First of all, we have a very well paid city attorney. Why are we not challenging this again? Are we prohibited from taking it to a higher court? It seems to me like a bunch of bureaucrats who don't live in the area shouldn't be dictating how to run an area they have no knowledge about.There are plenty of us who don't make a lot of money and who have worked very hard to be here, and to have an arbitrary decision basically devalue our properties and standard of living is really hard to take.
As someone who has moved here within the past 12 years, I do see that NR tends to take the brunt of any of these policies. NR already has a lot of commercial density, it does not need more residences. Or at least the amount that is being proposed.
First, I'd like to see this ruling challenged again. Or, as I understand it there are a few state senators offering up some alternatives. But if ultimately this land use plan goes, then it really needs to be distributed equally. NR cannot continue to shoulder a majority of the burden.
The saddest part about all this is the fact that we have a city council that we have to "DEMAND EQUITY" from and demand that they hear our N. Redondo voices. Splitting the housing and equity should be a NO BRAINER and hearing our voices should be welcomed by the council without all our emails!!!
I oppose the general plan as proposed to the counsel. Redondo Beach city council has a long history of discriminating by zip code. It is no surprise that we are now facing a possible council decision to place most of the RHNA burden on North Redondo. The focus of the council should be to fight the state mandates, however, equity in distribution of the RHNA requirements must be approved in the meantime.
Our schools do not have the current capacity to absorb the number of children that will be added if Redondo Beach adds more than 2500 residential units. Requirements for social distancing due to the Covid-19 pandemic will stress our school system for years to come. Classroom capacities are reduced, possibly permanently. Many schools in Redondo Beach closed and were replaced by housing. Where will we put these additional children?
Previous council discussions on this matter completely ignored jobs in Redondo Beach. We will be at risk of losing Northrop Grumman and the many thousands of jobs they provide if we zone the north tech area for 1000 units of residential housing. Northrop has already moved a large portion of their engineering and production to states that are friendlier to business (Florida, Texas and others). Many other companies employ people in the tech area as well. Amazon, Uber, DHL, Marriott and Hilton among them. All of these companies will be reluctant to invest in Redondo Beach in the future due to this proposed action. This will have a devastating impact on employment in Redondo Beach.
I oppose changing the names of zones in the city. If you are going to re-zone areas, just do it under the present designations. Don’t use deceptive language in new ordinances.
The citizens of Redondo Beach need to rise up and oppose state and local mandates that affect our lives. We have a mayor that promised to fight over development in our city and defeated the Waterfront project. Contact the mayor and your council members and tell them that they need to fight for all of Redondo Beach, not just the south side.
Votes matter. The representatives that we elect to Sacramento are the ones imposing the RHNA requirements on us. Consider this in future elections.
Where ever it ends up, there’s no question that this housing will bring with it increased amounts of traffic. Unlike both the AES and Galleria locations, the North Redondo site is on the edge of an existing neighborhood with numerous through streets along Manhattan Beach Blvd leading to three main traffic corridors (Inglewood Ave, Artesia Blvd and Aviation Blvd) enclosing a dense residential area. As more commuters begin to use these routes at all hours of the day, the safety impact of this traffic through residential areas near schools and parks must be considered and mitigation strategies applied.
A decision now to place housing in any one of the three proposed locations limits future opportunities available at that site. That said, it’s imperative that any one location not be saddled with an overallotment of the required housing, limiting its ability to grow and expand its future economic contributions to the community. For example, with the world’s largest online retailer located in our City, it would be a shame to see them move because of an inability to grow and expand their operations in North Redondo as needed. With all the cars parked along Redondo Ave near Marine loading their deliveries, it would seem they already do need more space.
Public transportation is also critical to placement of any new housing and mixed use zoning. The proposed Transit Center on Kingsdale will be attractive to any housing near the Galleria. In addition, 190th St leading from the AES site will provide a convenient corridor to both the Kingsdale and Torrance Transit Centers as well as the Galleria metro station. Once again, the North Redondo site is unique in that it offers a metro station within walking distance. A major attraction related to this is the ability to attract workers from a wider commuting area, much like El Segundo has done with their 3 metro stops serving the aerospace industry – another reason why this area should not be hit with more than its share of the new housing, but instead be allowed to maintain its industrial and technology focus in order to attract new business and strengthen our community.
