CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
TO THE CITY COUNCIL
RE: TES-EK-2021-01 CUP 1022-01 VAR-2022-09; CNP=2022-03; PEDRD022-81; (case number and name) 7 V1PM 81561
Address/Location of Subject Property /00-/32 N. Catalina Ave. (if applicable)
Decision-making body that made the decision which is the subject of the appeal:
• Planning Commission
Harbor Commission
Preservation Commission
Planning Director
Board of Appeals/Uniform Code
Date of decision: 1.15-2022 Appealing: Approval • Denial Name of Appellant TODD LOEWENSTEIN
(type or print)
Address of Appellant. 722 N LUCIA AVE HE REDONDO BENN, CA 9O2T7 Telephone Number of Appellant 323.359.8683
Email Address of Appellant _ LOCH457 e Y1H00.COM/TORD. LOONENSTEIN ERESANDO ORG
Signature
Appeal Fee Paid $. - Received by Lie / rah.
Notice to: City Council City Manager_ City Attorney. Planning Department Harbor Department
Other
RETURN TO:
Office of the City Clerk
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310) 318-0656 SEP 26 2022 PM12:58
RECD CITY CLERKS OFF
Catalina Ave Project
I have formed no opinion about this project. It has not been presented to the City Council and no public hearing has been conducted before the City Council. Below are just some of the concerns I have heard regarding this project. But again, I have formed no opinion regarding approval, denial, or changes to the project.
Here are some of the concerns I have heard:
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.' Here are some of the municipal codes being appealed for de novo review, but this is not an exhaustive list:
RBMC 10-2.2500(g)
RBMC 10-2.2502(g)
RBMC 10-2510(g)
RBMC 10-5.2510(g)
Here are some more specific concerns and reasons expressed by residents and why this project is being appealed to the City Council for de novo review.
1. The project does not comply with the stated project objectives. The project should be rejected because it does not comply with its own stated objectives. "To realize the City of Redondo Beach's General Plan and Coastal Plan by recognizing the site's underlying R-3 zoning and incorporating multi-family housing into the Master Plan and near the harbor with access to outdoor recreational opportunities." 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.
b. "To further the City of Redondo Housing Element policies to support the City's future housing needs by developing new quality multi-family, transit oriented living options at different income levels including affordable housing units per California State Density Bonus law." Again, per the developer's own testimony this is not multi-family development as defined in Redondo's General Plan and LCP, it is co-housing which is not contemplated, defined or allowed by either document. Furthermore, 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 ever 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.
1 c. "To design new residential structures that comply with City of Redondo Beach parking and open space requirements, and to contain parking and open space within each townhome envelope to limit opportunities for large gatherings." 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.
2. The project does not comply with our General Plan, zoning ordinances, or LCP. The project is not a variance from R-3, because it is not R-3 at all. The project should have been rejected because it is not allowed.
a. "Co-housing" does not fit any of the residential definitions of residential development.
It is not multi-family. It is multi-unrelated individuals sharing a single unit. Our city General Plan and LCP does not define or allow this type of development today. The health, safety, infrastructure and environmental standards are not defined for this type of development. Here are few examples of issues not addressed by any of our zoning today:
i. How much common space per occupant?
ii. What are the size standards for a bedroom per occupant? ili. Should ventilation be defined to protect individual bedrooms from cigarette smoke or exposure to airborne disease?
iv. What are the fire safety requirements for emergency egress from each bedroom?
1. There was a boat fire 3 years ago off the coast of Ventura, California, that killed over 30 people on an overnight dive trip when they were trapped inside by a fire attributed to everyone plugging in their techno devices overnight on the deck to be charged.
2. Also, there was another fire caused at a West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs campus/house project due to overheated lithium batteries. (Sept 10, 2022 "Fire Ruins Vets tiny homes",)
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-09/fire-tiny-homes- homeless-veterans-west-los-angeles
The proposed project is "frat-style" with little relation to the living conditions provided by the current R-3A zoning. The fire codes should address these developments, or create codes that v. At what point are ADA units required?
vi. Should parking be defined by bedroom or occupant? How many guest spaces? vii. Are city fees adequate for the impacts of this type of development? b. The project's insufficient parking violates Redondo's LCP and the Coastal Act. The project's rooms should be limited or design should be changed to true multi-family development or the project should be rejected.
