BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 5, 2026
L.1. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S CERTIFIED 2021-2029 (6TH CYCLE) HOUSING ELEMENT AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES REQUIRED
FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSISTENCY REPLACING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICTS ON THE CITY’S IDENTIFIED “HOUSING SITES” WITH HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (65 DU/AC) AND MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS (65 TO 80 DU/AC)
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2605-027, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED “REDONDO BEACH FOCUSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT PROGRAM EIR” AND AMENDING THE CITY’S CERTIFIED 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT TO REPLACE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICTS ON THE CITY’S IDENTIFIED “HOUSING SITES” WITH HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (65 DU/AC) AND MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS (65 TO 80 DU/AC).
INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 3311-26, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING, CHAPTER 2 ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S CERTIFIED 6TH CYCLE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT THAT REPLACE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICTS ON THE CITY’S IDENTIFIED “HOUSING SITES” WITH HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (65 DU/AC) AND MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS (65 TO 80 DU/AC). FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 3312-26, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 10 PLANNING AND ZONING, CHAPTER 1 SUBDIVISIONS OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S CERTIFIED 6TH CYCLE 2021- 2029 HOUSING ELEMENT THAT REPLACE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY DISTRICTS ON THE CITY’S IDENTIFIED “HOUSING SITES” WITH HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (65 DU/AC) AND MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS (65 TO 80 DU/AC). FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING
CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Community Development Director
• Public Comments Received on the Housing Element Update
combination of reduced voter oversight and highly compressed comment periods risks undermining public confidence in the process and increases the potential for procedural challenges under CEQA or state housing law. Extending engagement at this stage would help strengthen the administrative record and protect both the City and the public interest.
I also request clearer explanation of how cumulative impacts— traffic, schools, infrastructure, and emergency services—will be evaluated across multiple Housing Element sites, and how the City will ensure preservation of at-risk affordable and senior housing before displacement occurs.
For these reasons, I urge the City to extend public engagement, clarify the scope and implications of these implementation changes, and more clearly demonstrate how public input will meaningfully inform decisions prior to adoption.
Pat Healy
Redondo Beach (District 1)
From: Sean Scully
To: RBHousingElement
Subject: FW: Housing Element Amendment
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 5:30:05 PM
Attachments: Comment to the Housing Element Amendment 2026.docx image001.png
Sean Scully
Planning Manager
310.697.3194
[email protected]
We value and welcome your feedback! Please take our short survey so that we can understand how to better serve you (click here).
From: Sheila Lamb <
Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 4:36 PM
To: Sean Scully <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element Amendment
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi Sean,
I attempted to send the comment to the address cited in the communication, but it wasn't recognized so I'm sending it to you.
With respect,
Sheila
Comment to the Housing Element Amendment 2026
Sheila W. Lamb
January 8, 2026
I want to begin by stating clearly that I do not oppose this amendment. I understand that the City is operating under very real legal constraints from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and that compliance with RHNA requirements is not optional.
However, I am writing to address not the outcome, but the process.
When major zoning changes are made—changes that remove overlays, embed housing directly into base zoning, increase allowable density, and expand by-right development—the City’s ethical responsibility does not diminish simply because its legal discretion is limited. In many ways, it becomes even more important.
Residents can accept difficult and even disruptive changes when they understand them. What they struggle with is feeling that those changes are occurring without clear, site-level information about what they actually mean for neighborhoods and future development patterns.
When the public is given only high-level descriptions and very short comment windows, participation risks becoming procedural rather than meaningful. That may satisfy the letter of public process, but it does not fully meet the spirit of democratic governance.
Transparency is not optional simply because an outcome feels inevitable. When this amendment comes before the council, I urge staff to be fully candid about real impacts—on density, development incentives, neighborhood character, traffic and the pace of change—especially when decisions carry long-term consequences for the community.
My hope is that, going forward, the City will view clarity as a responsibility, particularly when legal mandates require significant policy shifts. Doing so strengthens public trust and ultimately supports the success and efforts that the City staff is trying to achieve.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your continued service to the community.