I oppose the entire HCD that the State is trying to impose on cities. I believe Redondo Beach needs to join other cities of like mind to legally push back against the State in order to regain our right for judicial
Intervention on this matter, even with multiple appeals if need be. Redondo Beach must be able to regulate its own zoning and land use in order to continue to provide the quality of life dictated by our city charter and the will of the people. Let’s be strong and take control of our rights, our own destiny, and the quality of life we chose.
Dr. Chantal Toporow
40 year resident and planning commissioner.
My main concern is the proposed additional 1,000 units in the tech district north of Manhattan Beach Blvd and east of Redondo Avenue. By doing this we are essentially driving out jobs from Redondo Beach. It seems like we should be trying to attract jobs. This area has active and thriving businesses. This will also have an adverse effect on Northrop Grumman. Locating 1,000 units next to their major manufacturing site would put pressure on them to eventually relocate. When other states, such as Texas, are continually poaching high tech California companies we are only supplying them with another selling point to leave. Northrop Grumman is one of the South Bay's largest employers with good high paying jobs. They are a good corporate citizen. Any relocation by them from Redondo Beach would be felt by all parts of Redondo, North and South, We should actively be seeking their input in designing any general plan that impacts the Tech District with the intent to actively protect and hopefully increase good high paying tech jobs. The Tech District should become more business friendly not less. Most of the facilities east of Redondo Ave are currently being used by Northrop Grumman. Putting an additional 1,000 housing units here seems like we are actively trying to squeeze them out of Redondo. I really have a hard time understanding the logic of encouraging the conversion of existing business and jobs to housing when the 50 acre AES site isn't even in the discussion. The addition of a 1,000 units in the Tech District should be taken completely out of the General Plan and replaced with a strategy to enhance the Tech District as the economic engine that it currently is and with the goal to increase jobs, not chase them away.
As a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, I was not only disappointed, but infuriated, to see that the staff had included a redefinition of the P-CF zone to include an “accepted use” that was never presented to nor directly approved by the Committee.
That additional use was clearly included by subterfuge to circumvent any discussion by the Committee. Had it been presented, there would have been vehement opposition from many of the members.
This proposed use must be excised from the document. In addition, disciplinary action should be taken against the people who perpetrated it. This kind of unilateral activity by non-electeds is not the way local government should operate.
The Council makes the policy. The staff carries it out. There is no other proper way for this system to work.
Letting staff get away with this type of underhandedness only undermines our confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the City’s affairs as it is approved in front of the public.
I completely oppose the GPAC's original recommendation for land use. In fact, based on the plan published on 2021-04-15, GPAC themselves amended their own recommendation in order to take South Redondo into account to share some of the RHNA burden. I understand that we're going to fight together, but North Redondo cannot bear all the burden of the back up plan. Especially when there's no plan in place to mitigate pertinent issues that will be a direct result of this measure such as school crowing.
After following so many of these meetings, I firmly believe that the city council members in South Redondo will likely increase their own tennis courts before sharing some of the RHNA burden, and that is completely unacceptable. As a resident in North Redondo, we pay our fair share of taxes, it's only fair that South Redondo shares the burden of the plan.
Councilman Obagi, please start fighting for the residents of your own district. During the last meeting you stated that your neighbors all live on a 3-on-a-lot, how would they feel about having another thousands units added to their backyard. Perhaps you should start listening to the folks that you actually represent instead of trying to find political favors. Maybe if you had started doing that years ago you wouldn't lose every single election except this one.
On the May 4 staff report, the numbers show a completely different story.
Anyone who lives in North Redondo already knows that North Redondo is more dense than South Redondo Beach, Once the General Plan is completely built out, we will be twice as populated as the south side of town. Please do not make the imbalance greater, please utilize the Power Plant area for our RHNA.
It is incredibly short sighted to zone housing in the North Tech area. Northrup Grumman provides 1/3 of all jobs in Redondo Beach and is the City’s largest employer. DHL, the Amazon distribution center, the Uber Greenlight facility and a trio of new hotels are also in this area.
This proposal is simply not credible. Industrial sites are noisy and often work outside of the city’s ‘quiet hours’. Putting housing in North Tech will make the area less desirable to Industrial uses. Putting housing inside our main job center will further hurt the jobs/housing imbalance.
Your previous numbers were incorrect in showing South Redondo Beach being more dense by the slide shown last week showing 8.1 dwelling unit per acre vs 7.3 dwelling unit per acre – that’s dwelling units not population. Plus it is a simple calculation of total acres not acres zoned for housing. 90278 has the Galleria and North Tech, which have zero housing units. That lowers our dwelling per acre, it doesn’t give an accurate picture of density.
