I hereby oppose adding hundreds more new housing units to 182nd and Kingsdale, which is over and above the already 300 units included in the Galleria revitalziation. As the mayor says, “We can revitalize without overdevelopement”. I agree wholeheartedly.
The city needs to fight the state mandates. There are other ways for the state to make its goal happen. Citizens shouldn’t have to fight ill conceived ideas, such as cramming a couple thousand families who will need schools for their kids in to an already densely populated community, and I know schools in Redondo are already full. I could go on for days why this is a bad idea.
Something was said last week about how some potential homebuyers of these proposed units might not be able to afford a car. Anyone who can afford to buy or rent anywhere in Redondo Beach already has a car, and will continue to use it despite how near or far transit is. It’s a non-issue talking point.
It is a no brainer that we need more housing throughout the city. It also makes perfect sense to put housing near the public transportation routes as well as for the new extension of the Green Line. All increased housing is being shared equally by the City. We are in this together. We must come together and STOP saying its N Redondo thats getting all the housing. FACTS Matter. I repeat. IT IS SO REDONDO that is the most dense. I agree that we must have more housing but NOT at the expense of local zoning. Please write or call both Ben Allan and Al Muratsuchi and tell them to only support the ACA7 contstitutional amendment to allow zoning to be decided by local representatives... And for those who want to see homes on the AES site, this has been VOTED DOWN by the public twice in my 30 years here. We NEED open space for our health and wellbeing. Besides, that area is zoned Park and industrial and should remain so . Thank you.
I strongly urge the city council to reject the GPAC recommended land use plan. The additional housing units required should be more evenly divided between north and south Redondo.
.
Wasn't sure where to put this comment but I just wanted to say that I had to call the Redondo Police Department two times last month. Both times I called the police they showed up promptly and were very curtious and I was impressed and proud how they were able to handle each situation effectively in an extremely professional manner. I did have a problem with the dispatcher but as I'm sure what has happened in the past after the situation I called about was handled I just proceeded to drive home and simply forget about the dispatcher issue I had. To my surprise the following day I received a computer generated phone call from the RBPD asking me to rate my experience with my Police interactions which I did having a poor rating for the dispatch. After the survey I hung up thinking that the police department really needs to add a " explain any negative experience you had" To my surprise the following day I received another computer generated call asking me to explain any negative aspect of my experience in which I explained my issue thinking that was it. To my surprise again the following day I received a phone call from the Redondo police department from an actual police officer in charge of community outreach and wanted to know why I was unhappy and what it was they could do better to make the police community interaction a better experience. Anyways , I am beyond impressed with this police outreach program . It is such a great way to fine tune an almost perfect police department. Great job whoever implemented this follow up program.
Tony Trutanich jr
Enough with using the Tech District for housing. We need to be encouraging Northrop to create more jobs in that area instead of removing that option. 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?
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.
I am writing to you to urge you to spread new housing, particularly below market rate housing, around the city. Concentrating all new housing, particularly ones for lower income groups, in high pollution areas surrounded by busy arterials and far away from schools and parks, will just mire us in litigation and bring negative publicity to our city.
We can join Los Angeles and Santa Monica in sprinkling new housing equally amongst all city council districts. This will balance our school enrollment growth and avoid having to build costly new schools.
While we should build some housing in High Quality Transit Areas, we should be mindful of what they will do to our RHNA allocations in future cycles. If we put all of our 6th cycle RHNA allocation housing in HQTAs, then we will have a disproportionately larger share of population in HQTAs. This will earn us the reward of higher future RHNA HQTA allocations. This will keep increasing geometrically each cycle.
You need to consider this carefully. Do you want to be remembered as the mayor and city council that volunteered Redondo Beach to become the permanent Housing Heroes of the South Bay by permanently agreeing to increase density everywhere in all future RHNA cycles? If that is truly what you want to do, go for it. I’m proud of you.
