Administrative
Report
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: BRANDY FORBES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TITLE
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT;
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND, APPROVING A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DENSITY BONUS, OUTDOOR DINING,
TASTING ROOM, AND MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS), AN HISTORIC VARIANCE, PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 82561 FOR A PROPOSED 30-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS PROJECT WITH ADAPTIVE REUSE OF
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A LOW-DENSITY, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3A) ZONE AT 100-132 N.
CATALINA AVENUE
Procedure:
1) Announcement and motion to open the public hearing;
2) Motion to receive and file affidavit of publication, case file, and written correspondence; 3) Staff presentation;
4) Public testimony and presentation of evidence;
5) City Council questions;
6) Motion to close the public hearing;
7) City Council discussion and debate; and
8) Motion and action. Adopt by title only resolution:
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2301-013, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISISON DECISION CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND, APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DENSITY BONUS), AN HISTORIC VARIANCE, PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 82561 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 30-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ON A SITE WITHIN A LOWDENSITY, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3A) ZONE, IN THE COASTAL ZONE, LOCATED AT 100-132 N. CATALINA AVENUE
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
-orADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION NO. CC-2301-014, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING THE APPEAL
AND OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISISON DECISION CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND, APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (DENSITY BONUS), AN HISTORIC VARIANCE, PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 82561 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 30-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ON A SITE WITHIN A LOWDENSITY, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3A) ZONE, IN THE COASTAL ZONE, LOCATED AT 100-132 N. CATALINA AVENUE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved the discretionary approvals and certified the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents for a proposed 30-unit residential density bonus project with adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings for commercial purposes. The property located at 100-132 N. Catalina Avenue is situated within a low-density, multi-family residential zone (R-3A). The applicant is Catalina Fund, LLC. (Jason Muller).
The Planning Commission considered the application at three public hearings on April 21, 2022, May 19, 2022, and September 15, 2022. These hearings were in addition to the Historic Preservation Commission public hearing on April 18, 2022 to consider the designation of the Historic District on the site, the certificate of appropriateness for the adaptation of the buildings and the addition of the residential structures on the site and a recommendation on the Historic Variance.
Over the course of these public hearings, the project was modified to reduce the overall size of the buildings and to include units of no more than five bedrooms in response to density concerns. The applicant’s team responded to Planning Commission questions, and additional findings and conditions were added to the final adopted Resolution. The September 15, 2022 Planning Commission approval included the following approvals and discretionary permits:
· IES-EIR-2021-01 - Certification of an EIR & Adoption of Environmental Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
· CDP-2022-03 - Approval of a Coastal Development Permit · CUP-2022-01 - Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the density bonus residential project with the adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings as snack shop and bar/cocktail lounge with outdoor seating area greater than 150 square feet in size. · VAR-2022-02 - Approval of a Historic Variance for Commercial Parking · PCDR-2022-01 - Approval of Planning Commission Design Review · VTPM 82561 - Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map
On September 26, 2022, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed with the City Clerk (attached) by City Councilmember Todd Loewenstein. Councilmember Loewenstein confirmed
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
Clerk (attached) by City Councilmember Todd Loewenstein. Councilmember Loewenstein confirmed in the appeal that he has formed no opinion about the project. The public hearing is the City Council’s consideration of the appeal.
Should the City Council support the project, or support the project with additional conditions, attached is a draft resolution that can be adopted by title only (and amended to include any additional conditions), waiving further reading that would deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision.
Because the project is utilizing the Density Bonus Law, should the City Council not support the project, based upon substantial evidence, findings would need to be made that demonstrate how the requested waiver and concessions:
1. Do not result in cost reductions;
2. Have a specific, significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment; or
3. The waiver and concessions are contrary to state or federal law.
Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation does not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety as per California Government Code 65915.
Should the City Council not support the project, attached is a draft Resolution that can be adopted by title only, to grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission decision with a section to include the necessary findings noted above.