The Average persons/household in 90277 is 2.01 while 90278 is 2.51. The current General Plan already has underutilized lots. Based on the current plan note what the dwelling unit per acre will be when our current plan is fully developed:
Stop claiming “we don’t want to lose our beachy feel in SR” or stupid claims of increased traffic!
Look at intersection report online, there is a page which shows the rating for each intersection:
A, B, C, D, E, F – just like school except there is an added E intersection level.
90277 have ZERO F intersections
90278 have at least 7 intersections rated F
WE ARE ONE REDONDO and it's time you stand by those words!!!. Putting the housing only in NR will forever divide NR & SR.
Here's my take on this. I think we are over -reacting. To my knowledge, we dont even have
access to a large tract of land around Redondo Ave. & Manhattan Beach Blvd. If we dont
have it , then please, do tell, let us know exactly where these 1225 units will be located on the north side. Maybe Northrup or some other company in this area is going to sell their land.? So will we pony up millions of $$$$$ , follow all the state/county rules & regulations and build a multi-unit facility. ? Will we sell the units & act as the real estate agent ? At least that would create some income for Redondo.
Another problem will be our schools, especially high school. Could RUHS handle potentially 1000 or more new students ? ? ! I would also like to know what the state could or would do to us if we don't meet their 2450 RHNA number. Perhaps our state senator could address that, if he dare.
Seems to me , and I have told city council this before, there is a whole lot of land north of Barstow & east of Riverside. There is no good, logical reason for the state to impose these
kind of rules, regulations & laws on small, already crowded cities. Not to mention the fact that it might even be against the state constitution. I will leave that research up to Mike Webb &
RB legal team.
The best answer to this problem, start paying attention to who you elect. Are we subjects or
are we citizens ? Maybe it's time for a totally new, lower tax, less dictatorial type of government in this state, but then, thats up to the voters. Thank You Gary Mlynek
I oppose the proposed inclusion of assisted living (RCFE) in the definition of a PUBLIC land use. RCFE, especially those that charge market rents like $12,000+ per month, must be required to obtain conditional use permits. The public has a right to review and protect itself from commercial uses on our scarce Public land. Please reject the consultant or staff changes to the GPAC recommendations and continue to require any RCFE on public land to have a Conditional Use Permit.
2) The Planning Commission KNOWS FULL WELL that the AES site is zoned for PARK and Industrial. If the city is FORCED to put housing this should only be built where the Original designations were for North Redondo, Central Redondo and South Redondo were PRESENTED to the public by the GPAC last month. The power plant should be used to extend space for a park and other recreational, Harbor and visitor and vacationer amenities. This would ensure the tax base of RB and allow the city to continue to support itself. Putting apartments in North Redondo where public transportation is a no brainer. In the past RB has always sided with big money developers/ Old Crony Chamber of Commerce PAC that kept Aspel in power. Fight for our City .
The other issue here is TRUE affordable housing...NO MATTER how much is built there is no TRUE GUARANTEE anywhere in all of this as AFFORDABLE. All the talk of "affordable" is disingenuous . The idea of affordable is based upon the mean income of RB which is 68000 per year. This is not what most growing families make. As long as there is no formula for the working class families where BOTH parents work and have 2 -3 children, this will NEVER work. Rent control works .It was utilized in Santa Monica for over 20 years and throughout San Diego and it still does. The only way I could afford to live and finish college was under rent control. Please support Do NOT ACCEPT the last minute bait and switch for BOTH Beach Cities Health District nor the Developers lapdogs that want our local zoning GONE so they can make money at ALL of the peoples of California expense. Thank you.
At some point in the history of Redondo Beach the City instituted voting districts. This was done to relieve the inequities of representation in our government by those in the south end of the City and to assure more equitable representation both in the north and Citywide.
We are once again being visited by the tyranny of the elected officials in the south end when they arbitrarily deny using the largest open, undeveloped property in the City - the AES site, for potential housing. It is blatantly unfair to force the north end to absorb all or most of the City's RHNA allotments. This was duly noted by the Planning Commission in their evaluation and recommendations for a more equitable split and their 5-2 vote in favor of putting housing on the AES site.
