Focused General Plan Update

Vehicle-related accidents are one of the leading causes of injury & death in the South Bay (and the country). The City should prioritize road diets, reduced and narrowed vehicle travel lanes, protected bike lanes, more pedestrian crossings, bulb-outs, and any physical design features that slow down traffic and help physically protect pedestrians and cyclists from cars.

Can the City commit to full implementation of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan by a specific year?

The City should eliminate parking minimums from the municipal code. For commercial and multi-family residential buildings, requiring 1 space per 250 sq ft and 2 spaces per unit respectively results in much of our land used as parking lots. This is an unwelcoming environment for anyone on foot or bike, and not in the policy direction of these revitalized corridors. Concerns about traffic can be put to rest by focusing on transit-oriented development and building protected bike lanes.

I would like to see the Artesia corridor zoned for mixed-use development. I believe this is in line with the goals set out in the AACAP to make this corridor more walkable.

In addition to an increase in the FAR on this site (BCHD), I would also support a residential overlay for independent senior living units. As the community ages, we will need more senior housing of all types (memory care, residential care, and independent living).

Metro has plans to make the route quiet-zone ready for freight and light rail trails to reduce noise and reduce train horns. Upgraded trackwork for freight will also reduce noise and vibrations. Light rail trains are quiet (<70 dB) which is quieter than most busy streets like PCH, Inglewood, and Aviation.

The Beach Life Festival is a major source of noise for 2 weekends per year. Additional music concerts at the pier and businesses are also noise sources during the summer.

These demographics are signs that the city needs to be willing to accommodate more housing for younger people and families to move in. Too many community members are getting priced out. The high school graduates 1,000 students per year but we build <100 new units of housing each year.

Parkettes should include the definition of pocket parks on street corners and stormwater capture gardens and bioswales. These enhancements can be added to virtually any street to add more green space and habitat.

Reduce parking requirements for businesses in this area.

We need more pedestrian safety measures on these streets with improvements like bulbouts, raised and painted crosswalks, roundabouts, and enhanced pedestrian lighting.

This is an important component! The Galleria site is our ideal opportunity for transit-oriented and car-light development. Pedestrian and bicycle connections to this area is important as well.

I support flexible parking solutions and also the creation of a Residential Parking District in surrounding neighborhoods.

I support this and would also emphasize the need for protected bike lanes, diverters, slow streets, and safe crossings.

These are subjective statements. I don't think new buildings need to match existing buildings as long as they are up to code and standards and have been designed by a licensed architect.

I would add "protected and safe bicycle infrastructure" to this

Again I am vary wary about siting higher density residential next to freeways which would bring smog and particulate pollution to residents. We should site infill housing along quieter streets and near transit.

Torrance Blvd would be a great place for residential or mixed use overlay for pedestrian-oriented development.

The Artesia/Aviation Corridor would be a great place for residential or mixed use overlay for pedestrian-oriented development.

I support the residential overlays, especially in the Kingsdale area and adjacent to the transit center and South Bay Galleria. This area is especially suited for transit-oriented and car-light development. I oppose residential overlays in polluted areas near the 405 freeway as locating homes to freeways is shown to expose people to pollution and particulate matter that impairs respiratory and neurological health.

I would like to see neighborhood commercial have an increased FAR and decreased parking requirements to encourage revitalization of our commercial zones. Mixed-use overlays with FAR of 1.5 and higher would also encourage walkable neighborhoods with 2-3 stories of housing over retail.

The restriction to max FAR 0.75 is unnecessarily restrictive and limits the use of public lands for public programs and institutions. This restriction greatly limits the ability for Beach Cities Health District to proceed with their redevelopment plans which will hurt their ability to deliver programs and services to Redondo Beach. Please change this to max FAR 1.25 (or higher to 1.5 or 1.75) for all public/institutional properties, inclusive of the BCHD site.

I fully support the downsizing of the BCHD concept and the accompanying FAR cap. It's simple common sense.