BACKGROUND
The City Council is considering an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision certifying the Final EIR and approving the land use entitlements for the 30-unit density bonus project (appeal filed on September 26, 2022-attached).
The Planning Commission held three public hearings on the matter: April 21, 2022, May 19, 2022 and September 15, 2022. Links to the Administrative Reports and associated documents from those hearings are available as links in the under “Attachments” section below.
Over the course of the public hearings, the project was modified to reduce the overall size of the buildings and include units of no more than five bedrooms in response to density concerns. The applicant’s team responded to Planning Commission questions regarding the historic district designation, demonstrated the position of roof decks in relation to the surrounding properties in response to privacy concerns, provided information regarding hazardous materials at the site, addressed potential noise impacts and gave further information regarding the anticipated management of the rental units. Additional on-site parking and a reduction of the seating in the outdoor dining area were amendments made to the design to ease the effects of the on-site commercial parking deficit (Historic Variance).
Land Use Entitlements
A legal non-conforming use is prohibited from replacing an existing use or making structural alterations that increase the amount of parking required. Due to the extended period of discontinuance (more than two years), the nonconforming uses are also considered expired and may not be renewed or replaced. As part of the project, three of the existing structures, which are
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
not be renewed or replaced. As part of the project, three of the existing structures, which are designated as contributors to the historic district, are proposed to be adaptively reused with more intensive non-residential uses - a tasting room and coffee shop with an outdoor dining area. As part of the density bonus concessions, mixed-use zoning is thereby requested to enable the revitalization and re-establishment of these non-residential uses. The proposed uses would serve as an amenity for the residences and also offset management and operational costs. Because the commercial and residential parts of the density bonus project are linked to one another, untangling the various components is difficult, if not infeasible.
Environmental
Although the residential component of the project was screened out from a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) CEQA review of transportation impacts, the commercial component of the project did not. Due to the levels of VMT, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required for the project. The City’s consultant Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared that report, determining that there were impacts that could not be mitigated related to VMT, and therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations was required. The Planning Commission did request information on what project options would not exceed the adopted VMT impact threshold. The City’s sub-consultant Fehr & Peers provided the requested analysis, which demonstrated that the project would have to be significantly decreased in number of units rendering the project infeasible to develop.
Although the Statement of Overriding Considerations is necessary and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program must be followed, to address and further mitigate impacts of VMT the Planning Commission made it a condition of approval that the applicant convert one of the market rate units to a moderate-income deed restricted unit.
Parking
The residential component of the density bonus meets the standards required with allowed concessions and waivers per the State Bonus Density Law, including the requirements for parking.
The commercial component, utilizing the mixed-use concession, requires a variance for parking. Due to the historic district and restrictions on circulation and layout options from maintaining those historic structures, the applicant requested an historic variance for the parking. Based on concerns raised by the Planning Commission of the potential of parking spill over onto neighboring streets, the applicant had their consultant Linscott, Law, & Greenspan Engineers complete an empirical study of the onstreet parking demand demonstrating the potential parking spill over from the commercial components of the project in the immediate neighborhood. The report served as justification for granting the Historic Variance for the parking exception required as part of the adaptive reuse of the buildings and outdoor dining area.
Project Approvals
The September 15, 2022 Planning Commission approval included the following discretionary actions:
· IES-EIR-2021-01 - Certification of an EIR & Adoption of Environmental Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
· CDP-2022-03 - Approval of a Coastal Development Permit · CUP-2022-01 - Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the density bonus residential project with the adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings as snack shop and bar/cocktail lounge with outdoor seating area greater than 150 square feet in size.
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
· VAR-2022-02 - Approval of a Historic Variance for Commercial Parking · PCDR-2022-01 - Approval of Planning Commission Design Review · VTPM 82561 - Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map
ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
The appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision is appealing all of the approvals made by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2022 (see list above).