2 i. Inadequate parking in the Coastal Zone is a key deterrent to coastal access. This project requires reduction of public parking available in close proximity of Czuleger Park, which has no defined parking spaces, the pier, and the only harbor in the 25 miles between Marina Del Rey and the Port of Los Angeles.
The parking analysis provided by the developer demonstrates that there is inadequate parking and proposes overflowing into public parking. And this parking analysis is taken in the absence of parking standards for co-housing projects. Furthermore, none of the analyses for parking take into account guests of the residents. If guests are added, the overflow is further exacerbating the loss of public parking and thus public access. The public street parking assessment is flawed in that if failed to account for loss of parking during street sweeping hours and the dates chose due not reflect the seasonal variations. All the inventories were taken in May gray and June gloom timeframes. There is no inventory of sunny late summer weekends when coastal use by non-residents peaks. The few week inventories are insufficient to derive year round impacts.
A recent walk through the street parking evaluated in the parking inventories revealed a much different picture than is painted in the inventories. At 4:30 PM, Sunday, 25 September, on Catalina the blocks to the north and south of the project were fully parked. Emerald and Diamond from Catalina to Broadway were fully parked. And the block behind the project was nearly fully parked.
Nothing like the vacancies the inventories would have us believe. This alone demonstrates that the inventories are not reflective of expected utilization without the project.
Furthermore, the allocation of parking for the commercial component is laughable. The former Catalina Coffee Company had around 30 parking spaces and still could not peak demand. The parking analysis does not reflect the level of demand demonstrated before the Coffee Shop closed. And the newer parking analyses leave out parking for the shared outdoor dining area. Again, the project parking will overflow into public parking spaces in the commercial zone in effect taking away parking from those who come to enjoy Czueleger Park or the harbor area.
None of the parking analysis takes into account cumulative impacts of other projects through the years.
The parking inventories included a street that is not even in Redondo. And includes streets that are too far from the project to be considered as overflow for inadequate parking within the project.
The project exacerbates the City's ability to achieve the General Plan standard of a minimum of 3 acres of parkland per 1000 residents. The Quimby fees were not evaluated in light of the population impact of a co-housing project. The high number of bedrooms is an indicator that this project would have higher occupancy than multi- family development allowed in our General Plan and zoning. The project will negatively 3 impact availability of and wear and tear on public parks and recreational facilities.
3. The traffic analysis is so flawed that the real impacts remain unknown. Because of the limited meeting requirements and other shortcomings of the project - the project and its EIR should be rejected.
a. The LOS 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. b. The LOS analysis relies on application of a housing type (220) that is nothing like co- housing. It is derived from units, not bedrooms or occupants. Thus trip generation would under represent the LOS impacts of the project.
c. Due to insufficient details, it is not possible to understand if this trip generation error also artificially lowers VMT analyses.
4. Planning Commission action did not adequately assess the project. a. The Planning Commission failed to assess that the project violates our zoning and LCP. i. They improperly assessed the project as a variance, waiver and deviation from R-3 standards. But per the Developer's own statements this is co-housing housing not multi-family development as defined in our General Plan and LCP.
There are fundamental differences in the two housing types that should drive different parking, traffic, size, health and safety standards that those applied to multi-family development as currently embodied in Redondo General Plan, LCP, and zoning regs. These fundamental differences are described earlier in the document.
ii. 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.
5. 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. a. The objective to be a true "transit oriented" residential development cannot be met by the project in this location no matter what the Council or Developer does. b. If the Council and Developer choose to make the project truly multi-family, the commercial component should be included to meet several of the stated project objectives.
C. The EIR is flawed in multiple assessments, not the least of which is compliance with Redondo Land Use regulations and the LCP. There is insufficient time to correct the flaws in the EIR. The EIR should be rejected and thus the project. 4 This appeal is made pursuant to the following Redondo Beach Municipal Code Section(s) (see page 3 for a partial listing of City's municipal code appeal provisions):
See Aleckal
Grounds) for Appeal:
Please specify the grounds for this appeal. Where an approval /denial involves multiple entitlements/actions, please specify which entitlements/actions are contested in this appeal (e.g. Conditional Use Permit) and the specific grounds for contesting each entitlement/action.
