any additional homes to our now heavily populated area.
I oppose the full burden of RHNA being placed in North Redondo. Once again, its North Redondo residents and it council members who must provide the burden of proof and demand equity on this particular issue. The City Council should serve all of Redondo, not just a few.
Something shady is happening right now with our public zoning. In the DEIR for BCHD's Healthy Living Campus, it actually says the property is on Public Institutional, yet there's been no change from Public Community Faciltiy (P-CF) to Public Institutional (P/I) . It seems the writers of the DEIR presumed this change was certain and wrote it in as though it were a "done deal?" Page 135 of the DEIR actually claims, "The campus, which is located within Redondo Beach, is designated P (Public or Institutional) land use within the Redondo Beach General Plan." This is untrue—it is zoned P-CF right now and should stay that way.
The BCHD project should be denied on the basis of the zoning grounds alone. Too few people, least of all BCHD reps themselves, seem interested in the zoning question, yet it's critical. This proposall should only be on a commercial or high residential density zone. I asked BCHD how they thought it was okay to put a commercial RCFE, grossly out of scale with its surroundings, on a P-CF zone. They expressed an odd certaintly that there would be no issue, perhaps because Silverado exists. That was an exception, and as we've seen from the colossal renderings, this would be no Silverado. Their lack of concern is making sense now—it was likely due to this play to quietly switch to Public Institutional which would allow them no hold ups getting their plan approved. Residential Care Facilities today are not "by rights" allowed on Public Community Facility-zoned land, but can be allowed if okayed by City Council and the Planning Commission with a Conditional Use Permit, which obviously would kill the BCHD plan if that vote didn't go their way.
A sudden change to this zoning to include RCFEs outright would set a precedent and contribute to the demise of our much needed public zones that are intended to actually be used for the public. It would cause long-term negative repercussions to our city and our neighbors in Torrance. It would make it okay to blindly hand over public land for private profit. Public means "for all." This zoning change—and don't be fooled, it's a zoning change, not a wording change—must not be approved.
I don’t understand all the political or administrative issues involved here, but it is my understanding that the Council may consider revision of land use planning rules to both (1) permit residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) to be located on Public Land (P or P-CF) and (2) allow such facilities to escape the conditional use permit process that currently applies to virtually all uses of public lands. I oppose such revisions.
Presently, in this area the only proposed use of public lands for an RCFE-like facility is the “redevelopment” of the Beach Cities Health District property on Prospect Avenue. It would erect over 200 apartments in a truly huge building—higher and wider than Torrance Memorial Medical Center—and the BCHD project would sit in a residential area painfully visible to neighbors in Redondo and Torrance. These would be very expensive units, renting for more than $12,000 per month. The admitted reason for this real estate development is to increase District cash flow which is dropping substantially, and renting apartments to old people appears to be a money maker.
As Redondo declared when it approved the Kensington facility, converting from a school property to RCFE use replaces a public use with a private use. The same thing is planned for the BCHD redevelopment. Make no mistake: BCHD proposes to own and operate a private-use facility.
As it is, there are already many RCFE facilities on private land in Redondo and surrounding cities, and there will be more as the population ages. It makes no sense allow RCFEs on scarce public lands. But there is more. Namely, BCHD, as a health care district, lacks legislative authority to own and operate a residential facility, including its proposed RCFE, on its land. I would hope that Redondo would not give BCHD a pass when healthcare district law does not permit residential facilities such as the proposed RCFE.
(Granicus failed earlier, so I sent the above to the city clerk...)
I oppose the full burden of RHNA being placed in North Redondo. The North Tech area hosts major employers such as DHL, an Amazon Distribution Center, UBER Greenlight and 3 brand new hotels. Industrial land with easy access to freeways and proximity to LAX and the ports is highly desirable. Putting housing on this site further lowers our Job/Housing ratio. This proposal is not even credible. While the AES Site is one of Redondo’s most desirable areas for housing. It is near the Beach Bike path, many restaurants and the pier area.
This is talking about the Tech District near the Metro C Line. We do not need to build ALL 1,000 units on that land.
If housing gets denied at the Tech District, then the city and the RBUSD could at least construct a new joint (6-12) Middle and High School so that Redondo Union High, Mira Costa High (MBUSD), and Adams Middle Schools do not feel overcrowded in the next 20 years. By 2018, RUHS was already at the end of their rope with having too many students--including the majority of the 8th grade students from Hermosa Beach and some other kids from neighboring school districts.
Redondo Beach Resident,
Alexandros Martinez
P.S. Aviation High School (1957-1982) and 7th and 8th grade at Lincoln (Lincoln Elementary was K-8 until the late 1990s) were all missed opportunities for me and my neighbors who lived near Lincoln and TRW.