Mayor and City Council,
I am a lifelong resident of District 1 in Redondo Beach, and a young person in my mid-20s who cares deeply about climate change, public health, and the built environment. I know that housing and development are hot-button topics in our city. My hope is that Redondo Beach can become a more walkable community, or at least host vibrant walkable neighborhoods, with reduced dependence or need for cars and better access to transit and bicycle commuting options. Walkability and quality of life can be achieved through strategic zoning of higher density, which can encourage a sense of community and use of transit. Old Town Pasadena comes to mind, or Westwood near UCLA.
I would like to share my personal suggestions, which I hope are reasonable and actionable. Some ideas below were generated from discussion during a Zoom meeting we held with about 20 residents this past Friday. Other ideas are more specific to my understanding of housing policy and opportunities:
1. Implement a system to initiate pre-approved ADU plans to make permitting new ADUs a more efficient process for those who would like to build ADUs on their lot.
2. Increase the FAR, height restrictions, and/or mixed-use development zoning along strategic arterials such as Artesia, Torrance Blvd and PCH to encourage development of more walkable communities.
3. Reduce or eliminate parking minimums close to transit opportunities such as near the Redondo Beach Transit Center, which would encourage affordable housing to be built in these areas and encourage transit use.
4. Prioritize and extend protected bike lanes along commuter routes to encourage multi-modal transportation and cyclist safety.
5. Prioritize people over parking lots: Consider re-zoning at least parts of Torrance Blvd from commercial to mixed-use residential. In particular there is an excessively large parking lot next to a mortuary on the corner of Torrance and Prospect that is usually completely empty. I think that lot would be a great place for new office space and housing. In general, look to convert underused commercial properties and empty parking lots into housing.
The exclusion of the AES property from the General Plan update predates the acquisition of the property by Leo Pustilnikov. To continue to exclude AES now is completely arbitrary. There is no reason why a residential overlay cannot be placed on the AES property. Considering the City must submit a housing element that complies with the States' requirements it is unreasonable to not zone for housing of the fifty-two acres. There are two adjacent properties, the Dirt Farm on North Francisca and the abandoned SeaLab property that can be zoned for thirty units an acre. This new zoning will help bring balance between North and South Redondo in respect to the housing element.
I would first like to address the behavior of north Redondo Councilmember 4. I urge you to acknowledge decorum and respect with your colleagues and residents who disagree with you. I understand you were elected on agenda, and yet continue to loose confidence from your district as you move forward looking to place yet again more housing in north Redondo. While you tell your colleagues to 'butt out of d4 matters". The agenda and campaign promises continue to fall on deaf ears of this elected member. You've already become derelict of your campaign promises and duties to represent district 4 by considering any new development in NR. To address the council, while I agree we must oppose the state mandate RHNA control we cannot fight what is in fact inevitable. Either our city considers stepping into the future or we move forward with dated zoning and planning laws, another set of litigations from the state and a lowered city credit rating leading to becoming an incorporated city. As leadership of this city I am asking you as a 30 yr resident who grew up in this city to consider those of us who are young, who don't have the luxury to "pick ourselves up by our bootstraps". As a 30 yr resident I am urging you to consider one of two things, do you want a desalination plant where AES resides? Or do we want the opportunity for a thriving mixed use residential and commerce space adding housing opportunities for younger folks to stay in the city they grew up in. I am also urging council to gain the 30-60% clearance for new affordable units where ever they may reside. It has been time for Redondo to move forward with the next generation please stop holding our city hostage with more litigations simply for a failed agendas..we aren't asking for a mall we are asking for affordable housing units to be shared by SR.
To continue to place more housing in NR is infact continuing to redline the divide btwn NR and SR. Redlining as we know is historically a racist mechanism to block access to what is deemed luxury. We all love the 'beachy town community vibe' therefore we should all have access to such by placing affordable housing closer to the coast preferably in the vacant lots.
I oppose any change to the current Public land use definition. The definitions that were transmitted to the Council were not GPAC approved, and specifically the Public land use definition should not include RCFE. And if any RCFE is included in Public land use, it must require a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, any RCFE in Public land use must be "public" not a privately owned, market-rate facility such as Kensington. That is properly a commercial use and the underlying land should have been rezoned at Knob Hill and PCH. Market rate facilities are being built, including a new one in Manhattan Beach with its EIR open. It is however, properly zoned as a commercial facility.
