To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: MARC WIENER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TITLE
title
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF AN EXEMPTION DECLARATION, CONCESSIONS REQUESTED UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, AND A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 49 UNITS, 5 OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME AND 3 OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 4 STORIES AND 45 FEET IN HEIGHT, WITH 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND 2 FLOORS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING WITH 129 PARKING SPACES AND SPACE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 14 VALET PARKING SPACES, LOCATED ON FIVE PARCELS (7508012013, 7508012012, 7508012011, 7508012010, 7508012009) WITHIN A COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2) AT 401-417 S. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
PROPERTY OWNER: Redondo Seaside Living, LLC
APPLICANT: Redondo Seaside Living, LLC
LOCATION: 401 - 417 S. Pacific Coast Highway
CASE NO: 2025-0074
PROCEDURES:
1. Open the public hearing and take testimony;
2. Close the public hearing and deliberate;
3. Adopt the attached resolution by title only, waiving further reading.
ADOPT BY TITLE ONLY RESOLUTION CC-2602-010 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ADOPTING A CEQA EXEMPTION DECLARATION AND GRANTING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL, THEREBY APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 65912.124(E) BASED UPON A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT -- CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 49 UNITS, 5 OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME & 3 OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 4 STORIES AND 45 FEET IN HEIGHT, WITH 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND 2 FLOORS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING WITH 129 PARKING SPACES AND SPACE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 14 VALET PARKING SPACES, LOCATED ON FIVE PARCELS (7508012013, 7508012012, 7508012011, 7508012010, 7508012009) WITHIN A COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-2) AT 401-417 S. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (CASE NO. 2025-0074) -- IS “CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS” IN THE CERTIFIED LCP WITH THE APPLICATION OF ALLOWABLE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS PERMITTED BY AND HEREBY APPROVED UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW
end
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 13, 2025, the City of Redondo Beach (“City”) received application materials on behalf of Wal2Wal Inc. (Applicant) to construct a four-story, 45-foot tall, mixed-use multi-family residential condominium Project at 401-417 South Pacific Coast Highway, consisting of 49 residential units, inclusive of 8 affordable units, and 17,000 square feet of ground-level commercial floor space (Project) with 2 subterranean parking levels providing 105 parking spaces.
The five parcels that comprise the Project site are zoned C-2 (Coastal Zone), which does not allow for residential development. The Applicant, however, invoked the “Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022” (Government Code § 65912.100 et seq., also referred to as Assembly Bill (AB) 2011), which allows the ministerial approval of mixed-income residential development (including some mixed-use buildings) on sites currently zoned for commercial or retail uses along a “commercial corridor.” Additionally, as the Project includes affordable housing units, the application also takes advantage of the benefits provided by State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915, SDBL). The applicant also submitted an Senate Bill (SB) 330 preliminary application for the purpose of vesting rights to proceed with the rules and regulations in effect as of the date of their initial preliminary application.
On December 18, 2025, the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the proposed mixed-use residential condominium Project, along with the requests for concessions and waivers per SDBL, were presented by City staff at a duly noticed public hearing before the Redondo Beach Planning Commission which unanimously denied the CDP for reasons discussed later in this report. The denial has been appealed to the City Council by the Applicant.
Attached is the Planning Commission Administrative Report (Attachment 6) dated December 18, 2025, which provides a detailed description of the originally proposed Project and a comprehensive analysis of the Project as measured against all the applicable state housing laws, AB 2011 and SDBL, and the objective standards within the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Since that time, the applicant has submitted changes to the project, which are outlined below, and a traffic analysis, which is attached to the report. The project changes include 24 additional onsite parking spaces.
Staff Recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution of the City Council of the City of Redondo Beach adopting a CEQA exemption declaration and granting the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial, thereby approving the request for a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to Government Code § 65912.124(e) based upon a determination that the Project -- construction of a mixed-use residential condominium Project with 49 units, 5 of which are affordable to very low income & 3 of which are affordable to moderate-income households, 4 stories and 45 feet in height, with 17,000 square feet of commercial uses on the ground floor, and 2 floors of subterranean parking with 129 parking spaces and space for an additional 14 valet parking spaces, located on five parcels (7508012013, 7508012012, 7508012011, 7508012010, 7508012009) within a Commercial Zone (C-2) at 401-417 S. Pacific Coast Highway (Case No. 2025-0074) -- is “consistent with all objective standards” in the certified LCP with the application of allowable concessions and waivers permitted by and hereby approved under SDBL.
BACKGROUND
Because state law requires ministerial approval of qualifying housing development projects under AB 2011, this Project typically would be approved administratively by staff. However, because the Project site is located in the Coastal Zone, a CDP issued by the Planning Commission was required. The Planning Commission’s purview concerning this Project was limited to the review of the requests for concessions and waivers pursuant to SDBL and the objective criteria in the City’s certified LCP. Other entitlements that would typically be reviewed by the Planning Commission, such as Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit, are superseded by state law. Furthermore, several of the local zoning development standards are also superseded by state law.
