Measure EE "Save Redondo" FAQ Check

Our Opponents "Save Redondo" FAQ Checks

Our opponents have made some pretty audacious claims on their website and in their mailers. Below are the FAQ’s taken from their website
and their “answers” in black. Our answers are listed in red.

Questions or comments, please contact us at: info@buildingabetterredondo.org

Q: Will the initiative impact city revenues that pay for police and fire protection, libraries, parks and recreational programs?
A: YES. Fully 60% of our city’s General Fund revenues pay for police and fire protection and much of this money comes from taxes and fees on
existing and new businesses and commercial ventures. For example, waterfront revitalization would generate over $2 million a year in additional city revenues. Annually, these new revenues could pay for 12 new police officers or 10 new paramedics or entirely fund completion of Dominguez and Dale Park upgrades and additional recreational areas.
A: NO. Measure DD helps prevent the City from converting more business property to condos -- preserving critical business and commercial zones which bring in needed tax monies.

The City is negatively impacting revenues because every new condo the City approves in a commercial zone represents a negative cash flow for the city as new services cost more than the taxes they bring in.

Here is a sample of business properties that the City has already converted
to high density condos impacting city revenues:
- East of Catalina – 89 condos
- Ruxtan Lane – 224 condos
- Artesia – 48 unit senior center
- Artesia/Aviation – 8 massive condo units
- 1800 Pac Cst Hwy – 98 condos

Failed or stalled attempts by City to convert business property to high density condos:
- AES Powerplant – 2998 condos
- Torrance Blvd – 400 condos
Coming soon-
- Transit Oriented Development – 80 units per acre – higher than Heart of the City
- School property on PCH
- Torrance Blvd Condomania - Part II
- Massive Harborfront development

Q: Does the initiative only target high-density residential?
A: NO. It impacts and indefinitely delays almost every project requiring a zoning or general plan amendment, conceivably impacting everything from new restaurants to senior citizen housing to planned harbor-pier improvements.
A. NO. The initiative targets any rezoning that impacts our quality of life. Conversion of public property to private property, conversion of business property to condos, zoning increases which impact density, intensity or traffic that creates grid-locked intersections and deplete our city's revenues and future ability to attract new business.

Q: Does the initiative only target large building projects?
A: NO. It specifically covers any “proposed change in allowable land use” that increases traffic according to their complicated formula, as well as projects involving certain standards of density and intensity of use, not just at the time the project is proposed, but for a cumulative eight years. The high rise and the corner bakery will face many of the same challenges.
A. It's not rocket science - The initiative simply prevents the piecemeal zoning we have seen. It means that the City can't chop up big development into smaller zoning actions so they avoid the initiative’s intent. It closes a loophole and allows a vote to ensure our neighborhoods do not slowly become engulfed in hi-rises which tower over the local bakery.

The traffic conditions in Redondo are easily understood by anyone who drives a car. The traffic parameters in the initiative are easily understood by anyone with an elementary understanding of traffic capacity. Simply put -- if rezoned development would force an intersection to become totally gridlocked, the initiative would require a vote. It's simple. It uses traffic as a standard of measure along with square footage.

Q: Will the initiative impact Redondo Beach schools?
A: YES. The Redondo Beach School District is the largest landowner in the city and at times needs to sell or lease surplus land to cover federal
and state budget shortfalls like the ones we’re experiencing now. Finding investors for this surplus land, which will require zoning changes, will
be severely hampered by this initiative. Our children, teachers and academic standards will suffer and their suffering will directly impact property
values and inflict pain on homeowners.
A: YES. If the school wants a zoning change to convert public property to private property it requires voter approval. This is our land, and as parents and taxpayers, we need a say on how public property will be used by our schools. As the City's population increases bringing higher enrollment to Redondo schools, the need for school land to be available for future expansion is a decision we all need to help make as a community. We owe it to our children and the next generation.

Q: Wouldn’t investors backing worthwhile projects wait for a public vote?
A: NO. Ballot-box planning will increase the costs and risks so much that investors will simply move their projects to neighboring cities. They
are not going to work to secure City Council approval and then either pay for a special election or wait until a regular election with no certain
outcome. For example, the new four-star boutique hotel planned for our waterfront is now planning to find a new location. The owners want to
be in the South Bay but they’re not interested in being subjected to all the red tape and long waits that put their investment in jeopardy.
A. YES! The Shade developer had to withstand a vote of the people of Manhattan. The trend is increasing as people are fed-up with over-development. Over 30 cities in California now have a vote for zoning changes. In New England, most cities require a public vote on zoning changes. Developers still invest in these communities.

