Council adopts Normandy Crossing specific plan after 3-2 vote amid strong public opposition

The Gardena City Council on Tuesday adopted Ordinance No. 18 78, approving the Normandy Crossing specific plan, rezoning several parcels on South Normandy Avenue and related development and affordable‑housing agreements for the Normandy Crossing project.

The 3‑2 vote came after the council rejected a motion to continue consideration for 90 days so residents could review the final environmental impact report and seek legal advice. The ordinance, approved on second reading, rezones about 5.25 acres at 16829–16911 South Normandy Avenue to a Normandy Crossing specific plan, rezones several adjacent parcels, and approves the site plan, a development agreement and an affordable‑housing agreement connected to the project.

Why it matters: The Normandy Crossing plan would replace an industrial/warehouse site near Sam’s Club and Johnson Park with a mixed housing development that the applicant says would create jobs and housing near local workplaces. Opponents focused on what they described as insufficient affordable units (speakers and materials cited 7 affordable units out of about 333 proposed), potential soil vapors and hazmat controls, traffic and parking impacts, construction noise and dust, impacts to solar panels and TV reception, and labor‑standards concerns.

Council action and votes - A motion by Councilmember Wanda Love to continue the item for 90 days (moved by Love; seconded by Councilmember Paulette Francis) failed on a 2‑3 roll call: Love and Francis voted yes; Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka, Councilmember Mark Henderson and Mayor Tasha Serta voted no. - A subsequent motion by Mayor Tasha Serta to adopt Ordinance No. 18 78 passed on a 3‑2 roll call: Mayor Serta, Councilmember Henderson and Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka voted yes; Councilmember Francis and Councilmember Love voted no.

What council approved - Rezoning and adoption of the Normandy Crossing specific plan for properties at 16829, 16835, 16907 and 16911 South Normandy Avenue and related parcels, as listed in the staff report. - Approval of the Normandy Crossing site plan, the developer’s development agreement, and an affordable‑housing agreement tied to the project. Staff and the applicant said the project also includes a subterranean parking design and certain construction mitigation measures. At the council’s prior meeting staff had amended the draft development agreement to require quarterly local‑supply reports from the developer.

Public comment and principal points of dispute Dozens of residents and workers addressed the council. Prominent themes among opponents included: - Affordability: Several speakers, and written comments submitted to the council, said 7 affordable units out of roughly 333 proposed units would be inadequate. A union representative noted that, if built “by‑right” under certain state statutes cited by speakers, the project could have produced a much larger share of affordable units (a speaker put the figure at 50% under SB 35). The council did not adopt a change to the project’s affordable‑unit count at the meeting. - Health and safety: Speakers cited preliminary developer disclosures of “hydrocarbon vapors” on the north side of the property and asked for clearer hazard‑remediation plans, stormwater pollution prevention plans, and details about hazmat disposal and truck routing. - Construction impacts and parking: Residents asked for a current parking study and for mitigation of multi‑year demolition and construction impacts (noise, dust, truck traffic). Several asked for residential‑permit parking or other neighborhood protections. - Solar and signal loss: Homeowners with rooftop solar and residents who rely on over‑the‑air TV antennas said a five‑story building could shade panels and block line‑of‑sight signals. - Process and transparency: Opponents sought a 90‑day continuance to allow more time to review the final EIR and related appendices and to consult counsel. Several speakers said they learned of the project late or questioned the developer’s outreach and letter‑of‑support process.

Supporters and developer arguments Contractors, small business owners and construction workers urged approval, saying the project would create local jobs, reduce long commutes and support local businesses. Eric Padilla, a local general‑contractor employee, told the council projects like this allow people who work in Gardena to live closer to their jobs. Developer representatives said the team had modified the project after public input and that the final EIR showed no new or more severe impacts requiring recirculation.

Applicant and legal response Dave Rand, attorney for the applicant, told the council that adding the so‑called community input alternative later in the EIR process did not require recirculation because the final analysis showed reduced, not increased, environmental impacts compared with prior versions. He cited legal precedent that an EIR need only be recirculated when new significant impacts are introduced.

Technical and administrative clarifications - Staff confirmed the final EIR had been available to the public for months and that a notice of determination was filed after the council’s earlier certification vote. Staff also told the council they would remove a sentence allowing townhome units to be rented (Councilmember Henderson had raised that point) so that townhomes would be for sale only, per the council’s direction. - The council also noted that another agenda item related to Normandy (13‑B) would be re‑noticed and return to a future meeting.

What happens next With ordinance adoption, the city’s zoning map is changed and the development agreement and specific plan are in place for Normandy Crossing; the project moves to implementation steps that include building permits and construction‑phase reviews. Opponents who sought a continuance said they will continue to pursue other administrative and legal options. The developer and city staff said they will proceed with the next entitlement and permitting steps.

Votes at a glance - Motion to continue item 13‑A for 90 days: Moved by Councilmember Wanda Love; seconded by Councilmember Paulette Francis; vote: Love — yes; Francis — yes; Tanaka — no; Henderson — no; Serta — no; outcome: failed. - Ordinance No. 18 78 (second reading and adoption): Moved by Mayor Tasha Serta; seconded by Councilmember Mark Henderson; vote: Serta — yes; Henderson — yes; Tanaka — yes; Francis — no; Love — no; outcome: adopted.

Ending Councilmembers and staff agreed the Normandy Crossing item generated unusually high public engagement. The ordinance is final as adopted, and implementation steps will proceed through the city’s building and permitting process.