Appellant is responsible for reviewing and complying with the relevant appeal procedures contained in the City's municipal code or state law, which may contain additional substantive and/or procedural requirements depending upon the nature of the appeal. It may be necessary for appellant to supplement this form with additional pages/information to fulfill these requirements. Issues not raised here will not be considered by City Council.
Se Atached
The following list provides a brief overview of some of the City's Municipal Code Appeals (to City Council) by topic area. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Potential appellants are advised to review the Municipal Code Sections to determine applicability of these sections and for additional appeal procedures and appeal content requirements.
For example, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appeal Procedures are contained within Redondo Beach Municipal Code, Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 10-3.901. CEQA Appeals (1) must be filed within ten [10] days of the decision-making body's action and contain specific information described in 10-3.901, (2) require the appellant to notify the project applicant of the appeal within ten [10] days of the City's action by certified mail (and provide the City a copy of the mail receipt), (3) require appellants to file any additional documentation (such as presentations) with the City Clerk no later than seven [7] days before the public hearing, and (4) require appellant to mail a copy of any additional documentation (such as presentations) to the applicant no later than seven [7] days before the public hearing by certified mail (and provide the City a copy of the mail receipt at the public hearing).
Redondo Beach Municipal Code Section General Topic Area for Appeal RBMC § 3-14.04 Encroachment permits
RBMC § 3-7.1906 Temporary Street Closure
RBMC § 4-11.146 Oil Wells-Notices to Comply
RBMC § 4-15.07 Registration of Canvassers, Solicitors, itinerant Merchants, RBMC § 4-17.12 Amusement and Entertainment Permits
RBMC § 4-18.11 Removal of Abandoned, Wrecked, Dismantled, or Inoperative Vehicles from Private or Public Property
RBMC § 4-26.09 Bingo Games for Charitable purposes-Appeals of revocations RBMC § 5-2.206 Weeds, Rubbish, and Stagnant Water
RBMC § 8-2.10 Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax
RBMC § 10-1.506
RBMC §§ 10-1.906(a), 10-1.1011
RBMC § 10-2.2500(g) Administrative Design Review
RBMC § 10-2.2502(g) Planning Commission Design Review
RBMC § 10-2.2504(f) Zoning Amendments
RBMC § 10-2.2505(f) General Plan and Specific Plan amendments RBMC § 10-2.2506(g) Conditional Use Permits
RBMC § 10-2.2507(f) Administrative Use Permits
RBMC § 10-2.2508(l)
RBMC § 10-2.2510(g)
RBMC § 10-2.2514(i) Planned Development Review
RBMC § 10-2.2520(f) Temporary Use Permits
RBMC § 10-3.901 California Environmental Quality Act
RBMC § 10-4.601 Certificate of Appropriateness by the Preservation Commission RBMC § 10-5.2500(g) Administrative Design Review (Coastal Zone] RBMC § 10-5.2502(g) Planning Commission Design Review [Coastal Zone] RBMC § 10-5.2504(f) Zoning Amendments [Coastal Zone]
RBMC § 10-5.2505(f) General Plan and Specific Plan amendments [Coastal Zone] RBMC § 10-5.2506(g) Conditional Use Permits [Coastal Zone] RBMC § 10-5.2507(f) Administrative Use Permits [Coastal Zone] RBMC § 10-5.2508(I) Modifications [Coastal Zone]
RBMC § 10-5.2510(g) Variances [Coastal Zone)
RBMC § 10-5.2514(i) Planned Development Review [Coastal Zone] RBMC $ 10-5.2520(f) Temporary Use Permits (Coastal Zone] RBMC § 10-5.2222 Coastal Development Permit
RBMC § 11-2.10(d)
RBMC § 11-3.608(b) Cable TV-Liquidated damages
RBMC § 1-4.01 General Appeal Procedures* only applicable if there are no specific appeal procedures provided for the challenged actior RBMC § 2-9.712 General Appeal Procedures [Harbor Commission]* onl applicable if there are no specific appeal procedures provided for the challenged action.