Decron Properties invested $10M in acquiring a large leasehold for our harbor – knowing that the initiative had qualified for the ballot. Do not believe the gloom and doom prophesy of our opponents.

Q: Will the initiative reduce traffic in Redondo Beach?
A: NO. This initiative provides ZERO funding for traffic mitigation. Much of the traffic in the city is pass-through traffic, drivers headed for jobs and shopping in other communities. Traffic is a regional issue and our city’s traffic will not be helped by a ban on building because residents will have to drive more to find jobs, entertainment and shopping. The pass-through traffic will not be addressed at all. Not only does this initiative provide no funding for traffic reduction, it stymies projects that could produce this needed revenue.
A: YES. By allowing critical commercial zones to be preserved instead of bulldozed for more condos we can bring local business back to Redondo reducing across town trips and increasing bike and foot travel. For example, in South Redondo, the City Hall, library, Whole Foods and Rite Aid shopping center, as well as the Albertson's shopping center one block away serve many locals who ride their bikes or walk to do their business instead of driving.

Most importantly, the Initiative helps abate new traffic by requiring a vote on zoning changes which would make traffic worse causing gridlock conditions. It requires traffic studies to be completed before a project can be occupied.

With 83% of our residents commuting from Redondo to work and about 30% of the traffic leaving Redondo coming from elsewhere, traffic continues to be a critical factor in our quality of life - locally and regionally. Measure DD does not stop projects that can provide revenue for traffic reduction - it directly helps stop the projects that create the gridlock in the first place.

Q: An initiative supporter has stated that Redondo Beach is the most densely populated coastal city in the entire state. Is that true?
A: NO. Redondo Beach is 50% less dense than Hermosa Beach.
A: NO. This is a misquote. We have always stated in our literature and on our website that Redondo is 43rd in population density in the US for Cities of over 50,000 people per the 2000 census.

Redondo’s population density is 10,065 people per square mile. Hermosa’s is 13,261 people per square mile. Not sure where our opponents get that we are "50% less dense than Hermosa Beach". Not sure why this is relevant – do our opponents aspire to beat Hermosa?

Or are we supposed to feel good because we are not as dense as them? Manhattan Beach is at 8607 people per square mile and PVE is at 2885
people per square mile.

Q: Has Redondo Beach suffered from unchecked development and population as initiative proponents say?
A: NO. Since the 1970s, the average net increase in housing units per year has been decreasing. Our population growth rate has averaged less than half of the population growth of L.A. County and one-fourth the growth of California. There was a net increase of 59 residential units completed in 2006, compared to 562 per year in the 70s, 235 in the 80s and 132 in the 90s. No new commercial or industrial developments were completed in 2006.

A: Our opponents’ answer is EXTREMELY misleading – they use a single year as a comparison for decades. Plus:

First, in the very same City Council report that discussed the 59 units built in 2006 they also cite over 250 condos that were approved or in development at the time of the report!
Second, their answer ignores
-- the rezoning for 89 condos east of Catalina on former business and public property.
-- City Council just approved over 400,000 square feet of additional development in our harbor with zoning that allows time shares and increased heights. This is more than Plaza El Segundo on top of what is already there.
-- The rezoning of property on Artesia to allow a 48 unit mixed used development
-- The rezoning of Ruxtan Lane from industrial uses to allow over 220 condos
-- The rezoning of Aviation and Artesia to allow condos where business property had been.
Third, their answer ignores what would have happened without resident intervention:
-- Heart of the City would have allowed 2998 condos. Stopped by resident referendum, twice.
-- Torrance Boulevard rezoning to condos and mixed use would have allowed nearly 400 condos between Prospect and PCH. Stalled by threat of resident law suit on flawed environmental report – this can come back any time.
-- 36 unit mixed use development where early 1900 bungalows and several businesses now exist. Stalled by resident appeal, awaiting final Council vote

The City's numbers are not as low as they would like you to believe. And remember, they would have been worse than the 1970's numbers had Council not been checked by the hundreds of residents whose efforts stopped the Heart of the City. That is why the initiative started!

