In regards to last week's motion--which was approved by Mayor Brand, Obagi, Nils, and Loewenstein--North Redondo would be getting over 1,000 units in the VONS area, Artesia and Kingsdale, and Kingsdale and 182nd.
1. Folks ARE aware that Adams MS, Lincoln ES, and Washington ES are going to be overcrowded because of this.
2. We can't do anything about Franklin ES because Friendship Foundation is building a new community center on the former school site.
3. While Redondo Union HS is already overcrowded at ~3,000 kids (which has been this way since the late 2010s), North Redondo is already in need of a new high school ever since Aviation HS closed down in the 1980s. In fact, North Redondo should have a new 6-12 joint middle and high school in that Adams MS, Mira Costa HS (MBUSD), and RUHS will not be overcrowded in the next 20 years. Suggested location of new 6-12 school: Tech District.
As a 34 year resident of D4. I oppose the plan that my councilmember has proposed to meet RHNA housing requirements. He has disregarded over 500 emails and hundreds of comments on Nextdoor and his Facebook page in opposition to his housing plan. He even deleted his Nextdoor post because he was getting so many negative comments.
It is inconceivable that our D4 councilmember would put the majority of the RHNA housing in his own district when D4 is already the most crowded district in Redondo Beach. This does not make sense to anyone.
We have stressed continuously that equity is needed in Redondo Beach. New residents moving into our community do not want to live on Artesia Boulevard or by a cemetery and train and bus station. They want to live as close to the beach as possible which is why South Redondo is the best location for the majority of the RHNA housing.
Transportation is of no concern to people that want to live by the beach. They know that there’s a sacrifice to living in this area and are willing to add an extra 10 minutes in commuting in order to live in a desirable area.
I see no new housing being proposed in South Redondo at any of these meetings and only additional housing being added to North Redondo.
The council’s treatment of North Redondo residents and land is appalling. We deserve the same respect and treatment as you give to those living in South Redondo. We are overcrowded and traffic is already very stressful for us. Unfortunately, if you continue on this path, this plan will be voted down by the residents.
You are putting the entire city at risk by continuing down this road. When the residents vote down your plan, the state will have the option to take control of allocating housing in our city.
We are all better served by having you negotiate and equitably share housing throughout the entire city.
I am registering my opposition to yet another proposal by the councilman (mis)representing my district (D4). The RHNA requirements need to be equitably distributed between North and South. Creating a ghetto in the Tech District is ridiculous. Why is the City even bothering with GPAC & the Planning Commission if they're going to be ignored and the South Redondo cohorts (including Obagi) repeatedly get their way?
I oppose the plan proposed by city council which inequitably distributes new housing in NR. This will add more density and congestion to an area that’s already too crowded. Please listen to your constituents to come up with a more balanced plan.
I completely disagree with this proposed plan with all the burden put on North Redondo. District 4 is already the most dense populated district along with district one. There should be zero new housing in district 4. I cannot believe this is even legal. Our district 4 councilman, Mr. Obagi, is not doing his job to represent the interests of his constituents. This is highly concerning to me and my neighbors.
Would each Councilmember and the Mayor please explain why it is fair to zone twenty four new homes in North Redondo and zero zero new homes in North Redondo. Please explain why that is fair.
I 100% oppose the GPAC land use plan. This whole deal needs to wholeheartedly pivot to fighting state level calculator generated mandates. After everything this city has fought in the recent years and won, I'm surprised I even need to say this.
What would be of best benefit to offset all of the carbon, pollution and congestion is adding trees to create a bird sanctuary for the great horned owls, hawks, falcons, parrots, finches, jays, crows, mockingbirds, hummingbirds, doves, and whatever other birds want to come and nest. GO GREEN. Add beauty.
I, too, oppose the plan as currently proposed with all of the burden placed on North Redondo. Mr. Obagi does not seem to be representing the views and interests of his constituency.