Any RCFE on PUBLIC land use must be 1) publicly-owned, 2) publicly-funded, and 3) cost-of-service rent. All market rent facilities should be Commercial and not Public.
Approving any projects in any vicinity to the Galleria area is a horrid idea. 300 units have been approved there. A homeless shelter has been approved on Kingsdale. A transit center is currently undergoing construction on Kingsdale. Enough is enough. How much louder do residents need to be? Don't you work for us? Didn't we elect you to make decisions in the interest of the people?
I don't think anyone in Redondo Beach has the mindset of intentionally wanting to separate and further divide North vs South Redondo but when a Council adamantly pushes to increase proposed projects and homeless shelters very intentionally in one side of town, it gives a very apparent message that one side should deal with the burden of these projects.
I have been a resident of Redondo Beach for 47 years, I have seen many changes throughout the city, but nothing concerns me more than the current proposed changes. As a community we have taken on a brunt of the housing already with much of the single family homes (r1 housing) turned into R2 and R3 housing, Congesting our city and changing the dynamic of Redondo beach to that of a cement city . To hear people say that they want to keep the beachy feel of their community while we are getting buried under the weight of all of this housing is disheartening. No one wants this housing but if we have no choice then we should all bear the brunt of it together as “ One Redondo” Please distribute the housing equally. There are very few R1 housing locations left here in NR while SR remains virtually untouched and yet you are still trying to add additional housing to our side. Traffic is already a nightmare and parking is just as bad. Our infrastructure here in NR can not take the density proposed. You are going to have to find and make the space in South Redondo for this housing as everyone needs to do their share. We are already taking the 300 units at Galleria and proposing more density housing in the shopping center next to it is a joke. That is the only place near us to get groceries . Where you have strip mall after strip mall in the south. Please leave us with something. Our quality of life is at stake please act like it matters to you because it definitely matters to us.
People need to stop making the RHNA housing allocation debate about North v South Redondo. This is one aspect of that which is not about which community has more or less density, despite the appearance that it is exactly that, when viewed at the district level.
We want to avoid traffic nightmares beyond what we already have, such as grid-lock, worsening cut through traffic, and continued disregard for traffic regulations.
Since 92% of Redondo residents commune out of town, any new housing in South Redondo creates west and northbound traffic, much of it clogging Aviation & Inglewood through North Redondo; streets which are currently overwhelmed during commute times. New housing in South Redondo will add to the current traffic jams and encourage even more cut-through traffic in our residential neighborhoods.
If the majority of the RHNA housing is instead placed in the far north of Redondo, in the industrial/commercial zone north of Manhattan Beach Blvd, the new residents will be able to get on the freeway, or take the train from the Marine station, without driving through any of our neighborhoods. And it's not a bad bike ride to the huge employment-zone that is El Segundo. GPAK identifies this area as suitable for about 1,000 units of potential housing stock. Imagine if even just half of the residents of 1,000 homes had to drive through your part of town to get to points north? Imagine how much worse your commute would be.
If these new residents want to take the freeway, they’ll quickly find that taking Marine east, then entering the freeway from the north on Inglewood, avoids adding to the traffic jams one finds when coming from the south.
If they have jobs, or school kid drop-offs, in Redondo and need to drive south, it will be against the flow of commuter traffic and not be a contributor to our pending grid-lock or cut-through traffic.
Seems like the best of all possible outcomes, with 1,000 less units in-filled in anyone’s neighborhood. With this plan, the North vs South Redondo density argument becomes null.
After all, it's not about which end of Redondo has the most housing, it's about what the location of that housing does to our quality of life.
I'd like to join my neighbors in opposition to the proposed North Tech Housing Overlay for the following reasons:
- 300 units have already been slated for the Galleria project.
- The larges percentage of potential upcycled properties are in the 90278 area with a potential 578 units vs just 210 units in 90277.
