J.3. PC21-3002 A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CERTIFICATION OF THE ASSOCIATED CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DOCUMENT INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open public hearing;
2. Take testimony from staff and interested parties;
3. Close public hearing and deliberate; and
4. Adopt a resolution by title only subject to the findings contained therein:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE CITY'S 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ASSOCIATED CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOCUMENTATION, INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I am writing to voice my concerns with the 6th Cycle Housing Element, and urge you to reject it. The Housing Element places nearly all of the required units in 90278, which is blatantly unfair to the residents of North Redondo. A better, more equitable plan would distribute the units throughout the entire city, including 90277. My concerns include:
1. The plan places nearly all of the new units on the edges of the city, areas that are highly trafficked and bordering surrounding cities such as Lawndale and Torrance, which of course have their own housing requirements. This will not solve our housing problem, it will exacerbate it.
2. All of the overlay zones (North Tech, Industrial Flex, North Kingsdale and 190th) are adjacent to less affluent areas of the city, all in North Redondo. By contrast the plan does not provide increased housing in the more affluent, beach-adjacent, communities of the South. My understanding is that state law prohibits the concetration of low income housing in one location. How can the Housing Element plan be considered in its current state?
3. North Tech is estimated to accommodate 28% (685) of the required units on its own. Do the current property owners plan on relocating? Also this location is within 250 meters of the 405, which would pose serious health impacts on residents, not to mention a roughly 45-minute commute to high school.
4. Although the Planning Commission originally voted 5-2 to recommend 50% of the power plant site zoned at 30 dwelling units per acre, City Council rejected that idea. City Council also ignored the hundreds of public emails and statements asking to consider alternative sites within 90277, including the power plant site, with its adjacency to parks, the beach and high school.
5. Redondo Beach completed 40% of its 5th cycle RHNA. Given the issues of the 6th cycle plan, it's difficult to imagine how Redondo Beach will meet its requirement of 2,490 units in its current state.
Thank you for listening to my concerns. Please work toward a more equitable distribution of the housing units throughout the entire city of Redondo Beach.
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing to voice my concerns with the 6th Cycle Housing Element, and urge you to reject it. The Housing Element places nearly all of the required units in 90278, which is blatantly unfair to the residents of North Redondo. A better, more equitable plan would distribute the units throughout the entire city, including 90277. My concerns include:
1. The plan places nearly all of the new units on the edges of the city, areas that are highly trafficked and bordering surrounding cities such as Lawndale and Torrance, which of course have their own housing requirements. This will not solve our housing problem, it will exacerbate it.
2. All of the overlay zones (North Tech, Industrial Flex, North Kingsdale and 190th) are adjacent to less affluent areas of the city, all in North Redondo. By contrast the plan does not provide increased housing in the more affluent, beach-adjacent, communities of the South. My understanding is that state law prohibits the concetration of low income housing in one location. How can the Housing Element plan be considered in its current state?
3. North Tech is estimated to accommodate 28% (685) of the required units on its own. Do the current property owners plan on relocating? Also this location is within 250 meters of the 405, which would pose serious health impacts on residents, not to mention a roughly 45-minute commute to high school.
4. Although the Planning Commission originally voted 5-2 to recommend 50% of the power plant site zoned at 30 dwelling units per acre, City Council rejected that idea. City Council also ignored the hundreds of public emails and statements asking to consider alternative sites within 90277, including the power plant site, with its adjacency to parks, the beach and high school.
5. Redondo Beach completed 40% of its 5th cycle RHNA. Given the issues of the 6th cycle plan, it's difficult to imagine how Redondo Beach will meet its requirement of 2,490 units in its current state.
Thank you for listening to my concerns. Please work toward a more equitable distribution of the housing units throughout the entire city of Redondo Beach.
Sincerely,
Alisa Beeli