The continued efforts to concentrate all very low and low income housing in a single portion of the City and not utilize other areas such as the AES site go against significant resident feedback: Planning Commission Minutes - link;ID=9408839&GUID=D3C046B9-766E-4894-97BC-873AC899863C SocialPinpoint Comment Summary Analysis - link;ID=9320380&GUID=8193B7A5-BEAE-4F42-908B-47318B82931D Submitted Comments for Housing Planning - link;ID=9305045&GUID=3CFFFE0F-D82A-4664-923B-8CE67E48B3B5 Submitted Comments after Planning Commission Agenda Published - link;ID=9320379&GUID=B68ED237-BC37-4FBA-B4AF-16DFB005DBE5

Please allow the District's Healthy living Campus plan to go through without reducing the FAR. We are fortunate to have this public agency focused on a healthier living community in our tri-city area for which we pay taxes. I live in Redondo Beach, not far from the BCHD and use it Center for Health and Fitness. I am also a baby-boomer, who appreciates this type of organization as a resource for me and my family to go to in my community. This is an opportunity to modernize the entire District land. They have listened to the concerns of the community and have come up with a good plan. Let's not unduly limit it without really considering its future benefit to all our residents and neighboring communities.

Inconsistent and discriminatory PI FAR between sites makes no sense and needlessly restricts future use of sites. Consistent and equitable zoning is critical that allows for future use of sites, a FAR of 1.25 should be used at all PI sites.

Beach Cities Health District property should be given a Max FAR 1.25 in the same way it is given to City Hall property. BCHD serves the 3 Beach Cities. Redondo Beach should not impede BCHD services to the greater community. Thank You, Teri Mufic Neustaedter, 918 9th Street, Hermosa Beach

The League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities is concerned about Redondo Beach’s new draft of its General Plan, specifically Table 2.1: General Plan Land Use Designations under “Public/Institutional/ Open Space.” Beach Cities Health District’s main campus at 514 N. Prospect, as well as other facilities for community health and safety, should be given a Max FAR 1.25 in the same way it is given to City Hall property. BCHD is paid for by three cities even though it is located in Redondo Beach. Redondo Beach should not have a unilateral decision on these requirements without consulting Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach as it affects resident health outcomes of all three areas. The proposed Max FAR effectively downzones the public’s ability to use BCHD property and would hinder the modernization of an outdated campus and potentially lead to a reduction of health services. Thank you for your consideration, Teri Neustaedter. President, LWV Beach Cities

I support the Updates to the General Plan. This is a complicated need for the residents and businesses, but it is necessary to keep Redondo Beach a vibrant community. We need more housing and better use of all existing footprints, which will by necessity mean more construction to expand facilities, parking, open space.

THIS COMMENT SUPERCEDES ALL PRIOR IF IN CONFLICT WITH ANY OF MY PRIOR COMMENTS - I support the StopBCHD proposal for FAR of 0.5, 0.75, and 1.25 for PI for under 50% Redondo Beach Resident facility use, 50-75% Resident use and over 75% Resident use, respectively.

BCHD property should be given a Max FAR 1.25 in the same way it is given to City Hall property. BCHD serves all of the Beach Cities and Redondo Beach should not impede BCHD services to the greater community. Thank You!

BCHD property should be given a Max FAR 1.25 in the same way it is given to City Hall property. BCHD serves all of the Beach Cities and Redondo Beach should not impede BCHD services to the greater community.

BCHD property should be given a Max FAR 1.25 in the same way it is given to City Hall property

All the services and opportunities BCHD has been providing to our communities over these years have been vital to all ages, including LiveWell Kids for elementary school kids in learning about nutrition and healthy habits through gardening lessons at their school; community members accessing the Health and Fitness gym and classes, ranging through seniors; allcove for mental health support in adolescents; numerous health clinics and programs such as hypertension screenings, yoga classes, Mental Health First Aid Certification course, Suicide Prevention Training; and etc. In a state of emergency, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, BCHD has also shown how its partnership with other organizations strengthened the effort to help provide vaccinations and care for our community to stay safe and informed. Especially after the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, we need to support BCHD's plan complete the development of Healthy Living Campus by renovating the seismically-outdated current BCHD building and building the permanent allcove building, to empower BCHD to continue partnering with more organizations to support our communities with its public space and services. I would like to suggest NOT to reduce the FAR in the development of Healthy Living Campus because we need all the space possible to promote health and peace for all ages. This space would allow more healthy habits and socializing events/activities, and minimize/prevent illnesses or crimes from untreated mental and physical health.