- The city's largest employer, Northrop Grumman as issued a statement dated April 15th outlining their opposition to the project. It would be foolish to ignore their input.
I appreciate your efforts to reduce the overall housing unit requirements with a reduction in the buffer but I don't see the impact on the proposed project. What areas were these units eliminate?
Finally, I'd like to point out that many North Redondo residents travel across the city to the South Redondo for little league, medical appointments, and the high school. Traffic is a problem no matter where you live.
Good Evening. I've attended 4 meetings regarding the proposed 1000+ additional units to be built in the North Tech area. Like the many folks that have voiced and commented before, I am opposed to the disproportionate number of units assigned to this area. I hope this additional opposing comment helps push the city members to find a different solution. Thanks to all involved for their effort and time.
North Redondo and South Redondo are one city and as such need to work together to meet the new housing requirements in an equitable manner. North Redondo has already seen much overdevelopment with single houses torn down and replaced with multiple townhouses causing additional congestion and traffic which negatively impact our quality of life. Please do the right thing and make sure that the new housing requirements are equally shared by both north and south redondo.
I have a hard time understanding we are actively trying to replace good paying jobs and thriving businesses in the North Tech District with an additional 1,000 new housing units. This will make it much more difficult for the largest South Bay employer, Northrop Grumman, to keep existing jobs and to expand in Redondo Beach. We are actively trying to kill the goose that provides the golden economic egg that has made Redondo Beach what it is today. Please seriously consider the objections and recommendations raised by Northrop Grumman in their letter dated April 15th that was presented at the April 20th City Council meeting. I also strongly support our city fighting back against the RHNA allocations dictated by the state and doing whatever we can to take back control over our local zoning.
Please look at all housing possibilities in South RB so that the housing is distributed equally between 90278 and 90277.
N RB will not be satisfied with absorbing the majority of the new housing.
Work with Northrop to get their input and ensure they continue operating successfully in Redondo.
I hereby oppose adding hundreds more new housing units to 182nd and Kingsdale, which is over and above the already 300 units included in the Galleria revitalziation. As the mayor says, “We can revitalize without overdevelopement”. I agree wholeheartedly.
The city needs to fight the state mandates. There are other ways for the state to make its goal happen. Citizens shouldn’t have to fight ill conceived ideas, such as cramming a couple thousand families who will need schools for their kids in to an already densely populated community, and I know schools in Redondo are already full. I could go on for days why this is a bad idea.
Something was said last week about how some potential homebuyers of these proposed units might not be able to afford a car. Anyone who can afford to buy or rent anywhere in Redondo Beach already has a car, and will continue to use it despite how near or far transit is. It’s a non-issue talking point.
It is a no brainer that we need more housing throughout the city. It also makes perfect sense to put housing near the public transportation routes as well as for the new extension of the Green Line. All increased housing is being shared equally by the City. We are in this together. We must come together and STOP saying its N Redondo thats getting all the housing. FACTS Matter. I repeat. IT IS SO REDONDO that is the most dense. I agree that we must have more housing but NOT at the expense of local zoning. Please write or call both Ben Allan and Al Muratsuchi and tell them to only support the ACA7 contstitutional amendment to allow zoning to be decided by local representatives... And for those who want to see homes on the AES site, this has been VOTED DOWN by the public twice in my 30 years here. We NEED open space for our health and wellbeing. Besides, that area is zoned Park and industrial and should remain so . Thank you.
I strongly urge the city council to reject the GPAC recommended land use plan. The additional housing units required should be more evenly divided between north and south Redondo.
.
