Redondo Beach City Council shrinks, passes Legado project

Members of UNITE HERE! Local 11, which stood in protest to the Legado Redondo project. Photo

 

Members of UNITE HERE! Local 11, which stood in protest to the Legado Redondo project. Photo

Members of UNITE HERE Local 11, which stood in protest to the Legado Redondo project. Photo

The main event began at 6:23 p.m. on June 14, but the final bell didn’t sound until the early hours of the next morning.

At 1:40 a.m., nearly eight hours after its meeting began, the Redondo Beach City Council chose to approve the development of a 115-unit residential apartment, 23,800 commercial square foot mixed-use project at 1700 S. Pacific Coast Highway. The council’s split-vote decision comes with a set of conditions, the most significant of which is the requirement for Caltrans-recommended traffic mitigation measures be in place before Legado is able to demolish the current structures.

“This has been a long night, and we don’t want people to say that this was done in the backroom in the middle of the night,” Aspel said after the vote passed. “We’ve got about 45 or 50 people here watching democracy in action.”

That decision, however, is far from the result Legado CEO Edward Czuker and his team hoped for. The decision overwrote the company’s proposal for a 146 unit project that they felt was the most reasonable reduction possible.

“Further reductions would do nothing but cut into the bottom line, and do not pencil out to the applicant,” said Legado legal representative Michael Shonafelt early into the night’s public hearing. He later suggested that the company would accept nothing less than its 146-unit proposal.

The June 14 meeting of the Redondo Beach City Council was the latest climax of the Legado Redondo saga that began on March 19, 2015. That day, the Redondo Beach Planning Commission heard a project application of a mixed-use development project that called for 180 residential units, and 36,000 square feet of commercial space over a 4.72 acre lot, including the area of the adjacent Palos Verdes Inn, which Legado also owns.

The commission ultimately continued that meeting in order to allow the Legado Companies to address density, traffic and massing concerns held by the applicants. After months of Legado-requested continuances, the residential unit count dropped from 180 to 149 units and 36,000 square feet by July’s meeting; by November, Legado submitted a 146 unit, 23,800 commercial square foot design — five days after a city planning department imposed a deadline.

On November 19, the commission denied the project. Shortly after, Legado chose to appeal the decision to the City Council. Nearing a decision of denial, on April 5, council sent Legado back to the planning commission on advice from City Attorney Michael Webb for further consideration.

The commission ultimately recommended the 146 unit version be passed at its May 19 meeting, with a caveat that the mixed-use project’s certification be tied to a remodel of the Palos Verdes Inn, which has been closed since a June 2015 fire.

As has been common for meetings regarding this project, council chambers were packed, with overflow seating placed in the lobby and outside the entrance. Public comment was offered by individuals from around the South Bay, from self-professed millennials supporting the project to longtime Redondo residents standing up against it. UNITE HERE Local 11, a union representing hotel and restaurant workers, was also present; the union opposes the project following a failed attempt to enter exclusive negotiation agreements with Legado.

The uncommon length of the proceedings wasn’t lost on District 3 councilman Christian Horvath; neither was Legado’s assertion that they’ve “bent over backwards” to get their project completed.

“It’s frustrating to read through reports and see that we should have been through this already,” he said, pointing to the submission deadlines missed by Legado and multiple continuances and extensions granted by Redondo’s governing bodies. “If you had bent over backwards, we wouldn’t be here right now; we would have had a solution six months ago, in November.”

Horvath’s instinct was that Legado’s project was not the right fit, and though he wanted to see something in place of the currently empty lot, he couldn’t find a way to support Legado’s proposal. His motion to deny the project, however, died when City Attorney Michael Webb noted that the project could not be denied on a basis of subjective evidence.

That set in motion the search for evidence, eventually settling upon two of Legado’s biggest community concerns: Unit density and traffic.

The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Palos Verdes Boulevard is already one of the most congested in the city, as the northernmost artery into the Palos Verdes Peninsula, residents argue. Statistics back that up — the intersection has been rated as providing a Level of Service rating of E, one step above the worst possible ranking.

Legado argues that the mitigations they propose, similar to mitigations proposed at the intersection of PCH and Torrance Boulevard, would increase the Level of Service. However, council members were gun-shy — the PCH and Torrance mitigations, they noted, have taken nearly a decade to approach completion.

“Based on our history there, CalTrans could take five or ten years [to move the project forward],” Aspel said. “Legado could be completed and we’re waiting into the next millennium.”

If the project is completed and certified before the traffic mitigations, council argued, the traffic would be an issue without mitigation.

District 2 councilman Bill Brand then followed an argument raised by resident Jeff Abrams that, due to Legado’s application to split their 4.7 acre parcel between the project site and the hotel, the 146 unit project would be greater than the maximum allowable density under the general plan, and therefore against city code.

Brand then motioned to approve a 115 unit version of the 146 unit project, with the caveat that traffic mitigations at the intersection of Palos Verdes Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway be complete before Legado even begin demolition of the current structures.

District 1 Councilman Jeff Ginsburg objected, noting that Legado would still be able to build its building to the same dimensions under the newly imposed unit limit, but his argument fell on deaf ears. So too did his argument that Legado, taking a hard-line stance in favor of its 146 unit project proposal, would sue to reach such ends.

Ultimately, the council approved Brand’s 115-unit motion. Brand, Horvath and District 4’s Steve Sammarco voted in favor; Ginsburg and District 5 councilwoman Laura Emdee voted against.

Following the decision, Legado’s representatives were terse.

“We’ll have to look over the resolution more carefully and make a decision on what we’re going to do,” said Shonafelt. “This was not an ideal outcome.”

Outside of chambers, Brand said the matter came down to three choices: Accept Legado’s 146 unit project, which he felt created too many problems; deny the project, which would have definitely resulted in a lawsuit; or find a level of residential development that didn’t significantly impact traffic, which he felt was achieved with the 115-unit decision.

“We’re trying to maintain the character of our neighborhood and not overrun the neighborhood with too much traffic that makes it unsafe,” he said.

In an interview Wednesday, Aspel said that the council and the city may face the law of unintended consequences with the decision.

“The decision made last night could be paid for by council members who aren’t even elected yet,” he said. “If there’s a lawsuit and the city lost, then it could be very expensive.”

To that end, Aspel said that the city will ask to draw $750,000 from its general fund to prepare for potential litigation from Legado.

“[Emdee] and [Ginsburg] were looking out for the financial interest of the entire city,” Aspel said. “The other three have to live with the fact that this might cost us a lot of money.”

Comments:

comments so far. Comments posted to EasyReaderNews.com may be reprinted in the Easy Reader print edition, which is published each Thursday.