Call it a pre-emptive strike.
Instead of allowing Building a Better Redondo’s slow-growth initiative to be the only land-use item on November’s ballot, the City Council will include its own ballot measure to challenge the controversial initiative. The council voted at its June 17 meeting to press forward with creating this ballot measure, drafted by Mayor Mike Gin and Councilmen Steven Diels and Steve Aspel, and entitled the “Redondo Beach Coastal Zone, Parks, Open Space and Single Family Residence Neighborhood Protection Act.”
Like the initiative it hopes to quash during the election this fall, the council’s ballot measure, amended on Tuesday to include protection for multiple-family-zoned neighborhoods as well, addresses zoning and rezoning of land to prevent the kind of development that the residents don’t wish. Like the initiative, the council’s ballot measure will also allow major land-use changes to be put to a public vote for final approval. The difference between the two, said Gin, is that the council’s ballot measure does so in a “much broader level, rather than project by project.”
“People have had some real concerns about land-use issues here in town. What we’re proposing here is something we feel would be a much better, more viable alternative for the voters to consider in November,” said Gin. “(This is) the result of many years of community conversations about overall land use and development here in Redondo Beach.”
Both the ballot measure and the BBR initiative would amend the city’s charter to define “major changes in allowable land use.”
The city’s ballot measure defines it as protection against upzoning residential neighborhoods to a higher density than what currently exists, preventing the rezoning of parks and open space to any other type of zoning, and a limit on the height of buildings within the Coastal Zone to current 45-foot specifications. Should the Planning Commission and the City Council approve a change contrary to the above, the matter would be put to a public vote. Conversely, BBR’s initiative defines “major changes in allowable land use” differently, encompassing changes to zoning or certain developments that would “significantly increase” traffic, density or intensity of use in a neighborhood, changes from public land to private use, or changes to residential or mixed-use developments with certain density limits. Diels explained what he said is the major difference between the two ballot items. “Ours is clearer, concise, and protects single-family residence zones, parks and coastal zones. It’s not taking away anybody’s property rights, and it’s subject to environmental review. Theirs is confusing, complicated, is an economic threat and does not protect single-family zones,” said Diels, adding that loopholes in state law pre-empt the initiative from being subject to CEQA review.
“This is a reaction to the initiative. The initiative is dangerous. I wouldn’t have proposed doing a land-use ballot measure otherwise,” explained Diels. He and Aspel are quick to criticize the initiative; Diels stated that the initiative was lifted directly from a Newport Beach land-use initiative and Aspel said that BBR’s convincing campaign was being sold on soundbites outside of supermarkets.
“Nobody,” he said, “is reading that document in full outside of Whole Foods.”
There is little love lost between the proponents of the initiative and the city. BBR’s slow-growth proponents first introduced their initiative last year, in vehement opposition to what they consider to be a rampant overdevelopment of the city - both residentially and commercially. After a second, successful petition drive submitted Dec. 31, the BBR initiative officially qualified for a spot on the November ballot in February. With their initiative, BBR founder Jim Light hoped to curb some of the rapid zoning changes that come with certain development projects by forcing these zoning changes into a ballot vote by residents.
Light explained that development projects that could only be accommodated by changing the existing zoning would be affected by the initiative and would warrant a public vote, with exemptions for existing nonconforming properties. City officials and other opponents of the initiative say that the BBR initiative would effectively stymie development in the city, and possibly drive away investors, with its strict zoning limitations; Light has consistently said it would do no such thing. Light was unavailable for comment regarding the city’s ballot measure at press time.
Though he helped to draft the city’s ballot measure, Aspel isn’t entirely convinced that either a ballot measure or the initiative is absolutely necessary, through speaking to his constituents he believes that residents do want an active say in the development, or nondevelopment, of their neighborhoods.
“I don’t claim to have my finger on the pulse of the entire city, but I am very familiar with District 1 and people here are interested in preserving single-family neighborhoods. I want to make sure that current R2 and R3 zones don’t go to higher density, either. We have to plug that in there to protect those neighborhoods, too,” said Aspel. “The current council has shown that we’re not in the mood to be rezoning anything anyway. We’ve kept various developers at bay from developing South Redondo, PCH. We want to protect people from future councils, from overzealous over-zoning,” he said.
On Tuesday, the council in its entirety approved the language of the proposed ballot measure, which will next be submitted to CEQA for review. Council is expected to vote on adding the measure to the November ballot at the July 1 meeting, pending the environmental review, which is expected to conclude July 21. The deadline for getting the measure on the ballot is Aug. 15.
Call it a pre-emptive strike.
