Local knowledge
Dear ER:
Why does Redondo hire consultants from outside areas (“Art plans solidify on Redondo’s Artesia Boulevard,” ER Jan. 1, 2026)? We need homegrown people who know the South Bay, Valley, Pasadena, LA or Hollywood type people coming up with ideas from those areas. The Artesia corridor does not need to be politicized for one group or another. Let’s make this about the citizens of our great city. We deserve a great Artesia Boulevard for all, young to old.
Jaysen Surber
Redondo Beach
Fresh idea
Dear ER:
North Redondo Beach is a dense, well populated area. It would be a great place for a Farmers Market (“Redondo grass roots group angles for Artesia farmers market,” ER Jan. 1, 2026). The Library parking lot isn’t the biggest spot, but it would be a good start. Trying to sign the petition, but I’m getting hung up on the address field FYI.
Chuck Tipton
Redondo Beach
Give me one example
Dear ER:
It is absurd to accept Redondo Beach Planning Commissioner Wayne Craig’s remark about the Commission not being obstructive because it has approved 400 units this year (“Redondo Planning Commission cites parking, denies 49-unit building,” ER Jan. 1, 2025). Both of those projects – the Galleria and PCH & Vincent – were approved only due to their requirement by State law. The Planning Commission in both cases tried and failed to find a way to reject them.
The Commission in this case simply found a purported reason to deny this project, which will be appealed to the City Council and hopefully will not ultimately subject the city to yet another lawsuit due to its intransigence. If this Commission is in fact in favor of any housing that is not single-family, I challenge commissioners to cite any recent instance where they have approved multi-family housing without some effort from the Commissioners to first find reason to deny.
Alex Fineman
Redondo Beach
Decisions baked in
Dear ER:
The December 18 Planning Commission decision on 401–417 Pacific Coast Highway didn’t happen in a vacuum. Over the past few years, Redondo Beach has significantly reshaped how its advisory commissions function — from mid-term removals of commissioners to the consolidation or elimination of advisory bodies, and the City Council’s adoption of new Rules of Conduct that the Planning Commission did not vote to adopt.
Those structural shifts influence how land-use decisions are evaluated long before any individual project reaches a public hearing. Regardless of whether someone supported or opposed this particular project, December’s vote raises a broader question about process and consistency. Are land-use decisions being reviewed under clear, objective standards with a balanced range of perspectives applied citywide? That question matters not just for this address, but for future projects as well — especially given the legal and coastal constraints many commenters have rightly highlighted.
Pat Healy
Redondo Beach
Gem of an idea
Dear ER
Thanks for the great restaurant reviews by Richard Foss (“In praise of specialists — a Japanese-Italian fusionspot and a pizzeria,” ER Jan. 1, 2026). Minor correction: Redwood Pizza is not where Henry’s Gem Cafe used to be. The Gem was a few doors west, at the crosswalk. Buona Vita remodeled the place after Henry left.
Joe Hellerman
ERNews comment
Jaysen Surber seems confused on the ARTesia strategic plan for artwork along the Artesia Corridor. The Cultural Arts Commission and staff recommended LeBasse Projects to perform the strategic planning effort. They are LA based and have done art projects throughout LA County. And they largely developed the strategy from public surveys and meetings.
So the LA-based company was recommended by the members of the Cultural Arts Commission, who are all Redondo residents. The Cultural Arts Commissioners and other Redondo residents participated in public surveys and meetings used to develop the strategic plan. The Cultural Arts Commissioners recommended approval of the strategic plan. And they recommended one addition that required more funding. The Council supported the recommendations of the Cultural Arts Commission.
This was not political by any stretch of the imagination, the Company is based in LA, and the plan relied heavily on resident input.
Mr. Healy has issues with the City’s Planning Commission recent decision on a project along PCH and questions whether they applied objective standards. He also questions whether they adjudicate evenly across the City.