General Appeal Statement
The appeal states the following:
“This project and its proposed build-out does not conform with any current zoning ordinance for Redondo Beach. The proposed project is so far afield from the R-3A zoning the site has been zoned for for 30 years, the proposed project cannot be considered a 'variance' from the current R-3A zoning. This is also different than any established housing in the vicinity or the City. There are several environmental impacts that are significant described as 'no impact.'”
Response: Due to State Law, the project is not a ‘variance’ from the allowable land uses of the lowdensity, multiple-family residential zone (R-3A). The Redondo Beach Municipal Code includes provisions that reflect the requirements of the State density bonus law (California Government Code Section 65915) and outline the procedural steps for consideration of eligible developments (RBMC 10-5.2100). Eligible developments are multi-family housing projects of five or more units that include affordable units or units for senior citizens. Density bonus law requires the City to grant the developer a density bonus and incentives or concessions for the production of lower income residential dwelling units. Based on the percentage and income category of the proposed affordable units, the project is eligible for three (3) concessions. One of the concessions the developer is requesting is mixed-use zoning. The outward appearance of the new buildings is typical of contemporary development and the multi-family units are units which have no more than five bedrooms which is not uncommon. The applicant indicates that a roommate pairing service would be used for leasing some of the units. Per the City’s definitions, a household may consist of up to five (5) persons living together in a dwelling unit.
The Initial Study and Environmental Impact Report (IES/EIR) determined that the project would have a “Less than Significant Impact” or “No Impact” for the following environmental factors and thereby were not studied in detail in the EIR: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities/Service Systems, and Wildfire. The (IES/EIR) determined that the project would have a “Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated” for the following environmental factors: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. The IES/EIR determined that the proposed project would generate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding the City’s VMT per capita and VMT per employee thresholds. Implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) measures would reduce VMT for the project. However, these measures would not be sufficient in mitigating the home-based VMT per capita. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact and thereby require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. It is only the transportation/VMT category that triggers the
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
Statement of Overriding Considerations and cannot be mitigated to a “Less than Significant Impact.” Specific Sections of Appeal
The appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision is divided into five sections providing reasons for the City Council review. These reasons and staff responses are noted below.
1. Non-Compliant with Stated Project Objectives
The appeal states in subsection “a” that the project does not comply with an objective and thereby should be rejected asserting the following:
“This is not a multi-family housing development. Per the developer's own testimony, this is designed as a "co-housing" development. Each unit is not contemplated as use by a family, rather the bedrooms of each unit are contemplated to be rented to unrelated individuals. Neither our General Plan nor our LCP recognize, define, or allow co-housing. Co-housing ignores the underlying R-3 zoning.” Response: Multiple project objectives are stated in the Final EIR, including compliance with the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and zoning code (Coastal Land Use Plan Implementing Ordinance). The standards of the low density multiple-family residential (R-3A) zone are applied to the project, in conjunction with the applicable standards of the density bonus law. The project was deliberately designed to adhere as much as possible with the R-3A standards. Multiple-family residential development means one or more buildings located on a lot containing two or more dwellings. (e.g., Redondo Beach Municipal Code section 10-5.402). The project satisfies this definition. The City may not discriminate against land uses on the basis of marital status or familial status as per Government Code sections 12955(a), 65008(a).
The appeal continues in subsection “b” stating that:
“... the project is not "transit-oriented" as it is not within a half mile of a high quality transit corridor, a light rail station, or major transit stop served by a pick up every 15 minutes during morning and evening rush hours. In fact analyses submitted by the developer demonstrate that the project is not transit oriented at all.” Response: “Transit oriented” is not self-defining. The comment as written in the appeal defines transit oriented in terms similar to provisions of the Public Resources Code that provide streamlined permitting under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for “transit priority projects.” (See Public Resources Code section 21155(a), (b)) This project was not processed under those provisions. The project is approximately 1/10th of a mile from a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus stop on Pacific Coast Highway.