There is disparity in the currently proposed plan. I support equal distribution of the units across all districts. Statements about how certain condo buildings are extremely dense are valid. But the additional information that these have no public transportation are reasons to add a bus line, not a reason to avoid any new zoning. I also think that those living in multi-million dollar ocean front condos are not the people who are taking public transport to work. Not all development belongs by public transportation. Nor does a few buildings or pockets of high density mean an entire district is more densely populated. Please determine an accurate population density for each district and find equity. Additionally, use social media as a resource. My sense from reading online is that those in D4 are not happy with their council member's proposed plan. I also have concerns that this plan which placed most units in dirtricts 4 and 5 was added onto by the council member for D1, who only reduced density along PCH in D1. This is a thorny issue and the Council needs to reach a consensus that works for all. Any other outcome will breed division in the community and Council.
I strongly object to the inequitable plan for housing that CM Obagi introduced at the last council meeting, which was seemingly rubber stamped by the CMs from districts 1 and 2. I was also disappointed that the council did not take a harder look at CM Emdee’s proposal, which would have actually shared the burden across Redondo.
The Obagi proposal would cram all the new housing in North Redondo. This would overwhelm already crowded schools and resources. And North Redondo is not in favor—from talking to people in Ds 3, 4, and 5 and looking at the strong reaction on FB and ND it is clear that it has minimal (if any support) in the districts in which the housing will be added. I would ask the council to take a harder look at this issue before signing of on this proposal. It has completely divided the city and needs to be reevaluated.
I am writing to vehemently oppose the unequal housing that is being distributed to D4 and D5. Obagi is not representing our district with the residents best interest. He is NOT listening to his D4 constituents, saying that most of the complaints are from D5, and it seems he has ulterior political motives. He is more concerned about the possibility that the new housing could end up in south redondo than the overcrowding in our schools and not listening to his own D4 residents!!! I am a working mom to 3 young kids that will all attend Washington Elementary and I rely on the CDC there for childcare. Every year they tell us that there is an overcrowding issue and that it could go to a lottery basis. How will the schools and CDC handle all the children when they can barely handle it now? I will be letting all my neighbors and other moms/families know that this is unacceptable. Many are young families like myself and have no idea but are completely outraged when informed of the situation. Obagi is ignoring the complaints, deleting his post on nextdoor due to the amount of complaints, and is not representing our district. I am pleading with the city to distribute the housing equitably. Just because South Redondo is a 'more desirable' place to live (Obagi's own words, not mine.... look at his facebook post... unless he deletes that too) we D4 residents and North Redondo residents do not deserve any less.
1. Oppose redefinition of PUBLIC land use to include RCFE
2. Oppose RCFE on public land even by CUP unless the RCFE is 100% public owned and operated and charges cost-of-service rents
3. RCFE at market price rent is Commercial land use
4. All RCFE should continue to require a conditional use permit
5. Consider rezoning Kensington to Commercial
There are 297 signatures as of 3pm 5/17 collected in only 5 days helping to voice the discord & opposition to the unequal housing being placed both in District 4 & 5.This will only continue to grow.You cannot ignore the number of persons opposing this atrocity.The residents of NR do not feel they are correctly being represented by all council.We consistently feel our opposition & voice are not being heard & regularly dismissed.We are willing to do our share but not to have this amount of housing added to our area.Galleria was lowered to 300 only to have Obagi recommend & add additional housing right back. Residents made it clear we did not want this housing.This is counterproductive to the wants & more importantly the needs of our community.This much dense housing in one area will cripple our neighborhoods & make it impossible to have any quality of life.Its difficult now with the amount of traffic & lack of parking.Its only getting worse & with the amount of housing proposed will be unlivable.We plead to reevaluate where this housing will be located as many long-standing residents have invested their whole lives, sometime multi-generational into this community.Residents are unaware that this is coming & more needs to be done to bring about awareness of this problem before making these decisions.This was even clearer to me when I started walking door to door with my own neighbors, many who are older & dont have access to things like Facebook, etc. I feel a lot more effort should have been made to inform the residents of an issue with such life changing ramifications.Residents do not feel they are being represented.They are saying not only to have the person who they thought would fight to keep housing down in NR dismiss their concerns in a very patronizing & egocentric manner.I have never felt so betrayed by my city as in the last meeting.To say that the councilmember are riling people up because they informed their constituents is appalling.We all have a right to be informed & a right to be heard & a right to have councilmembers vote in alignment with their district’s needs.When your district needs protection, you don’t offer them up on a silver platter
In regards to last week's motion--which was approved by Mayor Brand, Obagi, Nils, and Loewenstein--North Redondo would be getting over 1,000 units in the VONS area, Artesia and Kingsdale, and Kingsdale and 182nd.