Wasn't sure where to put this comment but I just wanted to say that I had to call the Redondo Police Department two times last month. Both times I called the police they showed up promptly and were very curtious and I was impressed and proud how they were able to handle each situation effectively in an extremely professional manner. I did have a problem with the dispatcher but as I'm sure what has happened in the past after the situation I called about was handled I just proceeded to drive home and simply forget about the dispatcher issue I had. To my surprise the following day I received a computer generated phone call from the RBPD asking me to rate my experience with my Police interactions which I did having a poor rating for the dispatch. After the survey I hung up thinking that the police department really needs to add a " explain any negative experience you had" To my surprise the following day I received another computer generated call asking me to explain any negative aspect of my experience in which I explained my issue thinking that was it. To my surprise again the following day I received a phone call from the Redondo police department from an actual police officer in charge of community outreach and wanted to know why I was unhappy and what it was they could do better to make the police community interaction a better experience. Anyways , I am beyond impressed with this police outreach program . It is such a great way to fine tune an almost perfect police department. Great job whoever implemented this follow up program.
Tony Trutanich jr
Enough with using the Tech District for housing. We need to be encouraging Northrop to create more jobs in that area instead of removing that option. 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?
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.
I am writing to you to urge you to spread new housing, particularly below market rate housing, around the city. Concentrating all new housing, particularly ones for lower income groups, in high pollution areas surrounded by busy arterials and far away from schools and parks, will just mire us in litigation and bring negative publicity to our city.
We can join Los Angeles and Santa Monica in sprinkling new housing equally amongst all city council districts. This will balance our school enrollment growth and avoid having to build costly new schools.
While we should build some housing in High Quality Transit Areas, we should be mindful of what they will do to our RHNA allocations in future cycles. If we put all of our 6th cycle RHNA allocation housing in HQTAs, then we will have a disproportionately larger share of population in HQTAs. This will earn us the reward of higher future RHNA HQTA allocations. This will keep increasing geometrically each cycle.
You need to consider this carefully. Do you want to be remembered as the mayor and city council that volunteered Redondo Beach to become the permanent Housing Heroes of the South Bay by permanently agreeing to increase density everywhere in all future RHNA cycles? If that is truly what you want to do, go for it. I’m proud of you.
Mayor and City Council,
I am a lifelong resident of District 1 in Redondo Beach, and a young person in my mid-20s who cares deeply about climate change, public health, and the built environment. I know that housing and development are hot-button topics in our city. My hope is that Redondo Beach can become a more walkable community, or at least host vibrant walkable neighborhoods, with reduced dependence or need for cars and better access to transit and bicycle commuting options. Walkability and quality of life can be achieved through strategic zoning of higher density, which can encourage a sense of community and use of transit. Old Town Pasadena comes to mind, or Westwood near UCLA.
I would like to share my personal suggestions, which I hope are reasonable and actionable. Some ideas below were generated from discussion during a Zoom meeting we held with about 20 residents this past Friday. Other ideas are more specific to my understanding of housing policy and opportunities:
1. Implement a system to initiate pre-approved ADU plans to make permitting new ADUs a more efficient process for those who would like to build ADUs on their lot.
2. Increase the FAR, height restrictions, and/or mixed-use development zoning along strategic arterials such as Artesia, Torrance Blvd and PCH to encourage development of more walkable communities.
3. Reduce or eliminate parking minimums close to transit opportunities such as near the Redondo Beach Transit Center, which would encourage affordable housing to be built in these areas and encourage transit use.
4. Prioritize and extend protected bike lanes along commuter routes to encourage multi-modal transportation and cyclist safety.
5. Prioritize people over parking lots: Consider re-zoning at least parts of Torrance Blvd from commercial to mixed-use residential. In particular there is an excessively large parking lot next to a mortuary on the corner of Torrance and Prospect that is usually completely empty. I think that lot would be a great place for new office space and housing. In general, look to convert underused commercial properties and empty parking lots into housing.
Thank you for your time.
The exclusion of the AES property from the General Plan update predates the acquisition of the property by Leo Pustilnikov. To continue to exclude AES now is completely arbitrary. There is no reason why a residential overlay cannot be placed on the AES property. Considering the City must submit a housing element that complies with the States' requirements it is unreasonable to not zone for housing of the fifty-two acres. There are two adjacent properties, the Dirt Farm on North Francisca and the abandoned SeaLab property that can be zoned for thirty units an acre. This new zoning will help bring balance between North and South Redondo in respect to the housing element.
