by Garth Meyer
The Redondo Beach city council approved a new Housing Element Tuesday night, looking to retain as much local control over zoning as possible.
The move came in reaction to a loss in court last year which nullified the city’s previous housing plan.
That plan included what are known as overlays – areas that keep open the possibility of alternative development uses.
The new plan has no overlays.
Instead, it increases density allowed on four of Redondo’s five designated new-housing sites, and eliminates a sixth. In addition, the new plan states that new development on these sites requires 50% of its floor space be residential.
Of the individual spots previously chosen for future housing, “North Tech,” at Marine Avenue and Inglewood Avenue, is off the list because the judge ruled it unlikely that housing would be built there, due to a lease between a Vons store and the landowner.
Of the five sites kept in the plan, the one at Kingsdale Avenue and Artesia Boulevard had its allowed density increased from 55 to 65 dwelling units per acre, and height from four to five stories.
Similar increases were made for the site south of the Transit Center (Kingsdale Avenue and 182nd), the FedEx site (South Pacific Coast Highway and Paseo De Gracia Street) and three sites on 190th Street, between Meyer Lane and Hawthorne Boulevard.
For the final spot in Redondo’s new plan, South Bay Marketplace, at Hawthorne Blvd. and 182nd, density went from 55 to 80 dwelling units per acre. The height limit remains the same at seven stories.
In January, Redondo’s new plan went through a seven-day public review. The city planning commission then recommended its approval.
In February, the city sent a preliminary draft to the state Housing and Development Commission and received a response deeming it as “substantial compliance.”
“We (had to make the changes) to avoid Builder’s Remedy, which basically allows a developer to do whatever they want,” said Mayor Jim Light.
“This plan has not changed things drastically,” said City Councilman Zein Obagi, Jr. “We continue to put housing near transportation.”
Housing Elements statewide require each designated lot to be a half acre or larger to be eligible to appear on a city’s list.
“Our hands are tied, but we’re forced to do this by our state, and that’s why it’s important that you vote,” Light said.
“The majority of our (Housing Element) numbers are for affordable units,” said Councilmember Paige Kaluderovic. “The projects that we see are predominantly just a few affordable units with (the rest) market rate units. We’re constantly on our back foot on how to provide affordable housing when these sites we’ve cited don’t get used for that.”
In public comment, Alex Fineman of District Three said, “It’s important not that we do this, but that everyone does it, in cities up and down the state.”
Fineman is a member of South Bay Forward, a grassroots organization focused on housing, transit, and mobility in the South Bay.
“I don’t want to see Builder’s Remedy here, that’s not what I’m about,” he continued. “But Builder’s Remedy is an enforcement mechanism, to make sure that cities like Redondo Beach, and up and down the state, comply with their housing obligations.”
“California is losing Congressional seats, we’re losing electoral votes, because we are losing population to states like Florida and Texas. We all have a statewide obligation to build housing…”
“I’d love to meet with you,” said Mayor Light. “Because some of what you said is a little flawed, but I don’t want to have the debate with you here.”
“Absolutely,” Fineman said.
“The state could better achieve its goals through other tools rather than this blanket mandate,” Obagi, Jr., said.
He made a motion to approve the new plan. Councilman Brad Waller seconded it.
City Manager Mike Witzansky said he’d like to say something.
“This has been a long-standing issue for us… This is no easy feat, and to imply that somehow we are not anything but a housing diverse, rich and abundant community in Redondo Beach is, I think, just an absolute falsehood,” Witzansky said. “We’re more than 11,000 residents per square mile, we are far more dense than any of our neighbors with one exception, Hermosa Beach. We provide an incredible portfolio of housing, at all levels; diverse, Section 8, yes, some quite expensive but other cases quite affordable for a community like ours. And we should be proud of that, and we continue to be proud of that. What we lobby for in Sacramento is fairness, and an equitable standard for a community as dense as ours; that has been the model, and set the model, for housing in the state. To assert that Redondo has been anything but supportive of housing is, I think, offensive.”
The council voted 5-0 to approve the new plan.
Like other cities throughout California, Redondo Beach has struggled to satisfy the state-mandated identification of sites for new housing. Redondo’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) is 2,490 new units by 2029.
Last October, an appeals court ruling in response to a lawsuit against the city by Leo Pustilnikov, a majority owner of the AES power plant site, stated that the California was mistaken when it certified the Redondo Beach Housing Element in 2022.
The court faulted the city for failing to identify “realistic” locations for a sufficient number of new housing units to satisfy the city’s RHNA allotment.
The city petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the decision but the court declined the request.
In further findings by the appellate court, it emphasized that to obey California Housing Element law is to choose pathways to realistic development, as opposed to theoretical planning, or “paper compliance.”
The court also stated cities cannot include speculative development of commercial property to meet their assigned RHNA numbers.