There is nothing sacred about the AES site that restricts in any manner its use for housing. The only fair way to distribute our onerous RHNA allocations is to split their locations equitably between north and south.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald Szerlip
Resident and Business Owner - District 4
First of all, we have a very well paid city attorney. Why are we not challenging this again? Are we prohibited from taking it to a higher court? It seems to me like a bunch of bureaucrats who don't live in the area shouldn't be dictating how to run an area they have no knowledge about.There are plenty of us who don't make a lot of money and who have worked very hard to be here, and to have an arbitrary decision basically devalue our properties and standard of living is really hard to take.
As someone who has moved here within the past 12 years, I do see that NR tends to take the brunt of any of these policies. NR already has a lot of commercial density, it does not need more residences. Or at least the amount that is being proposed.
First, I'd like to see this ruling challenged again. Or, as I understand it there are a few state senators offering up some alternatives. But if ultimately this land use plan goes, then it really needs to be distributed equally. NR cannot continue to shoulder a majority of the burden.
The saddest part about all this is the fact that we have a city council that we have to "DEMAND EQUITY" from and demand that they hear our N. Redondo voices. Splitting the housing and equity should be a NO BRAINER and hearing our voices should be welcomed by the council without all our emails!!!
I oppose the general plan as proposed to the counsel. Redondo Beach city council has a long history of discriminating by zip code. It is no surprise that we are now facing a possible council decision to place most of the RHNA burden on North Redondo. The focus of the council should be to fight the state mandates, however, equity in distribution of the RHNA requirements must be approved in the meantime.
Our schools do not have the current capacity to absorb the number of children that will be added if Redondo Beach adds more than 2500 residential units. Requirements for social distancing due to the Covid-19 pandemic will stress our school system for years to come. Classroom capacities are reduced, possibly permanently. Many schools in Redondo Beach closed and were replaced by housing. Where will we put these additional children?
Previous council discussions on this matter completely ignored jobs in Redondo Beach. We will be at risk of losing Northrop Grumman and the many thousands of jobs they provide if we zone the north tech area for 1000 units of residential housing. Northrop has already moved a large portion of their engineering and production to states that are friendlier to business (Florida, Texas and others). Many other companies employ people in the tech area as well. Amazon, Uber, DHL, Marriott and Hilton among them. All of these companies will be reluctant to invest in Redondo Beach in the future due to this proposed action. This will have a devastating impact on employment in Redondo Beach.
I oppose changing the names of zones in the city. If you are going to re-zone areas, just do it under the present designations. Don’t use deceptive language in new ordinances.
The citizens of Redondo Beach need to rise up and oppose state and local mandates that affect our lives. We have a mayor that promised to fight over development in our city and defeated the Waterfront project. Contact the mayor and your council members and tell them that they need to fight for all of Redondo Beach, not just the south side.
Votes matter. The representatives that we elect to Sacramento are the ones imposing the RHNA requirements on us. Consider this in future elections.
Where ever it ends up, there’s no question that this housing will bring with it increased amounts of traffic. Unlike both the AES and Galleria locations, the North Redondo site is on the edge of an existing neighborhood with numerous through streets along Manhattan Beach Blvd leading to three main traffic corridors (Inglewood Ave, Artesia Blvd and Aviation Blvd) enclosing a dense residential area. As more commuters begin to use these routes at all hours of the day, the safety impact of this traffic through residential areas near schools and parks must be considered and mitigation strategies applied.
A decision now to place housing in any one of the three proposed locations limits future opportunities available at that site. That said, it’s imperative that any one location not be saddled with an overallotment of the required housing, limiting its ability to grow and expand its future economic contributions to the community. For example, with the world’s largest online retailer located in our City, it would be a shame to see them move because of an inability to grow and expand their operations in North Redondo as needed. With all the cars parked along Redondo Ave near Marine loading their deliveries, it would seem they already do need more space.
Public transportation is also critical to placement of any new housing and mixed use zoning. The proposed Transit Center on Kingsdale will be attractive to any housing near the Galleria. In addition, 190th St leading from the AES site will provide a convenient corridor to both the Kingsdale and Torrance Transit Centers as well as the Galleria metro station. Once again, the North Redondo site is unique in that it offers a metro station within walking distance. A major attraction related to this is the ability to attract workers from a wider commuting area, much like El Segundo has done with their 3 metro stops serving the aerospace industry – another reason why this area should not be hit with more than its share of the new housing, but instead be allowed to maintain its industrial and technology focus in order to attract new business and strengthen our community.
I oppose the entire HCD that the State is trying to impose on cities. I believe Redondo Beach needs to join other cities of like mind to legally push back against the State in order to regain our right for judicial
Intervention on this matter, even with multiple appeals if need be. Redondo Beach must be able to regulate its own zoning and land use in order to continue to provide the quality of life dictated by our city charter and the will of the people. Let’s be strong and take control of our rights, our own destiny, and the quality of life we chose.
