BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2023
• Letter to Mayor Pro Tem and City Council 1-23-23
L.1. 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
CONTACT: BRANDY FORBES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
4233.101 / 10104151.1
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
895 Dove Street
Fifth Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949 854 7000
Michael W. Shonafelt
[email protected]
Las Vegas | Newport Beach | Walnut Creek
newmeyerdillion.com
January 23, 2023
VIA EMAIL: MIKE.WITZANSKY@ REDONDO.ORG
Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
c/o Mike Witzansky
City Manager
City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Re: Catalina Fund LLC: 100-132 N. Catalina Avenue
Dear Pro Tem Mayor Nehrenheim and Members of the City Council, This office continues to represent Catalina Fund LLC (“Catalina Fund”) with respect to the proposed affordable housing development located at 100-132 N. Catalina Avenue in the City of Redondo Beach (“City”).
Before you on a sua sponte, “call-up” appeal by Councilmember Lowenstein is a small, 30-unit affordable housing development project located at 100-132 N. Catalina Avenue (“Site”) that is consistent with the City’s Zoning Code and General Plan (“Project”). In addition to the City’s code and General Plan, all deliberations and City Council actions on the Project are to be guided by a number of state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5) (“HAA”) and the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Coder, § 65915.5) (“SDBL”). Some of the principles of those laws as they apply to the Project are discussed here.
1. The Project
Catalina Fund has been working closely with staff over a period of four years to advance a Project vision that resonates with staff and the community while also achieving important Project objectives. The Project is located at 100, 112, 116, 124, 126, and 132 North Catalina Avenue in the City. The Site consists of approximately 54,739 square feet or approximately 1. 26 acres. The Project would include the rehabilitation and reuse of three historical commercial buildings at 124, 126, and 132 North Catalina Avenue for renewed commercial uses (coffee shop and tasting room) and rehabilitation and reuse of the building at 112 North Catalina Avenue (old Masonic Lodge) for residential use. The Project also would include construction of 22 threestory, for-rent townhomes, four apartment units in the former Masonic Lodge building Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
(112 North Catalina Avenue), and four apartment units in a new three-story apartment building, for a combined total of 30 residential units. Of the 30 residential units, four would be set aside for very low-income households. Because the Project sets aside those four affordable units (18 percent of the base density), it qualifies for a 50 percent density bonus, but only seeks a 36 percent density bonus. (Gov. Code, § 65915.5, subd. (f).) It also qualifies for three “incentives” and development standard waivers. (Id., § 65915.5, subs. (d), (e), see discussion, Part 3, infra.) The Project came before the Preservation Commission on April 18, 2022. At that hearing, the Preservation Commission approved a historical designation for the commercial uses, two certificates of appropriateness and an affirmative recommendation regarding a parking variance for the commercial uses to facilitate preservation of the historic commercial uses at the Site. The matter came before the Planning Commission on April 21, 2022, May 19, 2022, and September 15, 2022. At the September 15, 2022, the Planning Commission resumed the public hearing of the project.
2. The Housing Accountability Act Imposes Rigorous, Binding Restrictions on the City’s Ability to Deny the Project, Impose Infeasible Conditions or Reduce the Project’s Proposed Density; The City Cannot Meet Those Standards.
Catalina Fund is sympathetic to the sensibilities concerning the character of the City and the need to preserve the City’s beauty and unique charism. To that end, Catalina Fund invested significant time and resources on achieving a high-end design and functionality for a proposal that (a) helps the City deliver on its housing shortfall by activating a set of long-underutilized parcels; (b) preserves, adapts and refreshes historic commercial uses along Catalina Avenue, thereby helping to preserve the historic aesthetic of Old Redondo; (c) facilitates clean-up of on-site soils where historic commercial uses contributed to potentially contamination; and (d) avoiding additional density and massing that it could have sought under state law.
In any calculus of harmonizing housing supply with local concerns, balance is key. Unbalanced deference to local sensibilities is one of the chief factors that has given rise to California’s housing emergency. The new housing legislation from the State reminds us that local communities are constituent elements of the larger community of the State of California, and they are being summoned to shoulder some of burden of the State’s housing crisis in a manner that ensures a semblance of fairness and equity.
