Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
At a glance
- Public comments
- 16
- Last 30 days
- 16
Discussed at 1 meeting in the last 60 days; most recently Oct 6, 2026.
Public comments (16)
Opposed the variance, citing Redondo's history of fighting oversized development and warning that approval sets a precedent for industrializing North Redondo.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 1:48:49 →Supported the appeal, calling the 8-foot difference trivial for an industrial area and saying aerospace growth is the direction Redondo should head.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 1:52:30 →Opposed the tanks on the Manhattan Beach Boulevard frontage, contrasting Northrop's landscaping and setbacks, and urged District 5 voters to remember the issue in the March election.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 1:53:25 →A District 5 resident about 1,300 feet away supported the variance, saying she researched the gases herself, trusts city safety oversight, and values the company's 400+ local jobs and internships.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 1:55:36 →Supported the variance, saying cryogenic gases have been used in Redondo for decades and the company's billion-dollar growth should stay in Redondo rather than move to Gardena or Carson.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 1:59:05 →Supported the variance as a narrow, practical request for standard equipment, suggesting landscaping as a compromise on aesthetics.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:00:41 →The closest resident homeowner at roughly 200 feet asked the council to uphold the denial, arguing no physical hardship was shown and that Northrop's different zoning isn't a fair comparison.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:01:47 →A District 5 resident across the street urged denial, arguing no hardship was proven and that the record lacks independent data on tank alternatives, vibration and verified claims.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:07:58 →A District 5 resident directly across the street said she'll stare at the tanks from her windows forever, criticizing the company's communication and questioning why it leased a parcel too small for its needs.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:07:36 →Urged denial, arguing commercial preferences can't legally justify a variance, that alternatives weren't ruled out with engineering data, and that the record lacks independent risk assessment.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:17:29 →A 34-year Johnston Avenue resident and third-generation aerospace family member asked the council to uphold the denial, arguing business benefits don't substitute for missing zoning findings.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:20:45 →A 46-year Seabold resident living across the street asked the council to oppose the variance, citing nighttime noise, jackhammering at 2 a.m., and saying 'we are not Chevron or El Segundo.'
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:23:59 →A 25-year Dow Triangle resident supported Impulse but asked the council to make it work with the community — trees, artwork, whatever it takes to screen the tanks.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:25:59 →Urged the council not to override the Planning Commission on trust alone and to give the variance request further study rather than approve it that night.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:29:05 →Called arguments about jobs 'fatuous,' described cryogenic tank explosion videos and asphyxiation hazards, and urged denial plus a revisit of safety codes.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:28:39 →Urged the application be sent back as incomplete — no scaled site plan or elevation — and suggested conditioning approval on landscaping to screen the tanks like the code requires for other tanks.
City Council — October 6, 2026 · 2:35:27 →