1. Folks ARE aware that Adams MS, Lincoln ES, and Washington ES are going to be overcrowded because of this.
2. We can't do anything about Franklin ES because Friendship Foundation is building a new community center on the former school site.
3. While Redondo Union HS is already overcrowded at ~3,000 kids (which has been this way since the late 2010s), North Redondo is already in need of a new high school ever since Aviation HS closed down in the 1980s. In fact, North Redondo should have a new 6-12 joint middle and high school in that Adams MS, Mira Costa HS (MBUSD), and RUHS will not be overcrowded in the next 20 years. Suggested location of new 6-12 school: Tech District.
As a 34 year resident of D4. I oppose the plan that my councilmember has proposed to meet RHNA housing requirements. He has disregarded over 500 emails and hundreds of comments on Nextdoor and his Facebook page in opposition to his housing plan. He even deleted his Nextdoor post because he was getting so many negative comments.
It is inconceivable that our D4 councilmember would put the majority of the RHNA housing in his own district when D4 is already the most crowded district in Redondo Beach. This does not make sense to anyone.
We have stressed continuously that equity is needed in Redondo Beach. New residents moving into our community do not want to live on Artesia Boulevard or by a cemetery and train and bus station. They want to live as close to the beach as possible which is why South Redondo is the best location for the majority of the RHNA housing.
Transportation is of no concern to people that want to live by the beach. They know that there’s a sacrifice to living in this area and are willing to add an extra 10 minutes in commuting in order to live in a desirable area.
I see no new housing being proposed in South Redondo at any of these meetings and only additional housing being added to North Redondo.
The council’s treatment of North Redondo residents and land is appalling. We deserve the same respect and treatment as you give to those living in South Redondo. We are overcrowded and traffic is already very stressful for us. Unfortunately, if you continue on this path, this plan will be voted down by the residents.
You are putting the entire city at risk by continuing down this road. When the residents vote down your plan, the state will have the option to take control of allocating housing in our city.
We are all better served by having you negotiate and equitably share housing throughout the entire city.
I am registering my opposition to yet another proposal by the councilman (mis)representing my district (D4). The RHNA requirements need to be equitably distributed between North and South. Creating a ghetto in the Tech District is ridiculous. Why is the City even bothering with GPAC & the Planning Commission if they're going to be ignored and the South Redondo cohorts (including Obagi) repeatedly get their way?
I oppose the plan proposed by city council which inequitably distributes new housing in NR. This will add more density and congestion to an area that’s already too crowded. Please listen to your constituents to come up with a more balanced plan.
I completely disagree with this proposed plan with all the burden put on North Redondo. District 4 is already the most dense populated district along with district one. There should be zero new housing in district 4. I cannot believe this is even legal. Our district 4 councilman, Mr. Obagi, is not doing his job to represent the interests of his constituents. This is highly concerning to me and my neighbors.
Would each Councilmember and the Mayor please explain why it is fair to zone twenty four new homes in North Redondo and zero zero new homes in North Redondo. Please explain why that is fair.
I 100% oppose the GPAC land use plan. This whole deal needs to wholeheartedly pivot to fighting state level calculator generated mandates. After everything this city has fought in the recent years and won, I'm surprised I even need to say this.
What would be of best benefit to offset all of the carbon, pollution and congestion is adding trees to create a bird sanctuary for the great horned owls, hawks, falcons, parrots, finches, jays, crows, mockingbirds, hummingbirds, doves, and whatever other birds want to come and nest. GO GREEN. Add beauty.
I, too, oppose the plan as currently proposed with all of the burden placed on North Redondo. Mr. Obagi does not seem to be representing the views and interests of his constituency.
