Following a two-hour discussion laden with legalese, the Redondo Beach City Council on Tuesday night denied an appeal lodged by a group of residents opposing the development of a six-unit condominium at 1000 Esplanade.
Councilmembers Bill Brand and Matt Kilroy voted to uphold the appeal, which was lodged in response to a decision the Planning Commission made in April to permit the proposed building project.
At 30 feet high, the project meets the city’s building requirements and ordinances, but does obstruct a fraction of the public view. Its six units will replace the eight units that currently occupy the corner lot.
Community Development Director Aaron Jones said Tuesday that the project is in “full compliance with all zoning standards” and referenced a 184-page report assembled by city staff in support of that assertion.
“The City Council needs to understand that the city does not have a view protection ordinance and we have never established or adopted any public or private view corridors,” Jones said.
All property owners, he said, are treated “identically under identical development standards.”
A lengthy back-and-forth public debate ensued. Some residents were adamant that approving the appeal would be setting a dangerous precedent, authorizing the council to make decisions that could infringe on the rights of private property owners and opening the door for further zoning spats down the road.
One woman said for the council to make a decision pertaining to this project alone would be “arbitrary and capricious.”
“I do not think it’s appropriate to start applying different standards on an individual case-by-case basis,” she said.
Former councilman Don Szerlip agreed.
“You cannot arbitrarily make changes to our local coastal program legally now,” he said. “You want to make them for the future? Fine… [but] it is your obligation to deny this appeal.”
John Parsons, another former councilmember, echoed similar concerns.
“Let’s not do it on a case-by-case basis where people’s property values are going to get hurt,” he said.
Others insisted the structure would impede the public’s right to an ocean view from vantage points on PCH, Avenue B, and Catalina Avenue.
Esplanade resident Jeff Carlson said he believes the Coastal Act intends to protect public views in coastal areas.
“The purpose of the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Act was to protect the public view in a coastal zone and coastal area,” he said.
“The act recognizes that a public view is a natural resource that is owned by the people and it further states that permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the coast. The act further states that it is to be liberally construed – that is, let’s implement the will of the public.”
He asked the council to do its duty by upholding that will.
“Gentlemen, you have the obligation and the privilege to be the stewards of the public’s right to a view and this view has been recognized as a public resource,” he said.
One woman said she runs down Avenue B daily precisely because its view is superior to those from other avenues.
“I think it would be a real shame if we took a view away that the community has had access to… I do encourage the City Council to approve the appeal and protect our view for the public,” she said.
Councilmember Jeff Ginsburg called the proposed condominium a “good project.”
“They are building this in such a way that they can have as least impact as they can,” he said. “They are the property owner and they have jumped through hoops to make sure it fits all the current zoning.”
After listening to the debate, Mayor Steve Aspel weighed in.
“I don’t think it’s fair to change the rules in the middle of the game… This project fits the rules,” he said.
Kilroy, who along with Brand opposed the final vote, said he hoped the debate would pave the way for a broader discussion of the Coastal Act and how it applies to public and private views.
“I know it’s going to pass but hopefully the Coastal Commission might take this up and give us much clearer direction as to what really is required of the Coastal Act,” he said.
The appeal was denied.