Under the subsection “c” the appeal states:
“There is no City of Redondo parking or open space requirements for co-housing. This residential use is not defined, contemplated or allowed under our General Plan, zoning, or LCP. This project does not consist of "townhomes" per Redondo Beach definitions.
Even if you consider condo requirements for parking, the project does not even consider guest parking. As far as limiting "large gatherings" the project has a large patio area that is shared between the residential development and the two commercial developments. It would allow large gatherings.”
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
Response: State density bonus law sets the parking ratio for the project, which this project satisfies (Government Code section 65915). The City may not impose more strict residential parking requirements on this project. Even though the residential parking requirement for state density bonus law would be less restrictive than the City’s regulations, the project as approved does satisfy the requirements for number of residential parking spaces per the Redondo Beach Municipal Code. Additionally, this project satisfies the outdoor living area requirements under the R-3A standards. The shortfall of parking is related to the commercial component of the project. It was within the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant the (historic) variance for the nonresidential parking. The parking demand analysis completed by Linscott, Law & Greenspan supports the action. It is within the discretion of the City Council to allow the historic variance for non-residential parking on the same basis. It is also within the discretion of the City Council to deny the historic variance for non-residential parking.
2. Non-Compliant with General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Coastal Plan The second section of the appeal reiterates the assertion that “Co-housing” is not allowed, that the insufficient parking violates the Coastal Act, that the rooms (floor plans) should be limited, and states that there are no applicable standards for this type of living arrangement. The appeal asks the following in terms of building and fire code requirements: “How much common space per occupant?; What are size standards for bedrooms per occupant?; Should ventilation be defined...?; What are the fire safety requirements for emergency egress from each bedroom?; At what point are ADA units required? Should parking be defined by bedroom or occupant? Are City (Quimby) fees adequate for the impacts of this type of development?”
Response: As noted above the project is defined as a multiple-family residential development and the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission ensure that the limited number of tenants will meet the definition of a single household per unit. Even though staff suggested reductions in the number of bedrooms and overall unit sizes to address outdoor living space and storage requirements, the applicant was able to meet these standards with the proposed floor plan layouts. The zoning ordinance does not give discretion to mandate changes to floor plans for units that may be used by households consisting of multiple, unrelated individuals.
The project satisfies the requirements of the building code and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the condition of approval ensures that the project is constructed according to those requirements. The minimum size for a multiple-family dwelling unit - consisting of one or more rooms including a kitchen and available for use residence - is 500 square feet (RBMC 10-5.402 &10-
5.1512). The minimum size for a single occupancy bedroom is 70 square feet. The project is required to comply with building code ventilation and fire code emergency egress requirements. Ten (10) percent of the units in the buildings with no elevator and one unit in the building with elevator have to be accessible in compliance with the California Building Code (International Building Code) requirements for housing accessibility as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the adaptable requirements of the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. Parking is not based on occupancy loads, rather it is based on bedrooms or units as noted in the prior response above.
Three (3) accessible parking spaces are required.
The Quimby Fees are assessed on a per unit basis.
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
3. Flawed Traffic Analysis
The third section of the appeal asserts that that traffic analysis is flawed and thereby the EIR rejected. The appeal links the localized traffic analysis to the CEQA analysis and states:
“The LOS [Level of Service] analysis somehow concluded certain turn movements at PCH and Herondo would DECREASE in the cumulative development assessment from the turn movements today. There is no explanation of a mitigation or change that would drive such a decrease. This renders the LOS analysis for this key intersection useless.
The LOS analysis relies on application of a housing type (220) that is nothing like cohousing. It is derived from units, not bedrooms or occupants. Thus, trip generation would under represent the LOS impacts of the project. Due to insufficient details, it is not possible to understand if this trip generation error also artificially lowers VMT analyses.”
Response: Two reports were prepared for analysis of transportation: 1) a Local Transportation Assessment that uses sub-regional modeling to determine traffic dispersal patterns and the effects on the levels of service at surrounding intersections (Fehr & Peers Memorandum 10/28/2022); and 2) a CEQA analysis focused on vehicle miles traveled.