Respectfully,
Sheila W. Lamb
January 12, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Redondo Beach Planning Commission & City Council
415 Diamond St.
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
RE: Public Comment on the 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft Update (January 2026 Revision)
Dear Redondo Beach Planning Commission and City Council:
On behalf of South Bay Forward, a grassroots organization of neighbors focused on expanding access to housing, transit, and mobility in the South Bay LA region, the housing advocacy nonprofit Abundant Housing LA, and the League of Women Voters Beach Cities, we submit the following comments regarding the Draft Update to the 6th Cycle Housing Element. While the City has taken technical steps to address the 2025 California Court of Appeal ruling in New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach, the current draft at best achieves only the minimum to remain compliant with RHNA obligations, and fails to equitably distribute housing or leverage the City’s unique coastal infrastructure for the regional good. The document also relies on outdated information and lists at least one site where the City is actively blocking housing.
Inequity and the North-South Divide
The updated sites inventory (shown in Figures H-8 and H-9) continues an unsustainable pattern: concentrating nearly all new density in North Redondo while shielding South Redondo from meaningful change.
● Under Gov. Code § 65583(c)(10), the City is legally mandated to replace “segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns.” By placing the majority of potential units in the areas with highest minority concentrations and near high-pollution “stroads” like Hawthorne Blvd., the City is failing this mandate. ● South Redondo schools face declining enrollment as residents age and families are priced out. Conversely, North Redondo bears the infrastructure burden of new residents. Too often, parents are required to drive students out of their home school area from North to South to maintain enrollment, inconveniencing residents who must deal with increased traffic, which the Draft Update acknowledges on pp. 119-120. A balanced approach would place denser housing near South Redondo’s schools, parks, and walkable corridors, allowing families to live near amenities and their children’s schools.
Realistic Availability: Moving Toward By-Right Approval The City was recently penalized by the courts for including sites that were not “realistically available.” This draft risks repeating the same mistake. ● The draft lists the 49-unit 401 S. PCH project as “Progress Toward RHNA” (p. 82), yet the
Planning Commission recently denied its coastal permit. Under Gov. Code § 65583.2(c), sites must be “available” and have “realistic development capacity.” ● If a site is identified in the Housing Element, its approval should be ministerial (by-right).
The City cannot claim credit for a site on one hand while using the permitting process to block it with the other.
● Will the City continue to count applications received towards Housing Element progress and then later deny them? This continues a troubling pattern of housing project denials within the coastal zone of the City, including the Catalina Village project, the AES Power Plant site, and dating back decades to the Heart of the City project.
Reconsidering the AES and BCHD Sites
The most glaring omission remains the approximately 50-acre AES Power Plant site. The City’s justification for its exclusion (p. 11) is outdated.
● The plant shuttered on December 31, 2023. It is no longer mandated to operate as the Housing Element Draft Update continues to describe it; it is the largest infill opportunity in the South Bay.
● The City cites past “voter rejections” of housing at AES as a justification for not considering the site. However, in 2024, Redondo Beach voters passed Measure RB, specifically exempting RHNA-compliance actions from the voter-approval requirements of Measure DD. Moreover, there is no site in Redondo Beach where voters have approved a specific dense residential development; using lack of voter approval as justification here alone is willfully selective.
● The Builder’s Remedy application received for the AES site has the potential to fulfill the City’s entire RHNA obligation with over 2,300 units and the City should welcome an adaptive reuse and infill project that provides hundreds of affordable units and also restores wetlands habitats.
The Draft Update additionally mentions 150 additional units being considered by Beach Cities Health District on p. 13, but the site is never otherwise mentioned as a potential location for further development. During the previous public outreach period for the Housing Element, the residents of Redondo Beach overwhelmingly favored building senior housing on the BCHD campus.
The Climate and Environmental Imperative
Redondo Beach should refrain from viewing state housing mandates as a burden to be fought and start viewing them as an environmental necessity and economic opportunity. ● It is precisely because Redondo Beach is already developed with proximity to job centers that it is a prime candidate for growth. When coastal cities refuse to add housing, development is pushed to the Wildland-Urban Interface - exurbs that face extreme fire risk and require hours-long commutes.
● Adding housing here leverages existing jobs, infrastructure, and increasing access to transit. This reduces regional greenhouse gas emissions by allowing people to live where they work.
Conclusion
Redondo Beach must move beyond a “bare minimum” approach to the housing element update that could risk additional litigation. When it comes to creating diverse housing options, the City
has done commendable work in a few key areas, as it is one of few beach cities with a Section 8 program, to go with a successful and award-winning homelessness program with pallet shelter, interim housing, and permanent supportive housing. The City’s Housing Element Update is an opportunity to better reflect these values of equity and inclusion by embracing housing at all levels of affordability and distributed throughout the city. We urge the City to adopt a Housing Element that:
1. Distributes density equitably across North and South Redondo to support local schools and meet Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing goals. Avoids concentrating dense housing on high-pollution corridors such as Hawthorne Blvd and I-405.
