by Garth Meyer
The Redondo Beach planning commission rejected an application Dec. 18 to build a four-story, 49-unit residential building with commercial space – on the basis of inadequate commercial parking.
Safety concerns lodged by nearby residents were also cited for the project between Pearl Street and Ruby Street on Pacific Coast Highway.
The building would have included eight affordable units – from very low income to mid – and be built on ground zoned as commercial.
Since the land is west of PCH, it is within the city’s Local Coastal Program; requiring one parking spot for every 250 square feet of commercial space.
“It’s short 24 spaces,” Planning Commissioner Gale Hazeltine told Easy Reader. “That’s 24 families who aren’t able to have access to the beach and Pier. If it was on the other side of the street, it’s a different story.”
The proposed building was eligible in a commercial area because it is mixed use.
Since it would offer at least 15% of its units as affordable, the project could invoke the California “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 (AB2011),” which allows for taller buildings and more units, if enough of the units qualify as affordable.
The applicant, Redondo Seaside Living, has the right to appeal the planning commission’s ruling to the city council.
Seaside Living’s plans feature two large, ground-floor commercial spaces (17,000 square feet) and would follow the tear-down of three existing structures on the mostly empty lot (which hosts a Christmas tree sale in December and pumpkin event in October).
Redondo Beach city staff recommended that the planning commission approve the project because it qualifies under state law. It would have 105 parking spaces, all underground.
Planning Commissioners also cited Seaside Living’s lack of a parking study.
“They would have to have one, but they never did one,” Hazeltine said. “We can’t make a decision if we don’t have the information. We want people to live at the beach; we want affordable housing. That’s not the issue. If you’re going to put up a building with commercial, you have to have enough parking.”
Does Hazeltine want the project to ultimately be approved?
“Of course, it needs to get approved, we need more housing,” she said. “Just park it.”
“We’ve approved almost 400 units this year,” Planning Commission chair Wayne Craig told Easy Reader, referring to 350 in the parking lot of South Bay Galleria, and a 43-unit building at Vincent Street and Pacific Coast Highway. “Any kind of portrayal that this (latest decision) is anti-anything is ridiculous. This is just about parking for commercial.”
Craig concurred with residents at the Dec. 18 meeting about safety matters too, noting the nearby fire station’s trucks passing by on Pearl Street, overflow parking and congestion. Members of the public also noted marred views and property values.
“That whole area is already a bad situation,” Craig said.
The city’s Local Coastal Program is designed to make sure development is consistent with the state Coastal Commission’s focus to ensure public access to the ocean.
The local program, an agreement between the city and the Coastal Commission, came about after the high-rise development of the Redondo Beach Esplanade in the 1960s and ‘70s. ER
16 Responses
It is absurd to accept Commissioner Craig’s remark about the Commission not being obstructive because it has approved 400 units this year. Both of those projects – the Galleria and PCH & Vincent – were approved only due to their requirement by state law, and the Commission in both cases tried and failed to find a way to reject them.
In the case of the Galleria project, the Commission’s own minutes (https://redondo.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14779571&GUID=7B9C93C9-AED8-49CD-BF85-8FA0A5CE350A) note, for example:
“Commissioner Gaddis reiterated his request to communicate the City’s limitations and challenges to the public and mentioned subdividing the parcel and requested from staff whether the Commission had the authority to deny the subdivision.”
“Discussion followed regarding the need to make the required adverse impact findings in order to deny the project. Commissioner Light explained the burden is on the City to prove that there are adverse impacts for the Commission to deny the project.”
In the case of the PCH & Vincent project (https://redondo.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14501555&GUID=A95FAD9E-B596-47AC-8EFB-B6324885C931):
“Chair Lamb pointed out that so far, there are no findings that the project is a threat to health and safety and therefore, the City does not have the requisite findings to deny the project. Motion by Commissioner Conroy, seconded by Commissioner Hazeltine, and approved by voice vote, to close the public hearing. The motion carried 6-1. Commissioner Boswell was opposed. Commissioner Hazeltine reiterated the Commission has no grounds to deny the project. Discussion followed regarding liability to the City if the project is denied.”
The Commission in this case simply found a purported reason to deny this project, which will be appealed and hopefully will not ultimately subject the city to yet another lawsuit due to its intransigence. If this Commission is in fact in favor of any housing that is not single-family, I challenge them to cite ANY recent instance where they have approved multi-family housing without some effort from the commissioners to first find reason to deny.