There is disparity in the currently proposed plan. I support equal distribution of the units across all districts. Statements about how certain condo buildings are extremely dense are valid. But the additional information that these have no public transportation are reasons to add a bus line, not a reason to avoid any new zoning. I also think that those living in multi-million dollar ocean front condos are not the people who are taking public transport to work. Not all development belongs by public transportation. Nor does a few buildings or pockets of high density mean an entire district is more densely populated. Please determine an accurate population density for each district and find equity. Additionally, use social media as a resource. My sense from reading online is that those in D4 are not happy with their council member's proposed plan. I also have concerns that this plan which placed most units in dirtricts 4 and 5 was added onto by the council member for D1, who only reduced density along PCH in D1. This is a thorny issue and the Council needs to reach a consensus that works for all. Any other outcome will breed division in the community and Council.
I strongly object to the inequitable plan for housing that CM Obagi introduced at the last council meeting, which was seemingly rubber stamped by the CMs from districts 1 and 2. I was also disappointed that the council did not take a harder look at CM Emdee’s proposal, which would have actually shared the burden across Redondo.
The Obagi proposal would cram all the new housing in North Redondo. This would overwhelm already crowded schools and resources. And North Redondo is not in favor—from talking to people in Ds 3, 4, and 5 and looking at the strong reaction on FB and ND it is clear that it has minimal (if any support) in the districts in which the housing will be added. I would ask the council to take a harder look at this issue before signing of on this proposal. It has completely divided the city and needs to be reevaluated.
I am writing to vehemently oppose the unequal housing that is being distributed to D4 and D5. Obagi is not representing our district with the residents best interest. He is NOT listening to his D4 constituents, saying that most of the complaints are from D5, and it seems he has ulterior political motives. He is more concerned about the possibility that the new housing could end up in south redondo than the overcrowding in our schools and not listening to his own D4 residents!!! I am a working mom to 3 young kids that will all attend Washington Elementary and I rely on the CDC there for childcare. Every year they tell us that there is an overcrowding issue and that it could go to a lottery basis. How will the schools and CDC handle all the children when they can barely handle it now? I will be letting all my neighbors and other moms/families know that this is unacceptable. Many are young families like myself and have no idea but are completely outraged when informed of the situation. Obagi is ignoring the complaints, deleting his post on nextdoor due to the amount of complaints, and is not representing our district. I am pleading with the city to distribute the housing equitably. Just because South Redondo is a 'more desirable' place to live (Obagi's own words, not mine.... look at his facebook post... unless he deletes that too) we D4 residents and North Redondo residents do not deserve any less.
To save time, here's a bullet list:
1. Oppose redefinition of PUBLIC land use to include RCFE
2. Oppose RCFE on public land even by CUP unless the RCFE is 100% public owned and operated and charges cost-of-service rents
3. RCFE at market price rent is Commercial land use
4. All RCFE should continue to require a conditional use permit
5. Consider rezoning Kensington to Commercial
There are 297 signatures as of 3pm 5/17 collected in only 5 days helping to voice the discord & opposition to the unequal housing being placed both in District 4 & 5.This will only continue to grow.You cannot ignore the number of persons opposing this atrocity.The residents of NR do not feel they are correctly being represented by all council.We consistently feel our opposition & voice are not being heard & regularly dismissed.We are willing to do our share but not to have this amount of housing added to our area.Galleria was lowered to 300 only to have Obagi recommend & add additional housing right back. Residents made it clear we did not want this housing.This is counterproductive to the wants & more importantly the needs of our community.This much dense housing in one area will cripple our neighborhoods & make it impossible to have any quality of life.Its difficult now with the amount of traffic & lack of parking.Its only getting worse & with the amount of housing proposed will be unlivable.We plead to reevaluate where this housing will be located as many long-standing residents have invested their whole lives, sometime multi-generational into this community.Residents are unaware that this is coming & more needs to be done to bring about awareness of this problem before making these decisions.This was even clearer to me when I started walking door to door with my own neighbors, many who are older & dont have access to things like Facebook, etc. I feel a lot more effort should have been made to inform the residents of an issue with such life changing ramifications.Residents do not feel they are being represented.They are saying not only to have the person who they thought would fight to keep housing down in NR dismiss their concerns in a very patronizing & egocentric manner.I have never felt so betrayed by my city as in the last meeting.To say that the councilmember are riling people up because they informed their constituents is appalling.We all have a right to be informed & a right to be heard & a right to have councilmembers vote in alignment with their district’s needs.When your district needs protection, you don’t offer them up on a silver platter