2. Includes the now-shuttered AES site as a key parkland and residential infill project in the Coastal Zone.
3. Allows the Beach Cities Health District to build senior independent and assisted living housing on their site to complement the existing memory care facility.
4. Codifies ministerial review for all identified RHNA sites to ensure they are truly “available” when applications are submitted and not rejected due to subjective findings and with questionable legal justification.
5. Introduces new programs and strengthens current practices to address housing affordability such as renter protections programs and rental assistance. As an example, such programs are available in the City of Gardena and funded through Measure A local solutions funds.
We thank you for considering our input and for your work to update the Housing Element in the City of Redondo Beach.
Sincerely,
Alex Fineman, South Bay Forward, Redondo Beach Lead
Brianna Egan, South Bay Forward, Chapter Chair
Teri Neustaedter, LWV Beach Cities, President
Jacob Pierce, Abundant Housing LA, Housing Elements Analyst CC:
California HCD
California Housing Defense Fund
YIMBY Law
Attorney General Bonta
From: Leo Pustilnikov
To: RBHousingElement; McDougall, Paul@HCD;
Cc: Dave Rand; Howell, Peter; Ryan Patterson; Sonja Trauss; Matt Gelfand Subject: Redondo HE Comments
Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:39:46 PM
Attachments: Ltr to HCD (2.16.26).pdf
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear Paul,
Please see attached regarding the Redondo Beach Housing Element.
Let me know if you have any questions.
best,
Leo
February 16, 2026
Paul McDougall
Housing and Community Development
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
RE: Public Comment on the 2021–2029 Housing Element Draft Update (2-12-26) It is unfortunate that the City of Redondo Beach (“City”) continues to submit woefully inadequate and deficient plans to comply with state housing element law, despite the serious consequences it now faces having had its previously approved housing element deemed deficient by the courts.
The City now seeks to concentrate its very low income (“VLI”) obligations in an even more egregious manner than previously, with 90% of such units concentrated on a single block bound by 182nd, Kingsdale, Artesia, and Hawthorne1 and 2/3s fronting areas outside the City.
The proposed housing element already shows significant disparities between the Suitable Site Inventory (“SSI”) and actual potential development as with the site at 2901 W. 182nd Street at the northeast corner of 182nd and Kingsdale2 (APN 4082-019-037)3. Per Table H-42, the site is proposed for 158 units with only 27 VLI units while listed in the SSI as 165 VLI units. As such, the SSI as only a 25 unit VLI buƯer before other questionable inclusions detailed below are assessed.4 The other sites in the MU-TCH zone are a 2006 built Living Spaces retail store (APN 4082-019-042) and parking lots (APN 4082-019-048 and 049 now 051) serving a 95% leased class A shopping center built in 2011 with national tenants such as Nordstrom Rack, Sprouts Marketplace, Total Wine and ULTA.
When a City seeks to accommodate 50% or more of the lower income requirements with nonvacant sites, it must provide substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.5 Furthermore, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts (e.g. Reciprocal Easement Agreement (“REA”)) is required to ensure they would not perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment.6
1 South Bay Galleria (65 VL units), South Bay Marketplace (757 VL units), 2901 W. 182nd (27 VL units) 2 No details of the January 2026 application have been made public. 3 The site is listed in the SSI as 1601 Kingsdale (wrong address used – 1601 is a 6+ acre parcel with a Target retail store). The correct address is 1300 Kingsdale aka 2901-2925 W 182nd which matches the APN and site characteristics.
4 The City counts both the 27 and 165. Netting out the 165 leaves the City with an alleged capacity of 1,210. 5 Government Code 65583.2(g)(2)
6 Government Code 65582.2(g)(1)
In this case, the City has not done any such analysis including but not limited to:
1. Confirm the property owner is open to redevelopment;
2. Confirm no leases or REA over the subject sites prevents redevelopment;
3. Confirm the redevelopment would include the number of VLI units in the SSI.
In fact, looking at redevelopment trends, there is no near term likelihood of redevelopment and any such future redevelopment would include only a fraction of the anticipated VLI units.
Similarly, it is highly unlikely that any of the MU-1, RVH and MU-H sites would be redeveloped in the near term, much less as 100% VLI developments given the following :
1. 2301 190th is 80% occupied with multiple tenants and only 1 vacancy;
2. 598 Meyer has an existing lease with a flower shop;
3. 612 Meyer has multiple tenants;7
4. 1770 S PCH is occupied by LensCrafters;
5. 1880 S PCH is occupied by CVS Pharmacy;
6. 1870 S PCH is occupied by the Original Pancake House.