Why is the Beach Cities Health District project on PI on this table? The proposed units are not considered housing per RHNA. The project has not come to the City of Redondo Beach for conditional use permit.

Public Comment to the Draft General Plan I would like to add my comments to the record for the Draft General Plan for consideration pertaining to the FAR on Public Institutional land. First, I state my strong support to keep the 0.75 maximum FAR limit on Public Institutional (PI) land. This issue is important for the future of the City. Public institutional land should be preserved and responsibly guided by city policy. Any development on public land should be compatible with the character, mass, and scale of the surrounding neighborhoods, and used for the benefit of residents. Allowing an increased level of density and intensity on public institutional land could easily lead to mis-use and abuse resulting in permanent damages to the City and our quality of life. In 2021, the State mandated that “objective” rather than “subjective” standards be put in place. The 0.75 standard for future development on public land meets that objective standard responsibly, without subjecting the City to the constant threat of future development that is not compatible in character, land use and surrounding neighborhoods. No single public agency should be given an exception. But unfortunately, Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) is blaming the City and making the FAR on public land a big issue. Why it’s important to preserve the 0.75 FAR limit for all Public Institutional land: • The current FAR provides ample room for growth while preserving open space and adding protections for the City, the environment, and residents. The 0.75 FAR will help to ensure compatibility with surrounding areas. • Increasing the FAR would set a precedence for overdevelopment on public land now, and for the future. • We’ve seen what happens when no limits are prescribed for development. In the early 1970s, two buildings rose to 70+ plus ft. high along the ocean (Delphi and Ocean Plaza). • Today BCHD is pushing hard to have a massive, 100% privately owned RCFE structure built up against the edge of its 30 ft. elevated site. This proposed project fails the Redondo Beach municipal code regarding compatibility. See Figure 1. • The first four tenets of the Redondo Beach General Plan Vision 2050 & Guiding Principles are: • Quality of Life & Beach Culture • Small Town Feel • Community & Family • Preservation of Neighborhoods The BCHD plan violates these principles. • No single public entity should be given an exception to the limit. There are ~ 20 public institutional properties that fall under the 0.75 FAR. However, BCHD demands it should be treated like the City. However, far from having the City’s responsibilities for the critical infrastructure and services (Police, Fire, City maintenance, etc.) for its residents, BCHD provides optional, non-essential services. There is no reason for them to receive favored treatment. • Public land is designated to serve the residents, not private developers and a majority of non-residents. • BCHD’s development plans have always been in conflict with Redondo Beach municipal code in scale, mass and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods that encompass the site. They have already proven to have no regard for surrounding neighborhoods and residents. • The Public Institutional 0.75 FAR limit has been in the plan and was subject to review for three GPAC meetings between 2022 and 2024. • The Chair of the GPAC approved the plan in January 2024. He is also currently a paid consultant to BCHD contracted to help usher through a conditional use permit for its proposed HLC project through the City of Redondo Beach. • The General Plan includes an Adjacent Planned Land Use consideration for development’s relationship to uses in adjacent cities. Consideration to the neighborhood directly to the east of the BCHD site is covered by the Torrance Hillside Ordinance, which provides protections for residents on light, privacy, mass, scale of construction. For these reasons, I urge the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and City Council to and preserve the current 0.75 FAR. Preserve the integrity of the City now and for the future.