Dr. Chantal Toporow
40 year resident and planning commissioner.
My main concern is the proposed additional 1,000 units in the tech district north of Manhattan Beach Blvd and east of Redondo Avenue. By doing this we are essentially driving out jobs from Redondo Beach. It seems like we should be trying to attract jobs. This area has active and thriving businesses. This will also have an adverse effect on Northrop Grumman. Locating 1,000 units next to their major manufacturing site would put pressure on them to eventually relocate. When other states, such as Texas, are continually poaching high tech California companies we are only supplying them with another selling point to leave. Northrop Grumman is one of the South Bay's largest employers with good high paying jobs. They are a good corporate citizen. Any relocation by them from Redondo Beach would be felt by all parts of Redondo, North and South, We should actively be seeking their input in designing any general plan that impacts the Tech District with the intent to actively protect and hopefully increase good high paying tech jobs. The Tech District should become more business friendly not less. Most of the facilities east of Redondo Ave are currently being used by Northrop Grumman. Putting an additional 1,000 housing units here seems like we are actively trying to squeeze them out of Redondo. I really have a hard time understanding the logic of encouraging the conversion of existing business and jobs to housing when the 50 acre AES site isn't even in the discussion. The addition of a 1,000 units in the Tech District should be taken completely out of the General Plan and replaced with a strategy to enhance the Tech District as the economic engine that it currently is and with the goal to increase jobs, not chase them away.
Thank you,
Pat Hopkins
As a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, I was not only disappointed, but infuriated, to see that the staff had included a redefinition of the P-CF zone to include an “accepted use” that was never presented to nor directly approved by the Committee.
That additional use was clearly included by subterfuge to circumvent any discussion by the Committee. Had it been presented, there would have been vehement opposition from many of the members.
This proposed use must be excised from the document. In addition, disciplinary action should be taken against the people who perpetrated it. This kind of unilateral activity by non-electeds is not the way local government should operate.
The Council makes the policy. The staff carries it out. There is no other proper way for this system to work.
Letting staff get away with this type of underhandedness only undermines our confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the City’s affairs as it is approved in front of the public.
I completely oppose the GPAC's original recommendation for land use. In fact, based on the plan published on 2021-04-15, GPAC themselves amended their own recommendation in order to take South Redondo into account to share some of the RHNA burden. I understand that we're going to fight together, but North Redondo cannot bear all the burden of the back up plan. Especially when there's no plan in place to mitigate pertinent issues that will be a direct result of this measure such as school crowing.
After following so many of these meetings, I firmly believe that the city council members in South Redondo will likely increase their own tennis courts before sharing some of the RHNA burden, and that is completely unacceptable. As a resident in North Redondo, we pay our fair share of taxes, it's only fair that South Redondo shares the burden of the plan.
Councilman Obagi, please start fighting for the residents of your own district. During the last meeting you stated that your neighbors all live on a 3-on-a-lot, how would they feel about having another thousands units added to their backyard. Perhaps you should start listening to the folks that you actually represent instead of trying to find political favors. Maybe if you had started doing that years ago you wouldn't lose every single election except this one.
On the May 4 staff report, the numbers show a completely different story.
Anyone who lives in North Redondo already knows that North Redondo is more dense than South Redondo Beach, Once the General Plan is completely built out, we will be twice as populated as the south side of town. Please do not make the imbalance greater, please utilize the Power Plant area for our RHNA.
It is incredibly short sighted to zone housing in the North Tech area. Northrup Grumman provides 1/3 of all jobs in Redondo Beach and is the City’s largest employer. DHL, the Amazon distribution center, the Uber Greenlight facility and a trio of new hotels are also in this area.
This proposal is simply not credible. Industrial sites are noisy and often work outside of the city’s ‘quiet hours’. Putting housing in North Tech will make the area less desirable to Industrial uses. Putting housing inside our main job center will further hurt the jobs/housing imbalance.
Your previous numbers were incorrect in showing South Redondo Beach being more dense by the slide shown last week showing 8.1 dwelling unit per acre vs 7.3 dwelling unit per acre – that’s dwelling units not population. Plus it is a simple calculation of total acres not acres zoned for housing. 90278 has the Galleria and North Tech, which have zero housing units. That lowers our dwelling per acre, it doesn’t give an accurate picture of density.