On December 18, 2025, the CDP for the proposed mixed-use residential condominium Project was presented by City staff at a duly noticed public hearing before the Redondo Beach Planning Commission. Following staff’s presentation, public testimony, and Commission deliberation, the Planning Commission denied the CDP along with two of the three associated SDBL concessions related to reductions in required commercial parking and a deviation from shared (overlap) parking requirements. The following is a summary of the findings made by the Planning Commission, as identified in Resolution No. 2025-12-PCR-13 (Attachment 7):
• The required parking identified in the LCP (68 spaces) is an objective standard required to ensure compliance with the Coastal Act. The Project is not proposing to provide the required number of parking spaces and also would result in a loss of on-street parking. Therefore, the requested concession to reduce the commercial parking spaces to 44 spaces would decrease public access to the Coast, Harbor, and Pier for the general public and be contrary to state law.
• The requested parking concession would result in a significant impact to public safety based on the impact of the Project on safe ingress and egress for emergency vehicles from Fire Station No. 1. In addition, the Project will result in pedestrian and vehicular traffic conflicts as a result of the configuration of the driveway on Pearl Street. As such, the requested concession would result in a "specific, adverse impact" upon public health and safety.
• The Planning Commission does hereby find that the requested concession to avoid the utilization study (i.e., deviate from the overlap parking requirements) does not result in actual and identifiable cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs. The applicant has not provided any evidence indicating that the study would result in cost reductions related to the provision of affordable housing.
An appeal of the December 18, 2025 Planning Commission decision was filed by the Applicant within the ten-day appeal period. The City Council is now scheduled to consider, as a de novo hearing, the appeal and the Planning Commission’s denial of the CDP.
Staff Analysis
Project/Parking Modifications
Following the Planning Commission’s denial of the CDP for the Project, the Applicant has since revised the Project plans to address concerns related to parking adequacy and public safety. The original Project proposed a total of 105 parking spaces, 61 of which were dedicated to the residential uses and 44 of which were dedicated to the commercial uses with an overlap parking plan proposed. The revised Project has expanded the subterranean garage in a westerly direction and has reconfigured the parking stalls in order to provide 61 residential parking spaces and 68 commercial parking spaces (129 total spaces), thereby meeting the City’s number of on-site commercial parking requirements in the LCP and the SDBL residential parking requirements, which eliminates the need for both the parking and overlap parking concessions that were requested previously and denied by the Planning Commission. The revised parking plan incorporates 10 tandem parking spaces and 20 compact spaces in order to achieve the total of 129 on-site parking spaces. Additionally, the Project includes 14 valet-operated spaces, in addition to the 129 on-site parking spaces. The tandem parking spaces and 13 of the compact spaces would be assigned to individual residential units. Because tandem and compact parking configurations are not expressly permitted within the applicable multi-family residential zoning district (but also not identified as prohibited), the Applicant is requesting additional waivers per SDBL to allow the tandem parking arrangements and residential compact spaces as part of the redesigned garage layout.
To accommodate the additional space needed for the parking spaces, the private storage spaces located within the parking areas have been reduced from approximately 19,600 cubic feet (400 CF per unit), which previously complied with RBMC requirements, to 14,700 cubic feet (300 CF per unit), resulting in a deficiency of 4,900 cubic feet. Accordingly, the Applicant is requesting a waiver per SDBL to permit the reduced amount of required private storage.
In summary, the Applicant has withdrawn the previously requested commercial parking concession and no longer requires the overlap parking concession, which are shown as deleted (strikethrough) below. However, to implement the revised parking plan, the Applicant is now requesting new waivers as identified (via underline) below.