Despite the repeated efforts of the Legislature to address the housing crisis, the Court of Appeal for the First District ruefully observed that the effort “has historically failed.” (California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820 [283 Cal.Rptr.3d 877] (hereinafter, “CaRLA”).) In 2019, the State Legislature enacted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) (“HCA”). The touchstone of the HCA is a legislatively declared, statewide housing crisis -- a housing Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
crisis of “historic proportions.” The HCA features a litany of urgent declarations squared directly at cities like Redondo Beach. Among other things, the Legislature noted that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California” and “[t[he excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” (SB 330, § 2, subd. (a); Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(K).) The above legislative admonitions served as the impetus for several provisions adding additional teeth to the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5) (“HAA,” as defined above), including provisions intended to prevent delays in processing permits for housing projects and to reduce barriers to approval of housing projects. The purpose of the HAA is to “meaningfully and effectively curb[ ] the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects.” (Id., § 65589.5, subd. (a)(2)(K).) One of the ways the HAA facilitates housing is to curb denials of housing projects based on subjective planning criteria. Subdivision (j) of the statute provides that:
When a proposed housing development project complies
with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and
subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to
disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing
development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j), emphasis added.) The Legislature went further to declare:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (Id., § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3), emphasis added.)
The HAA applies to housing development projects that are consistent with the local zoning code and general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) In this case, the Project is consistent with the General Plan as a matter of law because the City did not make a determination to the contrary within the 60-day deadline prescribed by the HAA.
Under the HAA, a city must provide “written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity” within 60 days of the date the application is complete. (Ibid.) If the jurisdiction “fails to provide the required documentation,” then the project is “deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.” (Id., Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(2)(B), emphasis added.)1 Given the absence of any inconsistency determination -- and the otherwise durable and repeated theme of consistency that runs throughout the Administrative Record -- any contention of inconsistency cannot serve as a legitimate or lawful basis for denial of the Project.
The standard set forth by the HAA obviously is a lofty one; as noted, the Legislature only expects it to “arise infrequently.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (a)(3).) The City cannot meet this heavy burden because no one ever propounded any evidence -- let alone a preponderance of evidence -- that the Project would or could violate any “objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete,” (ibid.) and because nothing in the record establishes that disapproving housing was the only feasible way to address whatever public health or safety impacts might exist. Indeed, the Planning Commission approved the Project, with conditions, further demonstrating that the Project cannot come close to meeting with a lawful denial or reduction in density under the stringent bar set by the HAA.
1 This requirement was added to the HAA in 2017 as part of a series of amendments the Legislature enacted because it was “dissatisfied with the dearth of housing in this state.” (CaRLA, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at 836.) The amendment took effect on January 1, 2018, and so City’s 60-day deadline to identify inconsistencies began to run on that date at the earliest.
Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
All this would be true even without considering the strong policy statements underlying the HAA and the fact that we are in the midst of a legislatively declared “statewide housing emergency” to be in effect until January 1, 2030. (Sen. Bill 330 [2019-2020 Reg. Sess.] ch. 654, § 2; Sen. Bill 8 [2021-2022 Reg.Sess.] ch. 161.). But in light of controlling case law holding that “the HAA must be interpreted and implemented to ‘afford the fullest possible weight’ to the approval of housing,” and that courts must review the locality’s actions under a non-deferential “rigorous independent review,” (CaRLA, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at 844-45) the City cannot come close to establishing its burden of proof. Nothing in the record to date comes close to meeting the lofty standards imposed by the HAA.
