Why I Support Measure ART: Addressing the Concerns and Looking Toward Redondo Beach’s Future

On November 3, Redondo Beach voters will decide on Measure ART, a set of land-use changes intended to help revitalize our commercial corridors, particularly Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard, while maintaining protections for surrounding neighborhoods.

I’ve heard the arguments against Measure ART, and I understand why some residents have questions about parking, building heights, housing density, and the timing of the election.

I support Measure ART because I believe these changes are necessary to give our aging commercial corridors a realistic opportunity to attract new businesses, restaurants, investment, and jobs.

And my support comes from firsthand experience with the process that brought us here.

Seven Years of Planning, Including My Own Participation

Before joining the City Council, I served on Redondo Beach’s General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). I was directly involved in the years of discussions that produced many of the proposals now included in Measure ART.

GPAC spent approximately seven years reviewing our General Plan, examining land-use policies, discussing neighborhood concerns, and considering how Redondo Beach should evolve over the coming decades.

This was not a process that started a few months ago. It involved residents, business owners, community representatives, planning professionals, and extensive public discussion. The recommendations then went through the Planning Commission and City Council processes.

I supported many of these ideas while serving on GPAC, long before I became a City Councilmember. I continue to support them today because I believe they represent sensible, long-overdue improvements to our city’s land-use policies.

Parking: The First Step Was Already Taken. Measure ART Completes the Strategy.

One of the principal arguments against Measure ART concerns parking.

In October 2025, the City Council approved changes that eliminated minimum parking requirements for certain commercial uses along the Artesia and Aviation corridors. Opponents point out that this decision was made independently of Measure ART, and they are correct.

But that misses the larger purpose of these changes.

Parking reform was the first step. Increasing the allowable commercial floor area is the next critical step.

For years, our commercial corridors have struggled to attract substantial reinvestment. Existing parking requirements made some potential projects financially or physically impractical. Removing those requirements gives property owners and businesses greater flexibility.

However, parking reform alone does not resolve another major obstacle: the amount of commercial space a property owner is allowed to develop.

Under existing zoning, the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in these corridors is generally 0.60. Measure ART would increase that to 1.50.

That matters because the economics of redevelopment depend on how much usable commercial space a project can provide. When a property owner is limited to relatively little floor area, replacing an aging building with a modern commercial development often doesn’t make financial sense.

The City addressed parking first. Measure ART addresses the allowable development capacity.

Together, they create a more realistic opportunity for property owners to invest in new restaurants, shops, services, and other commercial uses.

Does this mean parking concerns disappear? Of course not. Parking availability, loading, circulation, and impacts on nearby residential streets remain legitimate issues that must be addressed through project review, traffic management, and other city policies.

But requiring every business to provide parking based on outdated formulas, while simultaneously restricting the amount of commercial space that can be built, has not produced the thriving commercial corridors we want.

We cannot expect meaningful reinvestment while maintaining the same restrictions that have helped discourage it.

Will Measure ART Actually Bring New Businesses?

Opponents correctly observe that changing zoning does not guarantee construction, new businesses, jobs, or additional tax revenue.

I agree.

The City cannot force a property owner to redevelop, guarantee favorable financing, or dictate which businesses will open.

But we can remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles that make investment less attractive.

Much of the commercial development along Artesia and Aviation is older and underutilized. We have talked about revitalizing these corridors for decades, yet significant portions remain largely unchanged.

Why should we expect a different result if we continue with the same zoning limitations?

Measure ART would make redevelopment more economically feasible. That doesn’t guarantee success, but it improves the conditions necessary for success.

New businesses also create opportunities for additional sales tax revenue, employment, and convenient services within walking distance of North Redondo neighborhoods. These benefits could help strengthen our General Fund without increasing tax rates.

The distinction is important: Measure ART creates opportunities. It does not promise outcomes.

Building Heights and Neighborhood Protections

Another concern is the proposed increase in allowable building height from 30 to 45 feet, generally allowing buildings up to three stories.

I understand why residents living near commercial corridors want assurance that redevelopment will respect adjacent homes.

But the increase in allowable height is part of what makes the higher FAR useful. If we allow more commercial floor area without sufficient flexibility in building design, much of the economic benefit could be lost.

Three-story commercial buildings are not skyscrapers. They can provide space for restaurants, offices, neighborhood services, and other businesses while creating a more attractive and active streetscape.

The measure also includes limitations intended to protect surrounding neighborhoods.

Some opponents have raised questions about whether the proposed design standards go far enough. Design standards matter, but they do not all need to be permanently embedded in a voter-approved measure.