Concessions:
1. Increase FAR for mixed-use projects (commercial and residential) from 1.5 to 2.58 (RBMC § 10-5.915(a)(2))
2. Decrease in required commercial parking from 68 to 44 (RBMC § 10-5.1706(a)(1))
3. Deviate from “overlap (shared) parking requirements” (RBMC § 10-5.1706(D)(2))
Waivers:
1. Increase in number of stories from 3 to 4 (RBMC § 10-5.915(e)(2))
2. Reduce street side yard setback (pearl street) for a corner/reverse corner
lot from 10'-0" to 6'-0". (RBMC § 10-5.915(f)(2)(a))
3. Reduce setback along property lines abutting residential uses (starting at 2nd
floor and above) from 7'-0" x floor number to same setbacks as ground floor for all floors (Gov't Code § 65912.123(d)(3)(A)(ii))
4. Reduce setback along property lines abutting non-residential uses from 15'-0" to 10'-0" (Gov't Code § 65912.123(d)(3)(B))
5. Allow stairwell and elevator penthouse projections up to 15' - 7" above the permitted 45' height limit (RBMC § 10-5.1522(b))
6. Reduce the required private storage space from (49) 400 cubic feet lockers for a total of 19,600 cubic feet (RBMC § 10-5.1514(b)) to (49) 300 cubic feet lockers for a total of 14,700 cubic feet
7. Allow the use of 10 tandem parking spaces for commercial and residential use where tandem parking is not identified as permitted (RBMC 10-5.1704(c)(1) and 10-5.1706)
8. Allow the use of 13 compact spaces in a multi-family residential development where compact spaces are not permitted (RBMC 10-5.1704(c)(1))
9. Allow the use of 14 valet spaces at the discretion of the Applicant based on demand (RBMC 10-5.1704 and 10-5.1706)
In addition to increasing the number of spaces to meet the commercial parking requirements, the Applicant has made the following additional modifications to the Project to enhance mobility, livability, accessibility, and safety:
• Modification of the driveway slope to accommodate a grade of 5% for the first 20 feet from the edge of the property line to increase visibility for pedestrians and drivers
• Addition of secure bike parking on the ground level for bicycles, including cargo bikes
• Increased the valet queuing space to accommodate at least 14 cars
• Landscape plan modifications to incorporate trees with greater shade canopy
• Addition of bike racks on Pearl Street and Pacific Coast Highway
• Addition of “KEEP CLEAR” pavement markings at the Project access driveway
Safety Concern
The Planning Commission denied the CDP, in part, due to safety concerns related to the proximity of the Project to Fire Station #1. A local jurisdiction can potentially deny housing projects and associated requests for SDBL incentives when it is determined that there is a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” must be a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards in effect at the time the application was deemed complete.
Staff has conferred with Fire Department Staff regarding the Project’s potential impact to Fire Station #1. The Fire Department does not believe that the proposed Project creates any unique or unusual safety concerns for the operation of Fire Station #1. This conclusion is supported in a traffic study prepared by EDP Solutions, Inc., which has been submitted by the Applicant (see Attachment 4). The focused circulation, queuing, and safety analyses indicate that the proposed Project access is expected to operate acceptably. The queuing analysis indicates that forecasted queue lengths at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Pearl Street correspond to fewer than four vehicles under both Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project Conditions, with Project-generated traffic resulting in increases of less than one vehicle. In addition, the implementation of “KEEP CLEAR” pavement markings in the Pearl Street right-of-way at the Project access driveway would maintain unobstructed ingress and egress for vehicles entering and exiting the site and avoid any potential queue spillback impacts. The safety assessment did not identify any notable or recurring collision patterns attributable to the proposed Project access, and the Project’s pedestrian facilities are physically separated from vehicular circulation and are not expected to create pedestrian safety concerns.
The Fire Department also confirmed that the Project will not impact emergency response operations for Redondo Beach Fire Station #1, as emergency access will continue to operate consistent with existing conditions. Additionally, the shared parking analysis demonstrates that the originally proposed 105-space on-site parking supply is sufficient to meet both weekday and weekend demand. With the addition of 24 additional on-site parking spaces, the Project now complies with the LCP’s objective commercial parking development standard.
Below is a map that highlights the distance that Fire Station #1 (in red) is from the Project site (in blue), approximately 430 feet away.
Figure 1 - Aerial Map
Coastal Commission Staff / State HCD Consultation
As part of the analysis of the Project, City staff also consulted with Coastal Commission staff who expressed concern with the reference in the Planning Commission’s denial to the Project’s potential for limiting access to coastal resources. Coastal Commission staff advised the City that, “limiting access to coastal resources” was not an objective development standard and was not applicable to the Project. Additionally, the City has been in communication with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and received a letter on February 13, 2026 (Attachment 9). The letter offers technical assistance and provides notice of a potential violation with the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project.
Environmental Status
The proposed development is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because approval of the Project is a ministerial action, and therefore CEQA does not apply pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080(b)(1) and CEQA Guidelines §15268. Additionally, Government Code §§65912.100 - 65912.124, establishing the AB 2011 ministerial approval process, expressly removes discretionary authority from local agencies for eligible mixed-income projects. As a result, CEQA does not apply, and the City is not required to evaluate alternatives or mitigation measures.
COORDINATION
The Community Development Department coordinated review of the Project with the City Attorney’s Office, Public Works and Fire Departments for evaluation and comment.
FISCAL IMPACT
Processing the project application and appeal is within the approved FY 2025-26 Operating Budgets for the Departments assisting with the review of the project. All subsequent Community Development Department fee collection and the project’s potential tax generation would be determined as the Project is developed.
APPROVED BY:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment 1 - Resolution No. CC-2602-010 - 401 S.PCH
• Attachment 2 - Revised Project Plans
• Attachment 3 - Applicant’s Appeal Application
• Attachment 4 - Applicant’s Updated Appeal Letter, Concession/Waivers Exhibit, Traffic Analysis
• Attachment 5 - Exemption Declaration, December 11, 2025
• Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Administrative Report, December 18, 2025
• Attachment 7 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-12-PCR-13, December 18, 2025
• Attachment 8 - Planning Commission Minutes, December 18, 2025 (Draft)
• Attachment 9 - Letter Department of Housing and Community Development Letter of
Technical Assistance and Notice of Potential Violation, February 13, 2026