Q: Many Redondo Beach residents work in the aerospace industry. Is Northrop Grumman, the largest aerospace company, concerned about this initiative?
A: YES. Northrop Grumman is very concerned about the passage of this initiative and issued this statement:
“We are opposed to any initiative that could limit or negatively impact our ability to win new contracts, perform on existing contracts or compromise our reputation as the most trusted provider of systems and technologies that ensure the security and freedom of our nation and its allies. Examples of these limitations include not being able to develop space to appropriately staff up for a major contract win or not being able to redevelop or add high bays to accommodate satellite integration and testing. While we have enjoyed being part of the Redondo Beach community for nearly 50 years, these types of limitations could require us to move operations to other cities to ensure that our program schedules are not compromised and that we continue to provide cost-effective solutions for our customers.”
A: YES. When Northrop spoke directly with us they shared their concern that we would limit their ability to convert their land to condo development. They were not keen on having to bring it up to a vote.

The amount of land owned by Northrup in Redondo (previously TRW) is considerable. A new housing tract or large development is a strain on infrastructure and our existing schools and Fire and Police Depts. and we would want to make sure any new residential zoning is balanced - especially since this property abuts existing residential areas already stressed with lack of parking and walking access to shopping and public areas. The only way to ensure this balance is to bring zoning changes such as these to a vote.

Northrup can continue to use the land it owns for its business and we reject the notion that having a vote on condo development would affect their ability to win new contracts or perform on existing ones. That simply does not make sense.

The last two new facilities built by Northrup were built in El Segundo by the way.

Q: Has an initiative like this worked in other cities?
A: NO. In 2000, Newport Beach passed a similar amendment requiring that the city call for an election to consider new development and its impact on traffic, etc. The outcome: traffic conditions have worsened while real estate investment slowed. In the last election, voters rejected an expansion of this process and actually approved land-use changes that would finally allow development. Only one project had made the ballot and it failed. (Source: Daily Breeze, "Petition to Limit RB Development Heads to City Hall," 05-02-07.)
A: YES. The Newport initiative worked in preventing unwanted traffic producing development. Furthermore, the Newport Budget Data shows that Newport Beach's City Revenues grew 34% from 2001 through 2006. Their land use voting initiative passed in November 2000. This is hardly the gloom and doom prognosticated by Save Redondo.

Sounds like Newport Beach has thrived under their Land Use Voting. Their initiative worked -- and when the City came forward with a balanced plan, the people voted FOR it. That is just how it should happen.

Q: Are there other costs to this initiative?
A: YES. Measure DD is subject to legal challenges for a number of reasons, including the fact that the initiative states that it applies to projects that were approved before the initiative was passed. Another issue, as reported by the Daily Breeze, is that the circulated petition that became Measure DD contained major flaws, especially the failure to define what constitutes a “major change in allowable land use.” The city will be required to spend tens of thousands of dollars dealing with the ensuing lawsuits brought about by passage of Measure DD.
A: The Daily Breeze is not an expert on land use litigation and is free to give an opinion but is not a Redondo resident, parent, child or taxpayer.

As far as typos - both measures have some typos and they are not significant. The City Attorney, Mike Webb, did due diligence and published his title and summary correctly interpreting the Land Use Initiative for the community and Redondo voters.

Furthermore, the papers have interpreted it correctly. Obviously, even the opponent's website interprets it correctly or they would not be supporting a measure in opposition to ours.

In America, it seems as if anyone can sue for anything. But in this case they would be wasting their money. There is no way to interpret the initiative incorrectly even with typos. This is clearly a red herring.

Q: Has an independent source studied the initiative and provided findings?
A: YES. The Daily Breeze thoroughly examined this issue when the original initiative, which is almost identical to Measure DD, was first being
proposed and stated that the “initiative poses many risks.” In its opinion piece published December 3, 2006, the paper had this to say: “We
oppose the proposal based on both philosophical grounds and the measure’s specific details. “ Read the complete article.
A. Again, the Daily Breeze is not an expert on land use. There is no substantiation for what even the opponents call “their opinion”. Remember, the Daily Breeze was for the Heart of the City.

Measure DD was crafted by the community with help from land use attorneys who helped us avoid the pitfalls and loopholes many initiatives suffer from.