“Overall, I think the (new Redondo plan) is a good solution. It’s not a very large departure from before,” said Marc Wiener, Redondo Beach community development director. “With that said, since the majority of the land in the city is zoned residential, it’s important to maintain our industrial and commercial zones to the extent that we can, for economic development, to promote a jobs, housing balance in the city.” ER
Redondo Beach keeps flirting with the Builder’s Remedy for doing the least possible work on sharing the solutions for the housing crisis. For decades, beach cities collectively tried to stop any kind of density in their housing. The city went on losing absurd amounts of money waging legal battles and lost. The Second District Court of Appeal (New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach) has ruled that Redondo Beach’s housing element violates the state’s Housing Element Law. This mess is on Mayor Light and the council for dragging the city into a legal quagmire, needless legal expense when the city is facing a $3.5+million deficit, and turning it into this to a predictable failure. The Housing Element Law or Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is the established law for over 57 years and reaffirmed by AB 1893 and AB 1886 and dozens of court cases. Ironically, the new developments will bring needed tax dollars to shore up the massive deficits run up by this current council.
Comparing the city to its neighbors is stupid. The argument is like saying we are the least bad. Nothing to be proud of. A desirable city like Redondo (all of South Bay honestly) with good weather and beach access should have density in access of 25k a square mile. Paris (a desirable city with great urban form IMO) is at 50k for reference. Jim tends to mid quote stats to prove his point. It’s Nimby cities like Redondo which forces you he state to make blanket laws.
If all the super dense housing people could just move to New York or San Francisco or a high rise in Downtown LA, that would be great. Stop trying to destroy our beach cities. These beach cities are already too packed and crowded. CA needs to build new cities in the currently unoccupied deserts, mountains, and other areas. We had been doing that for decades and then stopped around the year 2000 and hence we are in the current crisis. The answer isn’t to turn the South Bay into some kind of NYC hellscape. I live in Redondo and already hear my neighbor’s toilet flush – we don’t need more. Instead, let build some cities on the way to Las Vegas, North into the LA mountains and let people have homes.
nobody made you gatekeeper. People can’t redline Redondo Beach like in the 1950’s to keep people out. Newsflash…LA County is the second largest city in the US by population. It’s time to end suburban sprawl and have the freedom to live near the jobs, families, and communities you want. Gatekeeping is unAmerican and wrong. And renters in Redondo Beach deserve choices and lower rents by expanding the housing supply.
If you want to live in super dense elbows-to-elbows NYC/SF/Chitown/NewOrleans and the associated crime that comes with super dense big city life — I’m 100% in favor of you doing that. Please, go. Enjoy. Send me the link to your gofundme and I’ll even contribute to your moving costs. However, the vast majority of people living in already super dense South Bay areas like Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Lawndale, Gardena, Carson, Compton, El Segundo et cetera don’t want additional people clogging the roads and other public infrastructure. We are full (there might be some room to develop PV…). The current housing affordability crisis was NOT created by mean people living in nice communities who just want to live like its the 1950s — it was created by well intentioned environmentalists in the late 90s who control Sacramento who are more concerned by the life of the ring tailed high desert salamander than the life of millions of California’s who just want a house in a community. When I was a young lad in CA, I watched Orange County go from a place with orange groves to a place with condos — great. Chino went from dairy farming to condos. Fabulous. But that stopped in the 2000s. The enviro-regulators stopped new cities. From 1990 through 2020 CA added 10M residents (a 33% increase), in that same time CA added 3M new housing units…not enough to keep the desired 2-1 ratio of people per housing unit. End result is that CA has a severe deficit of houses — but it was NOT caused by mean redlining coastal elites or those nasty people who want a backyard, it was caused by severe restriction of permitting new cities/towns/expansion of existing towns into desert, wilds, and un-used place. It was the same people who drove gasoline to $7/gal by limiting supply. SF & NYC are space limited by the water that surrounds their cities, California is limited by the people we elect into office.
You acknowledge California added millions of people while failing to build enough housing. Correct. But then you try to separate that shortage from local anti-growth politics when coastal cities spent decades downzoning, restricting apartments, weaponizing parking requirements, limiting multifamily housing, and treating new housing as a threat rather than a necessity.
You cannot simultaneously say “we’re full” and also complain that California failed to build enough housing. Those are the same policy impulse.
And no, South Bay cities are not “super dense” by global or even national standards. Large portions of Manhattan Beach, Redondo, Torrance, and surrounding areas are dominated by detached single-family zoning with enormous amounts of land reserved for low-density housing near major job centers and coastal access. Calling moderate infill housing “NYC density” is pure exaggeration.
The traffic argument is also backwards. When people cannot live near jobs, they commute farther. That creates more regional congestion, not less. Housing scarcity is one of the biggest drivers of supercommuting in Southern California.