Localized Transportation Assessment
The Localized Transportation Assessment evaluating LOS is not a consideration for determining significant environmental impacts for CEQA purposes, but rather is a tool to determine operational effects from a project. As indicated in the Local Transportation Assessment and reiterated in the appeal, turning movement volumes are shown to decrease at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway & Herondo Street in the Cumulative Base scenario. Specifically, there would be a reduction of two (2) southbound left turns and five (5) northbound right turns during the morning peak and two (2) westbound left turns in the evening. The net change in volumes shows a decline due to transportation infrastructure improvements, land use changes, and region-wide policy strategies.
Despite the overall traffic volume reduction, the project increases volumes across all turning movements. However, the volume increment is analyzed in the level of service analysis and is used to determine system operational effects from the project.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Residential - Low Rise) was used to estimate the project trip generation. The ITE does not produce trip generation rates for co-housing facilities. The project was revised to limit the units to no more than five bedrooms, which is not uncommon. As such, ITE Land Use Code 220 is appropriate for the proposed project.
California Environmental Quality Act - Transportation/Traffic Assessment Transportation analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act uses VMT as the tool for estimating traffic effects from development projects. The VMT significance thresholds were developed using data from the 2016 SCAG RTP travel demand model. The VMT analysis used trip generation rates and trip length data from the 2016 SCAG RTP travel demand model. The VMT analysis relies on different data sources and methodologies for estimating trip generation than those presented in the Local Transportation Assessment. The two methods of assessing traffic impacts are thereby unrelated. Because of the atypical bedroom count, the VMT analysis analyzed a higher dwelling unit count to present a conservative estimate of VMT. Furthermore, Fehr & Peers prepared
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
dwelling unit count to present a conservative estimate of VMT. Furthermore, Fehr & Peers prepared an updated VMT analysis reiterating that a solely residential project would not have VMT impacts and restating the fact that the magnitude of VMT impacts is proportionally equivalent because the ratio of VMT to population remains the same.
4. Inadequate Planning Commission Review
The appeal states that the Planning Commission:
“... failed to assess that the project violates our zoning and LCP, ...improperly assessed the project, [and] …their conditioned approval does not adequately address or assess a co-housing project or its impacts and compliance with our LCP and the access protections of the Coastal Act.”
Response: As noted above, the project was designed to balance the General Plan Land Use policies that emphasize preservation of historic buildings and the Housing Element goal that encourage the production of affordable units, as well as compliance with the Mello Act. The design intends to meet the municipal code requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan Implementing Ordinance and use the provisions of the State density bonus law to address regulatory constraints.
California Government Code section 65915 requires the City to grant the developer a density bonus and incentives or concessions for the production of lower income units. One of the concessions that the developer is requesting is mixed-use zoning. The City must grant the requested concession unless written findings, based on substantial evidence, can be made that either: 1) the concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; 2) the concession would have specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment; or 3) The concession would be contrary to state or federal law. The concerns expressed above do not support findings for a denial of the requested concession.
Multifamily dwellings/residential development means one or more buildings located on a lot containing two or more dwellings, Redondo Beach Municipal Code section 10-5.402. The project satisfies this definition. The City may not discriminate against land uses on the basis of marital status or familial status as per Government Code sections 12955(a), 65008(a).
The comment does not explain how the project violates the City's LCP or the access protections of the Coastal Act. Provision of multifamily housing, including deed restricted affordable units, in the coastal zone may be considered to promote coastal access under the Coastal Act.
5. Insufficient Time/Meetings for Project Review
Under the last section, the appeal reiterates the previous comments regarding project objectives, the concern with the households or tenants of the units, and concessions provided under the density bonus law, stating:
“There is insufficient time/meetings to address and remedy all the shortcomings and issues defined above. The project should be rejected or converted, adjusted, and deed restricted to true multi-family development as defined in Redondo General Plan, zoning and LCP.”