Excluding these 6 sites plus the 4 MU-TCH sites discussed above,8 the proposed housing element is deficient by 868 Lower Income units assuming no buƯer.9 I therefore strongly urge HCD to reject this revision and request the City provide a sincere and realistic housing element that does not concentrate all its aƯordable requirements in pipe dream projects in a corner of the City.
Lastly, HCD should correct the Housing Element designation as the City is “Out” of Compliance given the Appeals Court decision noting significant violations and the rejection by the Supreme Court denying the City’s request for review and depublication (B336042/S294028).
Sincerely,
Leo Pustilnikov
7 APN listed matches 612 Meyer even though property is listed in SSI as 512 Meyer. 8 Counting the development application for the 182nd Street property. 9 Again, assuming the smaller sites qualify which they likely do not being nonvacant occupied sites encumbered with leases.
May 5, 2026
To: Redondo Beach City Council
Topic: Housing and Zoning change Comments
From: Thomas Eisner,
Hi:
Here are some comments for/on the Housing and Zoning Changes (May 5) To begin with, I’m recently reƟred Aerospace. I’ve lived in Redondo most of the last 41 years, split roughly between North and South Redondo. (I worked at the Charleston Naval Weapons StaƟon for 3 of those years).
It’s preƩy hard for a common person to read and disseminate the more than 300 pages of these documents. I believe that I’ve read most of them. In general, I feel it’s unfortunate that Sacramento has sort of forced Redondo (and many other towns/ciƟes), into building, or planning to build so many more Housing Units than comfortably fits. I think many of us feel that traffic and general congesƟon is already preƩy bad. While I realize that it’s very hard for lower income households to find proper housing in many areas, I’d like to Sacramento put more effort into bringing and keeping higher income jobs to/in California. I’ve also seen many “For Rent” signs around Redondo and Torrance, as well as in Craigslist, so do we really need more housing? OK, I believe Redondo did a good job idenƟfying areas that could be used for more housing. I think it was almost too good. Page 86, of the 2021-29 Housing Element report, suggests we need 1,661 more ADUs. I tried to add up how many more units this updated Zoning could provide, so did we overreach? Looks like we’re over 2500 Units, (not counƟng North Tech, which might be all commercial?).
Site
New
Zoning? Stories Height
Max
du/Ac
Size
Acres*1
Potential
ADUs?
North Tech (Marine & Aviation?) ? ? ? ? 8
Kingsdale - Southern RH-4 5 55' 65 2.4 156
Kingsdale - Northern MU-H 4 45' 65
South of Transit Center RH-4 5 55' 65 6.2 403
190th Street (between Phelan & Meyer?) RH-4 5 55' 65 7.9 513.5 South Bay Marketplace CR-H 7 90' 80 17.2 1376
FedEx (~ 1760 PCH?) MU-H 4 45 65 1.8 117
*
1 from page 27 of Exhibit A,
Amendments… 2565.5
(Feel free to update this Table as needed.)
From what I recall in these Reports, Redondo did a preƩy good job allocaƟng adequate Parking.
Maybe I missed something but I think it’s important to make sure every Unit has 1 or 2 dedicated parking spots (depending on the size). I did see that Senior housing only needs 1 spot for every 2 units, or something like that, which seems to be ok.
These Redondo Zoning reports didn’t seem to have the latest populaƟon of Redondo, the “Elements” report (p. 17), has the 2020 populaƟon as 70,242. A Google search says Redondo is “approximately 66,433 to 70,059 as of early 2026, with esƟmates indicaƟng a slight annual decline of about -1.22% from recent years.” Google also says the populaƟon of Los Angeles County has gone down since 2020. Losing over 60,000 residents between 2024 – 2025 alone. I guess this is more a Sacramento quesƟon of why we’re trying to overbuild established ciƟes.
OK, back to the Redondo reports… Page 5 of the 2021-29 Housing Element report talks about Parks. It says CA State has established a minimum standard of 3 acres/1,000 residents, and Redondo only has 1.4. I believe this is a good target to shoot for and it seems one of the best ways to fulfill this is to eventually convert the bulk of the AES site to Parks.
Thank you for your Ɵme.
Let me know if you have any quesƟons for me.
Thomas Eisner