3. The State Density Bonus Law Mandates Project Incentives and Waivers as a Matter of Right.
As noted above, the Project proposes incorporation of 18 percent of the 22 base density units for very low-income households (a total of four units). That entitles the Project to three “incentives” or “concessions” under the SDBL. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(1).) Those incentives are a matter of right, not discretion. (See ibid., [“The city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant … .”], emphasis added.) The only way a local government may decline the requested incentive is if it can make a showing that:
(1) “[t]he concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions … “;
(2) the concession or incentive would have “a specific, adverse impact” upon public health and safety or the physical
environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and “for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the
development unaffordable to low-income and moderateincome households”; or (3) “The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.” (Id., § 65915, subd. (d)(1)(A) – (C).)
(Ibid.) The burden is on the local government, not the applicant, to demonstrate the above exceptions, and any such demonstration must be based on substantial evidence. (Ibid.) In this case, the Project seeks three incentives: (a) conversion from the R-3 to mixed use zoning -- an incentive provided in both the City’s own Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program and the SDBL itself (see Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (k)(2); City of Redondo Beach Local Coastal Program -- Coastal Land Use Implementing Ordinance, City of RMC, § 10-5.2108.a.2); (b) relief from the two-story limit of the R-3 zone; and (c) relief from lot consolidation limits of the R-3 zone. The City planning staff and the City’s own Planning Commission have confirmed that the Project qualifies for the SDBL incentives.
Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
The Project also is entitled to certain development standard “waivers,” which are a reduction or elimination of certain development standards. If any other city or county development standard would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density and with the granted concessions/incentives, the developer may propose to have those standards waived or reduced. The city or county is not permitted to apply any development standard which physically precludes the construction of the project at its permitted density and with the granted concessions/incentives. (Gov.
Code, 65915.5, subd. (e).) In this case, the Project seeks a waiver from the R-3 zone’s 30-foot height limit to allow for a code-required parapet on the roof-top.
The SDBL further provides that the City may not require more than the following parking ratios for a density bonus project (inclusive of parking for persons with disabilities):
Studio: One space
One Bedroom: One space
Two Bedroom: 1.5 spaces
Three Bedroom: 1.5 spaces
Four Bedroom: 2.5 spaces
(Gov. Code, § 65915.5, subd. (p).) The Project is entitled to proceed with the relevant SDBL parking ratios as a matter of law.
It should be manifest that the purpose of mixed-use zoning as an incentive is to allow the housing development to benefit from the zoning standards of the mixed-use zone, otherwise the use of the mixed-use incentive would not carry any meaning as an “incentive.” (See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 823 [65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251] [declaring unlawful city requirements that undermine incentives for affordability under SDBL].) Importantly, The granting of a concession or incentive shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning
change, study, or other discretionary approval.
(Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (j)(1), emphasis added.) Accordingly, mixed-use zoning, as an incentive under the SDBL would not trigger Measure DD (City of Redondo Beach City Charter (“Charter”), article XXVII) as a matter of law, since the voter requirements of that measure apply only to amendments to the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning Code. (See Charter, art. XXVII, § 27.2, subd. (f) [defining “Major Change in Allowable Land Use”].)
Notwithstanding the above, City staff have taken the position that the invocation of the mixed-use zone incentive -- available to Catalina Fund by right under state law and the City’s own code and LCP -- cannot be utilized by Catalina Fund to avail itself of Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
the benefits of that zone. Specifically, the City has required Catalina Fund to use up two of its three incentives to obtain relief from the R-3 zone restrictions. Catalina Fund continues to object to the City’s misguided application of the SDBL in a manner that forces Catalina Fund to squander two of its incentive rights.
As the above provisions demonstrate, the City’s positions on these issues directly collide with state law. Any city requirement or interpretation that conflicts with the SDBL is void as a matter of law. (Latinos Unidos Del Valle De Napa Y Solano v.
County of Napa (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1170 [159 Cal.Rptr.3d 284] [city ordinance requiring larger affordable component than required in SDBL void as preempted]; Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at p. 830, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 251 [otherwise valid local ordinance that conflicts with the state density bonus law is preempted.]; Sherwin–Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 215, 844 P.2d 534 [“ ‘If otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void.’ ”].) The SDBL provides a cause of action for judicial relief if a local government refuses to comply with its mandatory duty to honor the bonus and incentive programs afforded by the SDBL, with a right to recover attorneys’ fees:
The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
(Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(3).)