I would first like to address the behavior of north Redondo Councilmember 4. I urge you to acknowledge decorum and respect with your colleagues and residents who disagree with you. I understand you were elected on agenda, and yet continue to loose confidence from your district as you move forward looking to place yet again more housing in north Redondo. While you tell your colleagues to 'butt out of d4 matters". The agenda and campaign promises continue to fall on deaf ears of this elected member. You've already become derelict of your campaign promises and duties to represent district 4 by considering any new development in NR. To address the council, while I agree we must oppose the state mandate RHNA control we cannot fight what is in fact inevitable. Either our city considers stepping into the future or we move forward with dated zoning and planning laws, another set of litigations from the state and a lowered city credit rating leading to becoming an incorporated city. As leadership of this city I am asking you as a 30 yr resident who grew up in this city to consider those of us who are young, who don't have the luxury to "pick ourselves up by our bootstraps". As a 30 yr resident I am urging you to consider one of two things, do you want a desalination plant where AES resides? Or do we want the opportunity for a thriving mixed use residential and commerce space adding housing opportunities for younger folks to stay in the city they grew up in. I am also urging council to gain the 30-60% clearance for new affordable units where ever they may reside. It has been time for Redondo to move forward with the next generation please stop holding our city hostage with more litigations simply for a failed agendas..we aren't asking for a mall we are asking for affordable housing units to be shared by SR.
To continue to place more housing in NR is infact continuing to redline the divide btwn NR and SR. Redlining as we know is historically a racist mechanism to block access to what is deemed luxury. We all love the 'beachy town community vibe' therefore we should all have access to such by placing affordable housing closer to the coast preferably in the vacant lots.
I oppose any change to the current Public land use definition. The definitions that were transmitted to the Council were not GPAC approved, and specifically the Public land use definition should not include RCFE. And if any RCFE is included in Public land use, it must require a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, any RCFE in Public land use must be "public" not a privately owned, market-rate facility such as Kensington. That is properly a commercial use and the underlying land should have been rezoned at Knob Hill and PCH. Market rate facilities are being built, including a new one in Manhattan Beach with its EIR open. It is however, properly zoned as a commercial facility.
Any RCFE on PUBLIC land use must be 1) publicly-owned, 2) publicly-funded, and 3) cost-of-service rent. All market rent facilities should be Commercial and not Public.
Approving any projects in any vicinity to the Galleria area is a horrid idea. 300 units have been approved there. A homeless shelter has been approved on Kingsdale. A transit center is currently undergoing construction on Kingsdale. Enough is enough. How much louder do residents need to be? Don't you work for us? Didn't we elect you to make decisions in the interest of the people?
I don't think anyone in Redondo Beach has the mindset of intentionally wanting to separate and further divide North vs South Redondo but when a Council adamantly pushes to increase proposed projects and homeless shelters very intentionally in one side of town, it gives a very apparent message that one side should deal with the burden of these projects.
I have been a resident of Redondo Beach for 47 years, I have seen many changes throughout the city, but nothing concerns me more than the current proposed changes. As a community we have taken on a brunt of the housing already with much of the single family homes (r1 housing) turned into R2 and R3 housing, Congesting our city and changing the dynamic of Redondo beach to that of a cement city . To hear people say that they want to keep the beachy feel of their community while we are getting buried under the weight of all of this housing is disheartening. No one wants this housing but if we have no choice then we should all bear the brunt of it together as “ One Redondo” Please distribute the housing equally. There are very few R1 housing locations left here in NR while SR remains virtually untouched and yet you are still trying to add additional housing to our side. Traffic is already a nightmare and parking is just as bad. Our infrastructure here in NR can not take the density proposed. You are going to have to find and make the space in South Redondo for this housing as everyone needs to do their share. We are already taking the 300 units at Galleria and proposing more density housing in the shopping center next to it is a joke. That is the only place near us to get groceries . Where you have strip mall after strip mall in the south. Please leave us with something. Our quality of life is at stake please act like it matters to you because it definitely matters to us.