The City Council can adopt and refine additional design standards through ordinances as redevelopment opportunities arise.

That is an important distinction. Measure ART establishes the land-use framework. The City retains tools to address architectural quality, building design, compatibility, and other development details through its normal regulatory processes, subject to the requirements of the approved measure and applicable law.

We should not reject the broader opportunity for revitalization simply because every possible design detail has not been prescribed in advance.

What About the Changes to Housing Density?

The argument against Measure ART also raises concerns about changes to residential density.

It’s important to keep the scale of these changes in perspective.

The residential density provisions being discussed affect only a relatively small number of properties. They do not represent a citywide reduction in housing capacity or a wholesale restructuring of residential neighborhoods.

These adjustments are part of a much broader effort to update land-use designations that have become outdated or inconsistent with the city’s planning objectives.

I encourage residents to look at the specific properties affected rather than assume that the measure substantially changes housing opportunities throughout Redondo Beach.

Why Are Multiple Land-Use Changes Included in One Measure?

Some opponents criticize Measure ART because it contains multiple land-use changes and voters must approve or reject them together.

To understand why, we need to recognize something unusual about Redondo Beach.

In most California cities, zoning and General Plan changes of this kind are decided by elected officials through the public planning and legislative process. Redondo Beach has additional voter-approval requirements for certain major land-use changes.

That means proposals that could be considered and adopted by a city council elsewhere must instead go to the voters here.

The changes in Measure ART grew out of a comprehensive General Plan update, not a collection of unrelated last-minute ideas. They were considered together because they are part of the city’s overall approach to land use and economic development.

We could have divided these proposals into a dozen or more individual ballot measures.

But that would have created its own problems.

Each additional measure would add election complexity and potentially additional costs, especially if considered at different elections. And I suspect we would hear complaints that presenting voters with so many separate measures was confusing or an attempt to overwhelm the electorate.

There is no perfect way to present a comprehensive land-use update on a ballot.

I believe offering voters a coordinated package of changes that has already been through years of public review is a reasonable approach.

Why Hold the Election in November Rather Than March?

Another objection concerns the approximately $250,000 cost of the November 3 special municipal election, just four months before our next regular municipal election in March 2027.

I understand the concern about spending public money. As a City Councilmember, I take those expenditures seriously.

But there are two important considerations.

First, more voter participation is a good thing.

November’s general election provides an opportunity for more residents to participate in a decision about the city’s future. A land-use measure with long-term consequences deserves broad public engagement.

Second, the election has already been scheduled, and the City has committed the funds necessary to place Measure ART before voters.

Voting no does not recover that expenditure.

If the City then attempts to bring these changes back for voter approval, it could require another ballot measure, another election-related expense, and additional delay. The precise future cost would depend on when and how the proposal returned to the ballot.

We have already spent years studying these issues. Continuing to postpone decisions comes with costs of its own, including lost opportunities for investment and economic activity.

The question before voters now should be whether the proposals are good for Redondo Beach, not whether we can undo the cost of an election that has already been arranged.

Does Measure ART Automatically Approve Development?

No.

Measure ART is about changing the rules governing what may be considered and developed on certain properties. It does not automatically approve a specific development project or authorize construction without applicable reviews and permits.

Future projects must still comply with relevant city regulations and applicable state and federal requirements, including environmental and coastal requirements where they apply.

Residents will continue to have opportunities to participate in development decisions through the applicable public review processes.

Passing Measure ART is not handing developers a blank check. It is updating the framework within which future development proposals will be evaluated.

Why I Am Voting Yes

I want Redondo Beach to remain a wonderful place to live, but I also want it to be a city where local businesses can succeed, where residents have convenient neighborhood shopping and dining, and where our commercial corridors are attractive and economically productive.

We cannot accomplish that by preserving every zoning restriction simply because it has been on the books for decades.

My perspective has been shaped by years of involvement in this process, beginning with my service on GPAC. I participated in developing many of these recommendations, listened to the competing concerns, and watched the proposals evolve through years of discussion and public review.

I recognize that Measure ART is not perfect. Few comprehensive land-use proposals are. There will always be details to refine and impacts to manage.

But I believe the alternative, continuing with policies that have discouraged meaningful commercial reinvestment, is worse.

Parking reform was an important first step. Allowing economically viable commercial development is the next. Together, these changes give our commercial corridors an opportunity to become the places residents have wanted for years.

Measure ART will not transform Artesia and Aviation overnight. It will not guarantee that every property is redeveloped or every storefront is filled.

But it gives us a much better chance of achieving those goals than continuing with the status quo.

That’s why I support Measure ART, and why I encourage Redondo Beach residents to vote YES on November 3.