The Average persons/household in 90277 is 2.01 while 90278 is 2.51. The current General Plan already has underutilized lots. Based on the current plan note what the dwelling unit per acre will be when our current plan is fully developed:
Stop claiming “we don’t want to lose our beachy feel in SR” or stupid claims of increased traffic!
Look at intersection report online, there is a page which shows the rating for each intersection:
A, B, C, D, E, F – just like school except there is an added E intersection level.
90277 have ZERO F intersections
90278 have at least 7 intersections rated F
WE ARE ONE REDONDO and it's time you stand by those words!!!. Putting the housing only in NR will forever divide NR & SR.
Dawn Thompson
Gary Mlynek, Dist 5. 5-2-2021
Here's my take on this. I think we are over -reacting. To my knowledge, we dont even have
access to a large tract of land around Redondo Ave. & Manhattan Beach Blvd. If we dont
have it , then please, do tell, let us know exactly where these 1225 units will be located on the north side. Maybe Northrup or some other company in this area is going to sell their land.? So will we pony up millions of $$$$$ , follow all the state/county rules & regulations and build a multi-unit facility. ? Will we sell the units & act as the real estate agent ? At least that would create some income for Redondo.
Another problem will be our schools, especially high school. Could RUHS handle potentially 1000 or more new students ? ? ! I would also like to know what the state could or would do to us if we don't meet their 2450 RHNA number. Perhaps our state senator could address that, if he dare.
Seems to me , and I have told city council this before, there is a whole lot of land north of Barstow & east of Riverside. There is no good, logical reason for the state to impose these
kind of rules, regulations & laws on small, already crowded cities. Not to mention the fact that it might even be against the state constitution. I will leave that research up to Mike Webb &
RB legal team.
The best answer to this problem, start paying attention to who you elect. Are we subjects or
are we citizens ? Maybe it's time for a totally new, lower tax, less dictatorial type of government in this state, but then, thats up to the voters. Thank You Gary Mlynek
I oppose the proposed inclusion of assisted living (RCFE) in the definition of a PUBLIC land use. RCFE, especially those that charge market rents like $12,000+ per month, must be required to obtain conditional use permits. The public has a right to review and protect itself from commercial uses on our scarce Public land. Please reject the consultant or staff changes to the GPAC recommendations and continue to require any RCFE on public land to have a Conditional Use Permit.
2) The Planning Commission KNOWS FULL WELL that the AES site is zoned for PARK and Industrial. If the city is FORCED to put housing this should only be built where the Original designations were for North Redondo, Central Redondo and South Redondo were PRESENTED to the public by the GPAC last month. The power plant should be used to extend space for a park and other recreational, Harbor and visitor and vacationer amenities. This would ensure the tax base of RB and allow the city to continue to support itself. Putting apartments in North Redondo where public transportation is a no brainer. In the past RB has always sided with big money developers/ Old Crony Chamber of Commerce PAC that kept Aspel in power. Fight for our City .
The other issue here is TRUE affordable housing...NO MATTER how much is built there is no TRUE GUARANTEE anywhere in all of this as AFFORDABLE. All the talk of "affordable" is disingenuous . The idea of affordable is based upon the mean income of RB which is 68000 per year. This is not what most growing families make. As long as there is no formula for the working class families where BOTH parents work and have 2 -3 children, this will NEVER work. Rent control works .It was utilized in Santa Monica for over 20 years and throughout San Diego and it still does. The only way I could afford to live and finish college was under rent control. Please support Do NOT ACCEPT the last minute bait and switch for BOTH Beach Cities Health District nor the Developers lapdogs that want our local zoning GONE so they can make money at ALL of the peoples of California expense. Thank you.
At some point in the history of Redondo Beach the City instituted voting districts. This was done to relieve the inequities of representation in our government by those in the south end of the City and to assure more equitable representation both in the north and Citywide.
We are once again being visited by the tyranny of the elected officials in the south end when they arbitrarily deny using the largest open, undeveloped property in the City - the AES site, for potential housing. It is blatantly unfair to force the north end to absorb all or most of the City's RHNA allotments. This was duly noted by the Planning Commission in their evaluation and recommendations for a more equitable split and their 5-2 vote in favor of putting housing on the AES site.
There is nothing sacred about the AES site that restricts in any manner its use for housing. The only fair way to distribute our onerous RHNA allocations is to split their locations equitably between north and south.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald Szerlip
Resident and Business Owner - District 4