You are right about one thing: California overconstrained housing supply. But the answer is not endless outward sprawl into wildfire zones, deserts, and exurbs while wealthy coastal cities wall themselves off from growth. That model is environmentally destructive, infrastructure-intensive, and economically exclusionary.
The reality is simple: if a city wants the benefits of being near major employment centers, beaches, transit, and regional investment, it does not get to permanently freeze itself at 1975 population levels while everyone else absorbs the consequences.
Property owners should have the right to build housing on valuable urban land. Existing homeowners do not own a veto over the future of an entire city.
“Just move somewhere else” is not a serious housing policy. South Bay cities are part of a major metropolitan economy, not private resorts reserved for incumbent homeowners.
Nobody is proposing to turn Redondo Beach into Manhattan. That’s a scare tactic people use anytime apartments, mixed-use housing, or modest infill are discussed. Allowing more duplexes, townhomes, courtyard apartments, and transit-oriented housing is not an “NYC hellscape.” It is normal urban development in a high-demand coastal region.
And the “build in the desert instead” argument ignores basic economics and infrastructure realities. People live near jobs, schools, transit, family, and coastal amenities. Forcing growth 80–150 miles away creates longer commutes, more traffic, more pollution, higher infrastructure costs, and greater wildfire and water risks. That is not smart planning — it is displacement by distance.
You also can’t claim South Bay is “too crowded” while preserving enormous amounts of land for low-density zoning in one of the most economically productive regions in the country. The housing shortage exists precisely because affluent coastal cities restricted housing growth while demand kept rising.
The irony is that the lifestyle being defended here — low traffic, short commutes, stable neighborhoods, access to the coast — becomes impossible for everyone except wealthy incumbents when housing supply is artificially constrained.
And hearing your neighbor’s toilet flush is an argument for better construction standards, not for banning future residents from living in your city.
Behind the Housing Element Hearing
Garth Meyer’s recent article on Redondo Beach’s May 5 Housing Element vote captured the City Council’s unanimous approval of a revised housing plan after the City’s court loss, but the hearing itself revealed tensions that went far beyond a typical zoning discussion. What unfolded during the meeting was not simply a debate about housing density, but a broader collision between state mandates, redevelopment realities, infrastructure concerns, legal pressure, and competing visions for Redondo Beach’s future.
Throughout the hearing, City officials repeatedly emphasized that Redondo Beach is operating under significant pressure from Sacramento and the threat of Builder’s Remedy projects if the City fails to maintain Housing Element compliance. At the same time, criticism came from multiple directions simultaneously. Some argued the City still is not doing enough on housing or affordable housing distribution. Others questioned redevelopment assumptions, traffic impacts, parking, infrastructure capacity, and whether residents are being given enough time and transparency to fully understand long-term zoning changes. Additional concerns involved commercial corridors, neighborhood character, economic transition, and the City’s growing legal exposure after the appellate court ruling.
What became clear during the hearing is that the Housing Element debate is no longer simply “pro-housing” versus “anti-housing.” The discussion now involves overlapping concerns about fairness, local control, environmental impacts, redevelopment economics, public trust, and the future identity of Redondo Beach itself. Regardless of where residents stand on housing policy, maintaining transparency, meaningful public engagement, and public confidence in the process may ultimately become just as important as the housing numbers themselves.
Redondo Beach is not facing a “collision of competing visions.” It is facing the predictable consequences of decades of underbuilding in a high-demand coastal region. Housing scarcity was a policy choice, and now the state is intervening because local governments repeatedly failed to permit enough homes.
“Neighborhood character,” “redevelopment concerns,” and “community identity” are routinely used as euphemisms for preserving exclusion and artificially constrained housing supply. Meanwhile, younger residents, renters, workers, and even many longtime families are priced out of the very community being “protected.”
The infrastructure argument also cuts both ways. Housing shortages increase supercommuting, regional traffic, displacement, and environmental damage by forcing workers farther from jobs and transit. Blocking infill housing does not freeze a city in time — it pushes growth outward and makes the broader region less sustainable.
And on “local control”: local control is not a blank check to ignore state law or regional housing obligations. California imposed Housing Element enforcement and Builder’s Remedy precisely because many cities spent years delaying, downzoning, litigating, and proceduralizing housing production into near impossibility.
Transparency matters. Public engagement matters. But endless process cannot become a veto mechanism against new neighbors or new housing. At some point, a city either plans for growth responsibly or loses control to the consequences of refusing to plan for it at all.
L bozos, cry all you want but you WILL return property rights back to the homeowners! If people want to build, LET THEM BUILD! Thank you! See you when we enact mandatory 10 STORY MINIMUMS! hahahahahaha
So, of the 2490 requirement, how many units will this plan provide. Or, just tell me the total acreage and I’ll do the math. Thanks