In this case, Catalina Fund has proposed the mixed-use incentive for the Project.
The City has a mandatory duty to honor that incentive by allowing the Project to enjoy the benefits of that zone with regarding to height, FAR, frontage, lot configuration and any other development standard afforded by the MU-3 district. Catalina Fund must be free to utilize any remaining incentive for other purposes than to obtain relief from the superseded R-3 zoning standards.
4. The HCA Prohibits More than Five Hearings on a Housing Development Project Such as This; The City Is on Its Fifth Hearing.
The HCA prohibits local governmental decision-making bodies from holding more than five hearings on a housing development project. It does so as part of its objective of facilitating approvals of housing development projects and discouraging delay.
Specifically, the HCA added Government Code section 65905.5, which states:
Notwithstanding any other law, if a proposed housing
development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
application is deemed complete, after the application is deemed complete, a city, county, or city and county shall not conduct more than five hearings pursuant to Section 65905, or any other law, ordinance, or regulation requiring a public hearing in connection with the approval of that
housing development project.
(Gov. Code, § 65905.5, subd. (a), emphasis added.) Continued hearings count toward that cap:
If the city, county, or city and county continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under this section. The city, county, or city and county shall consider and either approve or disapprove the application at any of the five hearings allowed under this section consistent with the applicable timelines under the Permit Streamlining Act [citation].
(Ibid.) A “hearing” includes
any public hearing, workshop, or similar meeting conducted by the city or county with respect to the housing
development project, whether by the legislative body of the city or county, the planning agency established pursuant to Section 65100, or any other agency, department, board,
commission, or any other designated hearing officer or body of the city or county, or any committee or subcommittee thereof.
(Id., § 65905.5, subd. (b)(2), emphasis added.) The breadth of the above definition of “hearing” makes clear that the Preservation Committee hearing also counts toward the cap, as well as the protracted hearings before the City Planning Commission.
5. Considerations of How the Project’s Housing Units Will Be Inhabited Are Out-of-Bounds for City Consideration.
Over the course of the extensive and protracted hearings on the Project, inordinate amounts of time have been expended on speculative musings about whether and how the Project’s units will be inhabited by future residents. Such considerations are outside the purview of the City’s zoning powers and any purported attempts to regulate the Project based on conjecture about co-habitation of the units and/or how many potential inhabitants may or may not utilize the Project’s proposed bedrooms are unlawful under the federal Fair Housing Act and California’s anti-discrimination housing laws, such as Government Code sections 12980, et seq. Nor can such considerations ever approach the rigorous standards set forth by the HAA and SDBL.
Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
6. Unlawful Denial of an Affordable Housing Project Like this Carries Significant Consequences.
The Record establishes that the Project indisputably qualifies as a “housing development” for the purposes of the HAA. The record further establishes that the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code. Subdivision (j) of the HAA therefore provides that When a proposed housing development project complies
with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and
subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to
disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing
development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a
specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j), emphasis added.) Far from meeting the lofty “preponderance of evidence” standard (which, again, the Legislature intends to occur only “infrequently”) the preponderance of the evidence presented in the Record conclusively demonstrate that the Project will give rise to no such impacts. That evidence has not been seriously controverted, nor has there been even a passing attempt to argue that any such putative specific, adverse impacts (there are none) cannot be feasibly mitigated.
In the face of the above conclusions of consistency with the City’s planning documents, the definitive refutation of any argument of a specific, adverse impact to public health and safety, the Planning Commission’s approval and the City staff’s exhaustive analyses and clear explanation of the non-discretionary character of this Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
process, the City Council must approve the Project without conditions that result in a diminished density or which otherwise render the Project infeasible. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (b).) If the City Council were to deny the Project in a formal vote, it would directly collide with the City’s own codified processes, the SDBL and the HAA. It would also give rise to a potential Fifth Amendment Takings Claim in inverse condemnation (also known as “regulatory takings”) as the City’s decision would make clear that a private property owner cannot develop the Property even when it complies with the City’s own rules.