The rules and standards they have to apply are different between the Coastal Zone and the rest of City due to state law. To comply with the Coastal Act, we have a separate set of zoning ordinances for the Coastal Zone and a Local Coastal Program certified by the Coastal Commission, the state organization charged with implementing and enforcing the Coastal Act. In the Coastal Zone (defined by the Coastal Commission as west of PCH), the Planning Commission must apply our zoning ordinances for the Coastal Zone, the requirements of our Certified Local Coastal Program, and the state mandates. East of the Coastal Zone, the Local Coastal Program does not apply. The Commission must apply the zoning ordinances defined for property east of PCH and the state mandates. So state law and our zoning require the Planning Commission to apply different standards and rules.
Our Local Coastal Program defines objective requirements for parking that are there to comply with the Coastal Act access requirements. State housing mandates do not allow the city to enforce objective standards for parking outside the Coastal Zone for projects that meet State mandate requirements. The Planning Commission has certified several housing entitlements in compliance with the state mandates. Recent examples include the housing project under construction at a church along PCH and the entitlements recently requested by the firm that owns the Galleria Mall. So Mr. Healy’s question on whether they apply their adjudications evenly is moot. They adjudicate based on the different standards and requirements that apply to the project’s location in or out of the Coastal Zone as they are required to do.
As Mr. Fineman presents, the Planning Commission considered the objective facts related to other projects outside the Coastal Zone and ultimately approved the project in compliance with the State Housing mandates. So seems they did the right thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at all the facts of a matter and exploring different perspectives and issues before rendering a decision. In fact, I would hope they’d do their due diligence in deciding such important matters.
Mr. Healy’s comments on other Commissions and the pending Rules of Conduct have nothing to do with the decision of the Planning Commission. The Rules of Conduct have not been formally approved yet, they are under legal review. But when they are approved, they will apply to all Commissions. The Commissions will have to comply with them. They don’t have the power or authority to disregard the rules approved by the Council. No Planning Commissioners have been removed since I have been Mayor and one new Planning Commissioner from D4 has been appointed to replace a Commissioner who termed out. The new Commissioner was approved unanimously by the Council. The Commission is, by definition, made up of residents from each district and two at large. Right now there are two D1 Commissioners and two D3 Commissioners and one from D2, D4, and D5 each.
It is my understanding that the decision on the recent development application is being appealed to the Council now, and we will hear the developer’s appeal. I am sure the Council will adjudicate the appeal based on the facts of the matter as presented in the hearing as will I.
My letter was not about coastal versus non-coastal zoning law, nor about the merits of any single project. I fully recognize that different legal frameworks apply across Redondo Beach, and I have never questioned the Planning Commission’s obligation to follow those laws.
The concern I raised is broader and more structural: how changes to the City’s advisory system shape land-use outcomes long before a project reaches a public hearing or an appeal.
Over the past several years, advisory commissions have been reorganized, consolidated, or eliminated, while new procedural rules have been established at the City Council level. In practice, commissions now operate within tighter, Council-defined boundaries. Those boundaries influence how discretion is exercised, which perspectives are elevated or constrained, and how recommendations are ultimately formed.
That context is especially important given this comment by Jim Light. He has publicly acknowledged that the City’s proposed Rules of Conduct are still under legal review and have not yet been approved by the City Council. Yet those same draft rules have already been enforced during City Council meetings, including during public comment. Enforcing unadopted rules raises procedural and constitutional concerns, particularly in a public forum where speech protections apply.
These issues matter even more now that more authority now rests with commissions and the City Council, and fewer land-use decisions are subject to a citywide vote. Regardless of which laws apply in a given area, many residents feel that certain outcomes are already “baked in” by the time items appear on an agenda. Addressing that perception is not about disputing legal standards; it is about maintaining transparent, consistent processes that reinforce public confidence in how land-use decisions are made across the city.
I assume if the development was denied due to parking, then the proponent will appeal and provide a parking study and adequate parking to get permitted. This ain’t rocket science.