Response: The City has held four hearings regarding the project. One was before the Redondo Beach Historic Preservation Commission. Three were before the Redondo Beach Planning
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
Beach Historic Preservation Commission. Three were before the Redondo Beach Planning Commission. The project hearings total more than 10 hours. A hearing before the City Council on an appeal would constitute a fifth hearing. The City is limited to conducting a maximum of five hearings, including hearing continuances, in connection with the approval of this project as per Government Code section 65905.5.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the project be considered as a whole and make findings pertaining to the CEQA review and required land use entitlements consisting of the Coastal Development Permit, Density Bonus, Conditional Use Permit(s), (Historic) Variance, Planning Commission Design Review and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 82561.
The State Density Bonus Law requires the City to grant a developer a density bonus and incentives or concessions for the production of lower income units. In this instance, the applicant is requesting a 36% density bonus, 8 additional dwelling units, by setting aside 18% (4 dwelling units of the 22 units allowed under the base density) as affordable to very low-income households. In order to facilitate the construction of the units, the developer is requesting three concessions (reduction/modification of development standards/zoning code requirements): mixed use zoning; lot consolidation limits; and two-story limit; and a waiver of the height limit in conjunction with the twostory limit concession. The City must grant the requests unless written findings, based upon substantial evidence, can be made that either: 1) the concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; 2) The concession would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment; or 3) The concession would be contrary to state or federal law, California Government Code 65915.
Should the City Council support the project, or support the project with additional conditions, attached is a draft Resolution that can be adopted by title only (and amended to include any additional conditions), waiving further reading that would deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision.
Because this project is utilizing the Density Bonus Law, should the City Council not support the project, based upon substantial evidence, findings would need to be made that demonstrate how the requested waiver and concessions:
1. Do not result in cost reductions;
2. Have a specific, significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment; or
3. The waiver and concessions are contrary to state or federal law.
Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation does not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, California Government Code 65915.
Should the City Council choose to not support the project, attached is a draft Resolution that can be adopted by title only, to grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission decision with a section to include the necessary findings noted above.
L.1., File # 23-5440 Meeting Date: 1/24/2023
A Notice of Final Action will be transmitted to the Coastal Commission following hearing conclusion.
COORDINATION
The preparation of this administrative report and draft resolutions has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
FISCAL IMPACT
Processing development applications, including hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, are part of the Community Development Department’s annual work program. Applicable fees have been collected for this matter as outlined in the Community Development Department Master Fee Schedule.
APPROVED BY:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
· Reso - Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission Decision · Reso - Granting the Appeal and Overturning the Planning Commission Decision · Exhibit A - Statement of Overriding Considerations
· Appeal Document
· Fehr & Peers Memorandum addressing CEQA Traffic Analysis and Localized Transportation Assessment for 2023-01-24 Hearing
· Fehr & Peers Memorandum Catalina VMT Updated Analysis for 2022-09-15 Hearing · LL&G Memorandum Catalina Village Parking Study for 2022-09-15 Hearing · Reso- Planning Commission Resolution of Approval, September 15, 2022 · September 15, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Materials:
City of Redondo Beach - Meeting of Planning Commission on 9/15/2022 at 6:30 PM (legistar.com) <https://redondo.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx? ID=996798&GUID=D2C519CA-6BBD-4171-88AF-47ED6E4FC566&Options=info|&Search=> · May 19, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Materials:
<https://redondo.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=956313&GUID=7BC84769-BE8A-4FB6- =
· April 21, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Materials:
<https://redondo.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5555318&GUID=C9F8482A-F67F- =
· April 18, 2022 Preservation Commission Agenda Materials:
<https://redondo.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5553584&GUID=F2B6FA84-505A- =
· Final Environmental Impact Report April 2022
· Proof of Public Hearing Notice