A prevailing party under each of the above claims is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees from the local government. (See, Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A)(ii) [prevailing party under HAA entitled to attorneys’ fees]; Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e) [prevailing party under SDBL entitled to attorneys’ fees]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1036 [prevailing party under inverse condemnation entitled to attorneys’ fees].) An interested housing organization (e.g., Building Industry Association, Building Industry Legal Defense Fund, YIMBYs, and California Renters Legal Advocacy) also would have independent standing to bring its own HAA action against the City. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, sub. (k)(1)(A).) As with the applicant, if such a housing organization were to prevail in the case, the City also would be liable for reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees of the organization. (Ibid.) Moreover a denial in the face of the Record established to date would likely give rise to a claim of “bad faith” under the HAA, which provides for a court order directly approving the project and for imposition of multiplied fines for failure to comply with the court’s order. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(B); (l).) The Takings Claim could seek damages for the value of the Project parcels under their highest and best use as a denial would deprive Catalina Fund of any reasonable economic use of its private property.
7. Conclusion
Catalina Fund continues to reserve its rights to the State Density Bonus Law and all other applicable housing statutes, including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, the Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation statue and the Permit Streamlining Act. Representatives of Catalina Fund, including the undersigned, will be on-hand at the January 24, 2023, City Council hearing to address any questions about the Project and this letter.
Very truly yours,
Michael W. Shonafelt
MWS
Nils Nehrenheim, Pro Tem Mayor
Members of the City Council
January 23, 2023
4233.101 / 10104151.1
cc: Brandy Forbes, Community Development Director: [email protected] Mike Webb, Esq., City Attorney: [email protected]
Antonio Gardea, AICP, Senior Planner: [email protected] Cheryl Park, Esq., City Attorney’s Office: [email protected] Greg Kettles, Esq., City Special Counsel: [email protected] Jason Muller, Chief Executive Officer, Beach City Capital (Catalina Fund):
[email protected]
Tess Cory, Vice President of Investments, Beach City Capital (Catalina Fund):
[email protected]
From: Brandy Forbes
To: Latrice Williams
Cc: Lina Carrillo
Subject: FW: Ltr. to Mayor Pro Tem and City Council 1-23-23.PDF Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 7:38:33 AM
Attachments: Ltr. to Mayor Pro Tem and City Council 1-23-23.pdf image001.png
Latrice,
Can you prepare a Blue Folder item with the email below and the attached letter for item L.1. for tonight’s City Council meeting and get to the City Clerk this morning? Please copy me when you send to the City Clerk so I can ask them to distribute to the City Council ASAP.
Thanks!
Brandy Forbes
Community Development Director
Department of Community Development
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310) 318-0637 x2200
[email protected]
www.redondo.org
From: Jason Muller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 7:22 PM
To: Brandy Forbes <[email protected]>; Antonio Gardea <[email protected]>; Stacey Kinsella <[email protected]> Cc: Cheryl Park <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Michael W. Shonafelt <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Christian Horvath <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Laura Emdee <[email protected]>
Subject: Ltr. to Mayor Pro Tem and City Council 1-23-23.PDF CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Dear All,
It has been an absolute pleasure to work with you, over the last four years on this little project, which has the life blood of Redondo in its DNA. Thanks for meeting with me and asking all your indepth questions to get to this point; shows that you care, love the feedback. I will stand up straight and be at your service tomorrow like always. I am a servant to Redondo and will always be, as I raise my two little boys here. I am working on a cool presentation for tomorrow and hope to make it both fun and informative.
Please find link to the Project Drawings: Catalina Drawings (Dan did an amazing job on the Architecture)
Please find attached is my legal back up. (My work has been to design an amazing project with all of our collective input over the past four years; and not have it based on legal contingency).
Best regards,
Jason
______________________
Jason Muller
Founder & CEO
Beach City Capital
Hermosa Beach, CA
Cell: (310) 245-4419
www.Beachcitycapital.com