Redondo Beach planning commission denies coastal permit for 49‑unit PCH project over parking and safety gaps

Redondo Beach — The Planning Commission on Tuesday denied a coastal development permit and related state density bonus concessions for a proposed four‑story, 49‑unit mixed‑use condominium at 401–417 South Pacific Coast Highway, saying the record did not include objective evidence that cutting required commercial parking would not harm coastal access or public safety.

Commissioners voted to adopt a resolution denying the applicant’s request for density bonus relief to reduce commercial parking from the city’s local coastal program requirement of 68 spaces to 44 spaces and to waive a required 14‑day shared‑parking utilization survey. The motion to deny carried on a roll call with six aye votes; the chair declared the motion carried.

Staff had recommended approval. Sean Scully, the city’s planning manager, told the commission that under AB 2011 (as amended by AB 2243) and state density bonus law many local standards are applied ministerially and that concessions must be granted unless the city can make narrow, objective findings—such as a specific adverse impact on public health or safety—based on the record. "Our conclusion is that the city cannot make the required findings to deny the request," Scully said during the staff presentation.

The applicant’s attorney, Elisa Pastor of Rand Pastor Nelson, described the site as a long‑vacant property and said the proposal would add 49 homes and 17,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space while including eight affordable units (five very‑low and three moderate‑income). "This project is going to go a long way into helping the city satisfy its RHNA goals," Pastor said, and she pledged that the team would manage parking through measures such as valet operations, shared‑parking strategies and monitoring.

Residents and neighborhood advocates told the commission the project lacked the objective, on‑the‑ground data the local coastal program requires for coastal development review. "That survey is missing," said former Planning Commission chair Sheila Lam during public comment, arguing that without weekend and peak‑period parking counts the record did not show where displaced vehicles would park or whether spillover would affect residential streets or access to coastal resources. Several speakers described the project’s driveway location on Pearl Street — immediately adjacent to a fire station entrance and a preschool — as a potential hazard for emergency response and for children walking to school.

Commissioners repeatedly asked staff and the applicant for a utilization survey conducted during high‑demand periods. Commissioner Hazeltine summarized the concern succinctly during deliberations: "We need that survey." Commissioners said the absence of such objective evidence left them unable to determine whether the requested concessions would be consistent with the certified local coastal program and whether they would cause specific adverse impacts, such as impaired ingress or egress for emergency vehicles or pedestrian‑vehicle conflicts.

In drafting the denial, the commission’s resolution identified three primary bases: (1) the record lacks objective findings demonstrating that reduced commercial parking would not decrease public access to the coast, harbor and pier as required by the LCP; (2) the configuration and reduction of parking create foreseeable public‑safety and emergency‑response risks, given the site’s proximity to a fire station and a childcare facility; and (3) the applicant did not provide evidence that waiving the shared‑parking utilization study would result in actual cost savings that are necessary to deliver the affordable units claimed.

Supporters of the project urged the commission to approve the proposal as consistent with state housing law and to help address the city’s housing shortage. "We need more housing of all types," said Alex Feynman, a Redondo Beach resident, during public comment. Others pointed out transit proximity and the long‑vacant condition of the parcel.

The commission recessed briefly while staff and the city attorney prepared findings and a denial resolution, which the commission then adopted. The resolution instructs staff to finalize the written denial; the commission’s action will be memorialized in that written decision.

The planning manager and the assistant city attorney explained to commissioners that AB 2011, AB 2243 and state density bonus law constrain discretionary authority in many cases; however, the laws also permit denial of individual concessions where objective, written public‑health or safety standards would be violated. Commissioners said they felt the current administrative record did not contain those objective standards or supporting evidence for the key concessions requested by the applicant.

What’s next: The transcript records the commission’s denial vote and the instruction that staff and the city attorney prepare the formal resolution of denial. The record does not show any final appeal filed at the meeting; local appeal options or subsequent filings would proceed under Redondo Beach procedures and applicable state law.

Reporting note: Quotes and attributions in this report are taken from the planning commission’s meeting record, which was read into the public record during the hearing.