Redondo Beach council approves 49‑unit Nevasa Living project after debate over parking, safety and coastal rules

The Redondo Beach City Council voted unanimously to grant an appeal of a Planning Commission denial and approve a 49‑unit mixed‑use development at 401–417 South Pacific Coast Highway, a project the applicant calls Nevasa Living.

Mayor Light and four councilmembers approved a resolution (Res. CCDash2602Dash010, case 2025‑0074) that recognizes the project meets the objective standards that apply under state housing law and the city’s certified Local Coastal Program. The proposal includes 49 residential units (eight deed‑restricted affordable units — five very low income and three moderate income), about 17,000 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space, two levels of subterranean parking and a maximum height of 45 feet (four stories). The applicant modified the plan after the Planning Commission hearing to provide 129 parking spaces and other operational changes.

Why it mattered: Staff told the council that multiple state laws — including AB 2011, state density‑bonus rules and the Housing Accountability Act — limit the city’s discretion on multifamily, mixed‑use projects and require objective findings. Mark Weiner, the city’s director of community development, said the Planning Commission’s denial rested mainly on two findings: that the project reduced commercial parking in a way that could impede coastal access and that proximity to Fire Station No. 1 could raise public‑safety concerns. Weiner also said the State Coastal Commission and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) had submitted technical guidance and a letter noting the Planning Commission’s denial could violate state law.

What changed: The applicant and design team told the council they revised the scheme after the Planning Commission hearing. The earlier design proposed 105 parking spaces (61 residential and 44 commercial); the revised plan expands the garage footprint, adds 10 tandem spaces and 20 compact spaces and now shows 129 spaces total. The developer’s team also described operational plans for valet, expanded bicycle parking and EV infrastructure, a reduced driveway slope for better sight lines, additional canopy trees and LID stormwater planters.

Public reaction: Dozens of residents and nearby homeowners spoke during the hearing. Opponents focused on traffic, parking spillover into nearby residential blocks, the safety of Pearl Street as the preferred driveway location and loss of neighborhood character or private views. Dr. Andy Lesser, Judith Lonsdale and several others urged caution about queuing on Pearl Street and the potential for emergency‑vehicle conflicts. Supporters — including younger residents who said they are priced out of Redondo Beach — urged the council to approve infill housing near transit and schools. Alex Feynman told the council the project would “bring 49 homes, including missing middle and affordable units, without displacing a single resident.”

Applicant response: Project partners said they had worked with city traffic and engineering staff and made costly modifications to address safety concerns, and that the parking increase addressed the Planning Commission’s principal parking and coastal‑access worries. Land‑use counsel reiterated that objective standards and state density‑bonus law govern many findings in these cases.

Council discussion and vote: Councilmembers debated the tradeoffs between local concerns and legal exposure to state enforcement. Staff presented HCD’s letter as a possible enforcement and litigation risk if the council sustained the Planning Commission denial. Councilmember Obagi moved to adopt the resolution granting the appeal; Councilmember Kalajarovich seconded. The motion passed on a unanimous roll call vote. Mayor Light said developer commitments (native landscaping, keep‑clear markings, bike infrastructure and increased tree canopy) would be memorialized in the record though not imposed as binding conditions in the motion.

What happens next: The approval authorizes the city’s coastal development permit under the city resolution; the project will proceed to the usual building‑permit, design‑review and ministerial steps required for construction. The council’s action does not change state oversight — HCD and the Coastal Commission remain engaged on consistency questions and implementation.

Ending: The council’s vote marks a significant local example of how state housing statutes and local coastal policy intersect: council members said they heard neighbors’ concerns but concluded the project, as revised, met the applicable objective standards and that denying the appeal risked state enforcement.