BCHD property should be given a Max FAR 1.25 in the same way it is given to City Hall property

Focused General Plan Update - Public Comments I am writing to express my support for the .75 FAR for Public Institutional land use designations in the city of Redondo Beach. I believe it is important to have a clear understanding of how future development of the city’s limited public spaces is evaluated. It is essential to protect public zoned areas from the overdevelopment that will occur when officials fail to define the policies that govern these scarce areas. It is incumbent upon the Redondo Beach community and its elected representatives to do everything possible to protect its limited public lands and to preserve its open spaces for current and future generations. Adopting the zoning recommendations within the draft General Plan is right for the community and for the environment. I also strongly oppose any effort to carve out an exemption to the proposed regulations for Beach Cities Health District and urge the city to reject Policy LU 4.7. The BCHD has not made a detailed argument explaining why an exception to the proposed FAR is necessary. Contrary to statements made by the district opposing the .75 FAR, the draft general plan doesn’t prevent the district or other agencies from future development. It does however, prevent overdevelopment and defines the appropriate scale of what can be built to ensure the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. This is consistent with what the community has expressed for its public spaces. Increasing the FAR for the BCHD would set a damaging precedence for overdevelopment on public land now, and for the future. No single public entity should be given an exception to the limit. Additionally, table 5 under Appendix A section 3.6 must be modified or removed. The BCHD’s commercial RCFE project is not a grandfathered use as outlined and is not permitted. The number of units and square footage shown far exceeds what was originally approved by the city when the CUP for the existing RCFE was approved. To date, the increase referenced to in the BCHD EIR has not been submitted for review by the Planning Commission Design Review and has not been presented to the City Council. Contrary to some public comments, the .75 PI FAR designation has been in the plan since 2022 and was subject to review for three GPAC meetings between 2022 and 2024. Even GPAC Chair Biro, who is a highly paid consultant and has advocated on behalf of BCHD, approved the plan in 2024. He and his firm have been working on the draft general plan with the specific P/I zoning of .75 without objections.   In written comments made regarding the draft general plan GPAC member and now Redondo Beach Mayor Jim Light writes… “Redondo residents have demonstrated their commitment to major parkland and open space expansion in this area in a referendum against the 2002 Heart of the City plan, in a second referendum against creating a “redevelopment area” out of the harbor area, in a 2005 land use vote between parkland and mixed use development of the site, in the 2010 Measure G vote which added park as the only “permitted use” of the power plant parcels, and in the 2015 vote against AES’s Measure B which attempted to rezone the power plant property to zoning for 650 residential units and commercial development with no commitment to any public parkland.” It makes no sense to conclude from these comments that the same people would support the development of one of the last public parcels in the City and would not support its protection as open space. Furthermore to adopt the proposed .75 FAR is consistent with Policy LU-4.8 Quality of Life and Livability. Create an active, health-oriented community, that benefits from outdoor living amenities and activities residents and visitors can enjoy due to the proximity to the coast. Health and land use. Seek to incorporate health considerations into land use planning decisions in a manner that improves health and well-being. New Open and Parkland Space Opportunities. Preserve, invest in, and expand parkland and open space opportunities for active and passive recreational public and private open spaces. Work with future developments along commercial corridors and other nonresidential developments to create useable public open spaces to enhance the commercial neighborhood experience for residents and visitors alike. Help offset the increased density that will occur in the future by strengthening protections for the scarce public open spaces that are zoned for public use. Memorialize a .75 FAR for Public/Institutional designations. It’s good for all who live, work and invest in the city of Redondo Beach.

BCHD property should be given a Max FAR 1.25 as it is given to City Hall property. This facility and program services all three of the Beach Cities and not just the community of Redondo Beach.

I strongly support the FAR 0.75 to protect the well being of our City. Please do not show deference to special interests such as BCHD, who have no regard for the quality of life of their neighbors.

BCHD Community Comment We propose: Base FAR 0.50 - Any PI facility with less than 50% Redondo Beach Resident services. Enhanced FAR 0.75 - Any PI facility with at least 50% Redondo Beach Resident services Enhanced FAR 1.25 - Any PI facility with at least 75% Redondo Beach Resident services If a facility is being developed for non-residents, its development should be severely limited to protect RESIDENTS health, safety, and property values. The burden of effort providing the share of site use for Redondo Beach residents would be on the project proponent, and subject to Planning Commission hearings and acceptance prior to certification of the project's FAR. Development on Public Land in Redondo Beach must be commensurate with the share of the services provided to Redondo Beach residents.

Thank you for the years of hard work. The Plan is solid, comprised of a vast representation of residents in the city. That all parties do not agree will all facets of the Plan is a testament to the fact that consensus and compromise was reached.