People need to stop making the RHNA housing allocation debate about North v South Redondo. This is one aspect of that which is not about which community has more or less density, despite the appearance that it is exactly that, when viewed at the district level.
We want to avoid traffic nightmares beyond what we already have, such as grid-lock, worsening cut through traffic, and continued disregard for traffic regulations.
Since 92% of Redondo residents commune out of town, any new housing in South Redondo creates west and northbound traffic, much of it clogging Aviation & Inglewood through North Redondo; streets which are currently overwhelmed during commute times. New housing in South Redondo will add to the current traffic jams and encourage even more cut-through traffic in our residential neighborhoods.
If the majority of the RHNA housing is instead placed in the far north of Redondo, in the industrial/commercial zone north of Manhattan Beach Blvd, the new residents will be able to get on the freeway, or take the train from the Marine station, without driving through any of our neighborhoods. And it's not a bad bike ride to the huge employment-zone that is El Segundo. GPAK identifies this area as suitable for about 1,000 units of potential housing stock. Imagine if even just half of the residents of 1,000 homes had to drive through your part of town to get to points north? Imagine how much worse your commute would be.
If these new residents want to take the freeway, they’ll quickly find that taking Marine east, then entering the freeway from the north on Inglewood, avoids adding to the traffic jams one finds when coming from the south.
If they have jobs, or school kid drop-offs, in Redondo and need to drive south, it will be against the flow of commuter traffic and not be a contributor to our pending grid-lock or cut-through traffic.
Seems like the best of all possible outcomes, with 1,000 less units in-filled in anyone’s neighborhood. With this plan, the North vs South Redondo density argument becomes null.
After all, it's not about which end of Redondo has the most housing, it's about what the location of that housing does to our quality of life.
I'd like to join my neighbors in opposition to the proposed North Tech Housing Overlay for the following reasons:
- 300 units have already been slated for the Galleria project.
- The larges percentage of potential upcycled properties are in the 90278 area with a potential 578 units vs just 210 units in 90277.
- The city's largest employer, Northrop Grumman as issued a statement dated April 15th outlining their opposition to the project. It would be foolish to ignore their input.
I appreciate your efforts to reduce the overall housing unit requirements with a reduction in the buffer but I don't see the impact on the proposed project. What areas were these units eliminate?
Finally, I'd like to point out that many North Redondo residents travel across the city to the South Redondo for little league, medical appointments, and the high school. Traffic is a problem no matter where you live.
Good Evening. I've attended 4 meetings regarding the proposed 1000+ additional units to be built in the North Tech area. Like the many folks that have voiced and commented before, I am opposed to the disproportionate number of units assigned to this area. I hope this additional opposing comment helps push the city members to find a different solution. Thanks to all involved for their effort and time.
North Redondo and South Redondo are one city and as such need to work together to meet the new housing requirements in an equitable manner. North Redondo has already seen much overdevelopment with single houses torn down and replaced with multiple townhouses causing additional congestion and traffic which negatively impact our quality of life. Please do the right thing and make sure that the new housing requirements are equally shared by both north and south redondo.
I have a hard time understanding we are actively trying to replace good paying jobs and thriving businesses in the North Tech District with an additional 1,000 new housing units. This will make it much more difficult for the largest South Bay employer, Northrop Grumman, to keep existing jobs and to expand in Redondo Beach. We are actively trying to kill the goose that provides the golden economic egg that has made Redondo Beach what it is today. Please seriously consider the objections and recommendations raised by Northrop Grumman in their letter dated April 15th that was presented at the April 20th City Council meeting. I also strongly support our city fighting back against the RHNA allocations dictated by the state and doing whatever we can to take back control over our local zoning.
Thank you,
Pat Hopkins
Please look at all housing possibilities in South RB so that the housing is distributed equally between 90278 and 90277.
N RB will not be satisfied with absorbing the majority of the new housing.
Work with Northrop to get their input and ensure they continue operating successfully in Redondo.
Please do not put all or the majority the housing on one side of town. It should be distributed as equally as possible.