Alex is it important to you that the city follow the agreement between the city and the coastal commission? Would it not set a precedent to allow the project to be short 24 commercial parking spaces even though every other commercial businesses within the coastal zone supply enough parking?
That’s a precedent I’m perfectly comfortable with. Redondo Beach has thankfully begun to recognize that parking minimums inhibit commercial development, and Council recently removed them along the Artesia and Aviation corridors.
With respect to this specific project, I cannot understand how the city expects to sustain an argument that it inhibits coastal access. The land is currently vacant; this project is a net increase of 49 housing units (8 of which are affordable) and over 100 new parking spaces in the coastal zone. The Commission’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests that any development at all in the coastal zone inhibits access to the coast unless it carries an *excess* of required parking!
To my broader point, the Commission seems to want to avoid being considered “anti-housing” since it approved nearly 400 units in 2025. But the Commission did not do so happily; it sought justification to deny permitting for ALL of those units, and when none could be found, it begrudgingly approved them only in order to comply with state law, and even then could not do so unanimously. The Commission deserves the bare minimum credit for doing the bare minimum to comply with the law. It is certainly not welcoming to new housing development. I look forward to the day when Redondo Beach fights for housing for its residents, current and future, with the same zeal that it fights for parking spaces.
I really don’t mean this disrespectfully but are you paid by developers? I see you at all the meetings when we deal with housing. And I see you huddling with the developers.
In all of your research regarding housing in Redondo Beach are you award we are in the top 10% density of all cities in the state.
So blanket laws that come from Sacramento do not consider how dense a city already is.
Maybe your group isn’t concerned with facts like these.
But again the issue here is the required commercial parking is lacking.
No, of course not. In fact, I had no idea who the developer of this project was when I spoke in favor. They approached me during the recess.
I think it’s insulting to suggest that the only reason someone could want more housing in their community is because they are being paid. I do this because I believe Redondo Beach residents – including prospective residents – deserve more opportunities to live here. I would like my kids to one day live here if they choose. I would like to have the option to downsize into appropriate housing one day when I’m older.
I am perfectly comfortable with density, and good city planning should anticipate that. Otherwise we will find ourselves continuing on our track of an aging population, a stagnant tax base, and declining public services.
And you are aware that Redondo is in the top 10% in the state for density?
Yes, as I said, I am comfortable with density. Smart city planning should account for this. Happy to sit down and discuss this in further detail.
According to Your article in Medium “A YIMBY in Hermosa” you aren’t particularly passionate about Redondo. Just want density regardless of outcome. Who knows. You might be showing up to Laguna Beach meetings as well.
You’re a city commissioner googling stuff I wrote on Medium when I lived in Hermosa Beach years ago? I’ve been living in the South Bay for 16 years. I moved to Redondo four years ago. Like I said, sit down with me and discuss it. Get to know a constituent with an opposing viewpoint instead of making baseless accusations.
If you have residents parking in the public row aka on-street parking, they are taking away spots for the general public aka non-residents, which hinders across tot he Beach.
Redondo Beach is a LEADER in housing production in the south bay. Have you run the numbers? I have since 2006 Redondo Beach has had over 2000 units built. Manhattan Beach has had ~500, and Hermosa has had about ~100 ( to be generous) units built. Getting a little tired of you clowns on your high horses that don’t know what you’re talking about.
*Hinders access to the beach.
Council will rubber stamp it.
If RB City Council is like Torrance’s, the developer will appeal and the council will okay the project. We fought a development here several years ago. Planning Commission denied it, council approved it. What’s the point of having a Planning Commission?
NIMBYs are gonna NIMBY.
Build more housing.
Sounds sus that they deny most of projects lately. Curious who are those residents against it and other projects, any clue? Also, talking to many residents about Redondo development, most of them for the changes. Is there more info on demographics and how many residents against?
The December 18 Planning Commission decision on 401–417 Pacific Coast Highway didn’t happen in a vacuum, which is part of why it keeps resurfacing across different discussions. Over the past few years, Redondo Beach has significantly reshaped how its advisory commissions function — from mid-term removals of commissioners to the consolidation or elimination of advisory bodies, and the City Council’s adoption of new Rules of Conduct that the Planning Commission did not vote to adopt. Those structural shifts influence how land-use decisions are evaluated long before any individual project reaches a public hearing.
Regardless of whether someone supported or opposed this particular project, December’s vote raises a broader question about process and consistency. Are land-use decisions being reviewed under clear, objective standards with a balanced range of perspectives applied citywide? That question matters not just for this address, but for future projects as well — especially given the legal and coastal constraints many commenters have rightly highlighted.