I SUPPORT the 0.75 FAR limit on Public Institutional (PI) land for all non-City-owned parcels, as written in the Draft General Plan.

StopBCHD Community Comment Because BCHD has elected to make this about BCHD as witnessed by Board Member Poster writing in her capacity as a director in the ER - the following comments regarding BCHD are entered into the record: From the perspective of HB/MB/RB resident-taxpayers, BCHD activities are only 1/5th to 1/20th "public" to District residents. 80% of the assisted living, 91% of allcove and 95% of the PACE facility are developed explicitly for NON-RESIDENTS of the District. The District was formed by voters to provide services to the "residents who reside" in the District (District pleading to Superior Court for land condemnation INGL-C-1594) BCHD's proposed HLC will use PUBLIC land to allow a 100% PRIVATE RCFE that will house an estimated 80% Non-residents/Non-taxpayers of the District (per BCHD's MDS consultants Exhibit 3-3) BCHD's allcove Beach Cities services the area of LA County SPA8 of 1.4M population. Therefore, the service area of the District is less than 9% (LA County SPA8 definition, US Census Bureau data, 91.5% Non-residents/Non-taxpayers) BCHD's proposed PACE will service 95% Non-residents/Non-taxpayers of the District (National PACE Association data (1 in 1000 seniors uses PACE,US Census Bureau data of 17,000 seniors in the District, BCHD investment banker presentation of 400 enrollees) This is precisely why the General Plan should consider the intensity of services provision when determining FAR maximum values.

I object to the City plan to site 8000 units in North Redondo to satisfy the City's Housing Element plan with the State. Zero in South Redondo. THAT IS SIMPLY UNFAIR. I will vote NO on the General Plan in protest and encourage all North Redondo residents to do the same. This approach will let the city minimize impact to South Redondo for the foreseeable future at the expense of North Redondo residents.

“I SUPPORT the 0.75 FAR limit on Public Institutional (PI) land for all non-City-owned parcels, as written in the Draft General Plan." Developers should not be controlling our city!

I am against having a bond pay for this. The cost of living in this community is already outrageous. We should not have to pay for this,

I wanted to add that State Regulations may already allow the rebuilding of residential, nonconforming housing units (for example Government Code section 65852.24). However, the fact that Redondo Beach does not have an explicit statement allowing the rebuild a non conforming housing units in our zoning regulations still dramatically limits financing on these properties. Lenders hate any indication of risk and not having a Grandfather clause in our commercial zoning code inflates risk. Redondo should make the effort to clearly state that residential units on commercial lots (a nonconforming use) may be rebuilt if a disaster destroys those units. Thank you.

Zoning for commercial lots should have a "Grandfather Clause" added that allows for the rebuild of what is currently there after a disaster. This would free up money for improvements to "nonconforming" properties and encourage owners to make investments in their properties. This would have a large impact on the quality of the Aviation, Artesia and PCH corridors. Currently, if there are residential units on a commercial lot (a situation that is common on Artesia, PCH and Aviation), it makes that use "non conforming". This make it nearly impossible to get a lender to loan money for that property as if a fire (or other disaster) were to destroy more than 50% of the building(s), what could be built there is restricted to the current commercial zoning. Many of these lots are long, narrow lots precluding the building of anything that would net much income (especially compared with the non conforming use). This makes this situation is a non starter for most lenders as it means that if there were a disaster, the value of that property would decrease dramatically. It also increases the effort and cost of getting insurance for these properties. Residential lots in Redondo have long had a "Grandfather Clause" that allows the rebuilding of what is currently on the property to be re-built. If there are 4 apartment units on a lot where the current zoning only allows 2 units, the original 4 units can be rebuilt after a disaster. That protects an owners investment in the property and encourages the maintenance and improvement of the property. Commercial lots deserve the same consideration as Residential lots. This one change will spur drastic improvements along the Artesia, Aviation and PCH corridors.

Having such a low FAR for BCHD is unfair and massive negative for Redondo Beach and the entire South Bay. All of us will be able to enjoy and benefit from the new BCHD facility. And all of us will all get old and many of us have children. BCHD will benefit all of us for years to come. Please allow them to build their new facility.