Discussion of the mixed-use development project at 1914-1926 Pacific Coast Highway, designed to build more than 10,000 square feet of commercial frontage to act as a buffer for 52 condo units, was the centerpiece of a City Council meeting that stretched from Tuesday evening into the early hours of Wednesday morning.
The SeaBreeze Plaza project was contentious enough during Planning Commission meetings, as countless residents from South Redondo and Torrance spoke against the project. But an appeal of the project’s Conditional Use Permit by District 2 councilman Bill Brand stoked fires anew.
The public hearing of the appeal, conducted on July 21, led to council directing staff to determine conditions and draft a report of reasons to deny the project — a move required by state law for cities to deny a developer to right to build on his land. The meeting was then continued to September 1, allowing staff time to complete the request.
In the meantime, SeaBreeze developer Nick Buchanan, of Cape Point Development, authored a letter to Redondo Beach Director of Public Development, Aaron Jones. In it, he requested that SeaBreeze’s hearing to be pushed back another two weeks, allowing for the California Department of Transportation to respond to a traffic analysis, as requested by the council.
The meeting was postponed by two weeks, though that was due to an error in public noticing, and not necessarily Buchanan’s request.
Buchanan’s letter also insinuated that Brand should recuse himself from discussions of SeaBreeze Plaza, due to his filing of the appeal, citing a case in Huntington Beach where a councilman’s successful appeal of a local pub was overturned by state courts.
City Attorney Michael Webb dismissed Buchanan’s concerns, noting that, unlike in Huntington, Redondo has contingencies that allow for council members to hear appeals, should they be in the public interest and should the council member hold no bias toward or against the project in question.
As it had been in previous meetings surrounding this project, concerns about SeaBreeze Plaza revolved around two factors: traffic, and safety concerns regarding an alley that butts up against St. Lawrence Martyr Catholic Church.
As many residents (including Mayor Steve Aspel) attest, the alleyway serves, for better or worse, as an unofficial drop-off point for parents sending their kids to St. Lawrence Martyr School, and the parking lot for SeaBreeze Plaza, as currently configured, is a “bootleg parking spot” for many of the church’s parishioners. “Especially on Christmas and Easter,” Aspel quipped.
But members of the public worried that alleyway congestion could prove a significant safety risk. Original designs for the project indicated that the alleyway would be the only entrance and exit for the project’s residential parking.
A redesign of the parking area, allowing for a ramp into resident parking from the commercial parking area, allayed those concerns, somewhat.
Buchanan’s commissioned traffic study, which was loudly scorned by the audience in attendance, found that traffic in the area would be reduced by 393 vehicle trips, based on calculations of the proposed project as compared to the plaza’s current configuration.
What remained for the council at this meeting was to decide, based on public testimony and the facts presented, objective reasons to deny the project. But Brand felt that city staff didn’t live up to the request made by council at the previous meeting to provide those reasons. As a result, he made an attempt to continue the hearing to the council’s next meeting, motioning to direct staff to list “objective standards regarding traffic — regardless of their opinions of them,” he said. That was in reference to the staff’s Effects of Denial report, which recommended that the appeal before council be denied, and Buchanan be allowed to continue his project.
Webb replied to Brand, saying, “I think you’ve known for two weeks that staff doesn’t think [reasons to deny] exist. You have access to the standards, but they’re in the municipal code.”
“There are a lot of standards buried in the code,” Brand said.
“You have to do your homework,” Aspel said. “Staff isn’t going to do it for you,” noting that staff “isn’t going to try to manufacture numbers to suit a turndown — they’re not going to try and make numbers fit.”
Webb said that staff isn’t necessarily absolutely correct, and that’s why public hearings exist — for anyone to present facts that may make the difference in cases such as this. “But there are state standards…if you can find [reasons for denial], and that doesn’t sound like it’s the case, make those findings and deny it and move forward.”
Brand made his motion to recommend staff to make traffic-related findings — and it died on the floor.
District 1 councilman Jeff Ginsburg, who had been waiting to make a motion to approve the project, asked District 5 councilwoman Laura Emdee’s opinion.
“[The developer has] satisfied everything we have. The problem is that residents are upset with zoning, with different requirements for massing, traffic and density that need to be revisited,” she said. “That’s what you have to attack. As far as this project on its own, it satisfies all of the boxes.”
Ginsburg then made his motion, which included red curbing on PCH to improve sight-lines; a left turn prohibition from the alley to Prospect Avenue be put in place; and that U-turns be allowed at the intersection of PCH and Prospect.
The motion, and resolution denying the appeal and approving the project’s conditional use permit, was upheld by a 3-2 vote, with Brand and District 4 Councilman Steve Sammarco dissenting.
“You can veto it,” Brand pled to Aspel.
Aspel sat for a beat before replying. “The motion passes. That’s it.”
In all, 31 members of the public spoke — 19 in favor, 12 against, by Ginsburg’s count.
“I’m pleased that the council did the right thing in approving the project,” Buchanan said following the decision, after shaking the hands of supporters who spoke on his behalf at the meeting. He noted that passionate outpourings from the Redondo Beach community have resulted in a project that is “better by far.”
Torrance resident Bruce Szeles, however, was disheartened following the council’s decision. “The [traffic and safety] recommendations fall a little short,” he said.
“I can’t wait for this to get done, and to watch all of the speed-hump requests flood in from the neighborhoods.” ER