Instead of allowing Building a Better Redondo’s slow-growth initiative to be the only land-use item on November’s ballot, the City Council will include its own ballot measure to challenge the controversial initiative. The council voted at its June 17 meeting to press forward with creating this ballot measure, drafted by Mayor Mike Gin and Councilmen Steven Diels and Steve Aspel, and entitled the “Redondo Beach Coastal Zone, Parks, Open Space and Single Family Residence Neighborhood Protection Act.”
Like the initiative it hopes to quash during the election this fall, the council’s ballot measure, amended on Tuesday to include protection for multiple-family-zoned neighborhoods as well, addresses zoning and rezoning of land to prevent the kind of development that the residents don’t wish. Like the initiative, the council’s ballot measure will also allow major land-use changes to be put to a public vote for final approval. The difference between the two, said Gin, is that the council’s ballot measure does so in a “much broader level, rather than project by project.”
“People have had some real concerns about land-use issues here in town. What we’re proposing here is something we feel would be a much better, more viable alternative for the voters to consider in November,” said Gin. “(This is) the result of many years of community conversations about overall land use and development here in Redondo Beach.”
Both the ballot measure and the BBR initiative would amend the city’s charter to define “major changes in allowable land use.”
The city’s ballot measure defines it as protection against upzoning residential neighborhoods to a higher density than what currently exists, preventing the rezoning of parks and open space to any other type of zoning, and a limit on the height of buildings within the Coastal Zone to current 45-foot specifications. Should the Planning Commission and the City Council approve a change contrary to the above, the matter would be put to a public vote. Conversely, BBR’s initiative defines “major changes in allowable land use” differently, encompassing changes to zoning or certain developments that would “significantly increase” traffic, density or intensity of use in a neighborhood, changes from public land to private use, or changes to residential or mixed-use developments with certain density limits. Diels explained what he said is the major difference between the two ballot items. “Ours is clearer, concise, and protects single-family residence zones, parks and coastal zones. It’s not taking away anybody’s property rights, and it’s subject to environmental review. Theirs is confusing, complicated, is an economic threat and does not protect single-family zones,” said Diels, adding that loopholes in state law pre-empt the initiative from being subject to CEQA review.
“This is a reaction to the initiative. The initiative is dangerous. I wouldn’t have proposed doing a land-use ballot measure otherwise,” explained Diels. He and Aspel are quick to criticize the initiative; Diels stated that the initiative was lifted directly from a Newport Beach land-use initiative and Aspel said that BBR’s convincing campaign was being sold on soundbites outside of supermarkets.
“Nobody,” he said, “is reading that document in full outside of Whole Foods.”
There is little love lost between the proponents of the initiative and the city. BBR’s slow-growth proponents first introduced their initiative last year, in vehement opposition to what they consider to be a rampant overdevelopment of the city - both residentially and commercially. After a second, successful petition drive submitted Dec. 31, the BBR initiative officially qualified for a spot on the November ballot in February. With their initiative, BBR founder Jim Light hoped to curb some of the rapid zoning changes that come with certain development projects by forcing these zoning changes into a ballot vote by residents.
Light explained that development projects that could only be accommodated by changing the existing zoning would be affected by the initiative and would warrant a public vote, with exemptions for existing nonconforming properties. City officials and other opponents of the initiative say that the BBR initiative would effectively stymie development in the city, and possibly drive away investors, with its strict zoning limitations; Light has consistently said it would do no such thing. Light was unavailable for comment regarding the city’s ballot measure at press time.
Though he helped to draft the city’s ballot measure, Aspel isn’t entirely convinced that either a ballot measure or the initiative is absolutely necessary, through speaking to his constituents he believes that residents do want an active say in the development, or nondevelopment, of their neighborhoods.
“I don’t claim to have my finger on the pulse of the entire city, but I am very familiar with District 1 and people here are interested in preserving single-family neighborhoods. I want to make sure that current R2 and R3 zones don’t go to higher density, either. We have to plug that in there to protect those neighborhoods, too,” said Aspel. “The current council has shown that we’re not in the mood to be rezoning anything anyway. We’ve kept various developers at bay from developing South Redondo, PCH. We want to protect people from future councils, from overzealous over-zoning,” he said.
On Tuesday, the council in its entirety approved the language of the proposed ballot measure, which will next be submitted to CEQA for review. Council is expected to vote on adding the measure to the November ballot at the July 1 meeting, pending the environmental review, which is expected to conclude July 21. The deadline for getting the measure on the ballot is Aug. 15. |
from Archives: Redondo Beach News 
