There are multiple types of mixed-use development. In this case we are specifically addressing the current vertical mixed-use zoning defined in Redondo Beach zoning ordinances. Building a Better Redondo is opposed to the current Mixed-Use Zoning designations in Redondo. But BBR is not alone in this opposition, nor is this opposition a recent phenomenon.
Though BBR and former city councilman John Parsons rarely saw eye-to-eye, Parsons agreed with BBR’s opposition to Redondo mixed-use. In 2007, Mayor Mike Gin established the Citizens’ Growth Management and Traffic Committee consisting of 33 members representing the variety of stakeholders across Redondo. A final recommendation of the committee, approved by a unanimous vote, was to alter current mixed-use zoning to reduce the residential component and emphasize a mix of commercial and professional uses. This recommendation was briefed to City Council in November 24, 2009. During this same period, the Southern California Association of Governments produced reports and briefings summarizing their analysis of mixed-use development in the South Bay. SCAG’s findings and recommendations corroborate many of the concerns with Redondo mixed-use zoning. More recently, multiple grassroots resident groups have expressed opposition to Redondo mixed-use zoning standards, so BBR is hardly alone in opposing Redondo mixed-use zoning.
The promise of mixed-use is enticing. Vertical mixed-use is a gold mine for developers due to the density allowed on relatively small properties and the high percentage of residential development. Done correctly, mixed-use development can reduce traffic impacts of the high density development while generating healthy revenues for the city.
Unfortunately, Redondo’s current mixed-use zoning has many flaws that preclude any net positive impact for the city Comparing current mixed-use developments in Redondo illustrates those flaws. Many agree that the 2001 Artesia Boulevard and 1800 S. Pacific Coast Highway developments represent what is wrong with current mixed-use zoning, while the mixed-use development on Avenue I demonstrates a better approach to vertical mixed-use.
Both 2001 Artesia and 1800 S. PCH, are little more than massive, high density, residential development with a commercial component that is an afterthought meeting the absolute minimum commercial development. With density bonuses, residential development can increase to be four stories high or more. And nearby residents oppose the massive, overbearing bulk of these developments which is hardly characteristic of the quaint seaside village appeal most residents moved here to enjoy.
Then there is the traffic. Each new unit brings new residents. New residents add more trips to our roads. Well over 80% of Redondo workers commute out of town to work every weekday, most at morning and evening rush hour. Our traffic infrastructure is already over capacity and adding more commuters is exactly what Redondo does not need. The city approved traffic studies for recent mixed-use project generally understate traffic impacts. Unfortunately, these studies are pencil whipped and do not analyze the traffic impacts and hazards that are intuitively obvious to those of us who live in the area.
While 1800 S. PCH and 2001 Artesia tax and wear out infrastructure and add burden to our public services, schools, recreational, and public safety resources, they are poor revenue contributors to our city coffers. First, the percentage of residential development far, far exceeds the commercial component. Cost of Community Services studies repeatedly conclude cities lose money on residential development – they don’t generate enough city revenues to pay for the city services and infrastructure they require or consume. This is compounded by the fact that the businesses in these developments generally underperform. The businesses tend to be low performing and there is high turnover and vacancy. Oh, and all those new mixed-use residents commuting out of town to work every day will be spending their money out of town during the weekdays rather than at the businesses in their own mixed-use development. Good city planning creates a balanced mix of uses that produces net positive revenue for the city.
The mixed-use zoning on Avenue I is an example of a more balanced approach to mixed-use development. The commercial development is the dominant use. The residential development is lower density and set back from the business uses. The location of this mixed-use development is also a factor in its appeal and success. It is located in Riviera Village, an example of horizontal mixed-use that is the highest performing mixed-use development in the SCAG study. So the Riviera Village attracts customers for the commercial component of this development.
Our current mixed-use zoning is too massive to fit in, generates new commuter traffic, creates underperforming business lease spaces, and is a net drain on our city resources and infrastructure.
The SCAG study highlights elements that should be integrated into mixed use zoning. The commercial component should address the specific mixes of commercial uses to increase potential performance. For example, the SCAG study calls for a mix of professional services, retail and restaurant. The professional services create weekday traffic for the retail and restaurants nearby. Another study on mixed-use, concludes that a key commercial tenant is the determinant factor in the success of neighboring businesses. And the residential component should be substantively scaled back as most areas of Redondo already have sufficient nearby residential development density already.
City planning strategies and solutions have changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Our current zoning was built before 1992 using planning concepts that have long since proven flawed and abandoned. City plans are meant to be redone every 10 years. Our current zoning is dysfunctional and sacrifices all other uses in favor of more retail, restaurant, and especially residential development.
Redondo needs to redo our mixed-use zoning, but we should do so in conjunction with a General Plan overhaul. We are long overdue for a new, better-integrated General Plan that achieves an intelligent balance of land uses. The right zoning can generate more city revenues while preserving our quaint seaside village appeal.
