City council denies Catalina Village project
By Garth Meyer
Past 4:15 a.m. Wednesday morning at city hall, in the tenth hour of a city council meeting, representatives voted to stop a proposed 30-unit, mixed-use housing project and revamp of six existing buildings, including the former Catalina Coffee Co.
The appeal of planning commission approvals, brought by City Councilman Todd Loewenstein on behalf of constituents, was based on concerns about traffic levels, a “co-living” model for some of the apartment units, environmental mitigation and what the Coastal Act does or does not permit in the Coastal Zone.
The meeting featured testimony from two planning commission members, speaking on their own behalf against the project.
Tuesday was the last of a maximum five public meetings on the subject, which meant the council had to decide that night, or the next morning as it turned into.
The proposal, named “Catalina Village” was brought forth by Jason Muller, founder and CEO of Beach City Capital. It would include restoring a version of Catalina Coffee Co. and a “beer tasting room” next door with 50 outdoor seats, and remodeling a former Masons’ hall into four residential units on the second floor (above a picture/art framing shop).
The 26 units in the new building would consist of up to five bedrooms.
Was this a multi-family residential development or something else?
Co-living units would be those with common areas such as kitchen and main room, with bedrooms with bathrooms rented individually.
Questions arose about the leases. Would it be one lease per apartment, or one lease per bedroom?
Was the traffic analysis of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) flawed – was its data collected during “May and June gloom”, a time of less beach visitors?
No subletting would be allowed, no pets.
“I am a steward of Redondo Beach, and I am trying my best here,” said Muller. “This is all of our project. This is not just what Jason wants… I have all of my savings in this project. I’m a business owner, I’m a dad and I believe in Redondo Beach.”
Comments from the public brought further questions.
“Co-living is not multi-family,” said one man, describing it as similar to dormitories and hostels.
“The Coastal Act supersedes the Density Bonus Law,” said another.
“Severely underparked.”
“The developer misrepresented the project until the final planning meeting.”
Councilman Loewenstein noted that he was “shocked” to learn last week that the project included co-living units.
“The way this was presented to me was for families,” he said.
He and Muller had met twice about it in the past two years and Loewenstein said he did not remember hearing about the co-living part. Councilman Christian Horvath noted that he had met with Muller too and did understand there would be a communal aspect.
Members of the public vouched for Muller.
“You could do a lot worse with other developers,” said one man.
Business partner Robbie Kumar said that denial of the EIR puts the city at risk of litigation.
Emmet Jones, a resident who lives just behind the proposed project gave his view.
“The boring thing we really want here is townhomes,” he said. “We would love to have something developed there, but I do not think it is this project.”
In e-comments, the count was 16 people in support of the development, five opposed and one neutral.
In council chambers, each party involved in the appeal who spoke was given rebuttal time, during which the two planning commission members, Sheila Lamb and Gail Hazeltine, said that Catalina Village was not mixed use, and that “nobody has a problem with townhomes…”
“Adequate parking shall be provided. This is the law,” said Lamb, citing public coastal access rights. “This parking violates the Coastal Act.”
For Muller attorney Michael Shonafelt’s rebuttal, he said to the council that whether or not co-housing was part of the project “is not an area of purview for you,” calling it discrimination in housing.
“There’s been a lot of conflation, a lot of outright incorrect interpretation of the law,” he said.
The project would be operated by a property manager, which Muller spoke about in his rebuttal time.
“Imagine when you finished college, you could not afford a townhome. This is keeping the young, talented people here in Redondo Beach – a place they can land after college.”
The project would include 15 percent affordable housing, as required by the Coastal Act.
Muller noted that the six old buildings would be preserved.
“To be fair, I chose preservation over profit,” he said.
“I never misrepresented the project. This is a 30-unit project, with a small tasting room and a coffee shop. I’m a homegrown entrepreneur. This is not a 500-unit project.”
Muller noted that the business model he has is one occupant per bedroom.
He talked about the amount of jobs the construction would create.
“Imagine how many people you put bread on their table,” he said.
He told of how he modified the project per the planning commission and paid for a legal review.
“The planning commission has spoken. I’m not a merchant builder. This is something I’m going to be proud of,” Muller said.
A traffic engineer testified and Councilman Zein Obagi, Jr., questioned statements about vehicle trip-generation. The engineer noted that no specific information is available on the co-housing model.
The council considered whether a five-person co-housing unit would likely have more drivers than a five-person family living in a similar unit.
Loewenstein estimated 90-95 percent of co-living residents would be driving age.
“So there is a difference,” he said.
Was the 30 units more like 42 units in the co-housing equivalent?
Questions and concerns continued, as did the clock.
Could there be two people renting a bedroom? What about bunkbeds, asked Loewenstein.
Horvath asked if an EIR could be rejected at this stage.
Councilwoman Laura Emdee noted that the traffic study took into account 101 people living at Catalina Village, at least.
Leases would be six months for the fully-furnished units.
A discussion followed about how the co-living units were to be rented, Muller saying that the property manager rents the rooms.
“So the tenant doesn’t have a choice who moves in?” said Councilman Nils Nehrenheim.
Muller talked about how co-living is to “mitigate disturbance in leasing.”
Shonafelt made a point to Loewenstein about these kind of units in the Coastal Zone.
“Notwithstanding comments you made on national T.V., being against it,” he said.
“I said next to the water,” said Loewenstein, referring to the interview on NBCNews Now last October, in a report about a large housing development proposed at the AES plant site.
“We do have Section 8 housing in the Coastal Zone.”
“I can appreciate that,” said Shonafelt.
The meeting continued. A motion came from Horvath to deny the appeal, along with an Emdee amendment to favor people who work in Redondo Beach for the affordable units.
The vote failed. The council recessed, then returned to council row.
Muller said he would reduce the bedrooms by 19.
Lamb reiterated her “important points to remember.”
“What is it, 4 o’clock?” she said.
“4:15,” came the answer from the council.
The experts had gone away.
“We’re out of public hearings, we have to decide this now,” said Nehrenheim.
The vote to deny the project was Nehrenheim, “reluctantly aye,” Loewenstein “aye”, Horvath “absolutely not,” Obagi “aye” and Emdee “no.”
Project may come back; more support on council
Jason Muller and his business partners are free to re-apply for a new project on the site, or a further revised version of what they had.
“(Muller) gave the planning commission everything they wanted,” said City Councilmember Laura Emdee. “Todd (Loewenstein) appealed it. Nobody from the neighborhood appealed it.”
If a new project is put forth, it would need to start over with the process, though it likely could still use studies and findings from the current proposal.
“We do our job thoroughly and we make sure we evaluate all of the options and take our jobs seriously,” said Councilman Nils Nehrenheim. “Co-living created the significant impacts to the Coastal Zone.”
Would he want to see a version of this project get built?
“Absolutely. We weren’t against the project, we were against the impacts to the Coastal Zone,” Nehrenheim said. ER