BLUE FOLDER ITEM
Blue folder items are additional back up material to administrative reports and/or public comments received after the printing and distribution of the agenda packet for receive and file.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 16, 2023
J.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; [email protected]; Lisa Jacobs
Subject: Public Comment - D3 Councilperson must recuse from Fire Study Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 2:24:22 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Our D3 councilperson was funded in part by a mailer from Matt Chou/Mamo Company real estate developers. That mailer was from a PAC with "supporting Paige" in its name. The gist of the mailer was that the RBFD and RBPD rank and file were a "special interest" that could not be trusted.
Clearly, the new D3 councilperson did not reject these accusations and mailer, so we can ONLY ASSUME that she supported them.
We cannot have a candidate with clear ties to anti-RBFD and anti-RBPD rank and file factions voting on the future of either Department and recusal from all RBPD and RBFD issues is appropriate.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk
Cc: Lisa Jacobs; Kevin Cody
Subject: Public Comment - BCHD"s Private Commercial Developer, PMB LLC, should be limited to commercial zoning heights and FARs for its privately owned commercial building Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 6:28:57 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Public Comment - City Council and Planning Commission
According to BCHD press releases, "The Board voted 3-0 to approve the 3-acre land lease with the developer, operator and design/build team for the proposed Healthy Living Campus (two board members were unable to attend the meeting). The agreement is for a 65-year term, with two potential 15-year extensions." While BCHD deliberately misrepresents PMB and PMBs subsidiaries as "developer, operator, and design/build team, " BCHD's retained investment bankers appropriately label PMB LLC and PMBs subsidiaries as an "RCFE developer/owner/operator."
A commercial use on public land should be considered a PRIVATE USE (as the Council did for Kensington) and commercial limits should apply.
BCHD is acting as a "STRAW PERMITTER" and cannot be allowed to abuse its public status to overdevelop a commercial building with 0% BCHD ownership.
The key finding is that BCHD has a 0% ownership in the building, and therefore, despite the P-CF zoning, this is a private project being built on public-owned and zoned land.
As such, the PMB LLC project should be strictly limited to typical commercial height for senior housing, its dominant use for the building (85-90%). That height limit would dictate a maximum of 3 stories and 30-45 feet.
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: [email protected]
Cc: Communications; Vanessa I. Poster; Jane Diehl; Noel Chun; Michelle Bholat; Martha Koo; [email protected]; [email protected]; Holly J. Mitchell; info; [email protected]; Judy Rae; Lisa Jacobs; CityClerk; CityClerk
Subject: BCHD Press Releases on Measure M Expenditures - How many $100K did BCHD waste? Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 11:46:45 AM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
From even the most casual review, BCHD spent around $500K planning the bike path from Beryl & Flagler; along Flagler in Torrance with extensive road changes; through Flagler Alley in Torrance with planned hillside modifications; and then a 200-foot long strip in Redondo Beach. Based on the distance and work planned, well over half of the expenditure would have been for Torrance.
BCHD failed the most basic fiduciary control before it spent Measure M funding - BCHD failed to secure approval from Torrance. As a result, BCHD has likely squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars that it must repatriate to Measure M. Sadly, the management and Board of BCHD will have no liability due to poor public sector controls.
BCHD announced that it plans to spend $1.8M to improve that 200-feet in Redondo Beach from Diamond & Prospect to the Torrance city border in Flagler Alley. That is both an unreasonable, exorbitant expenditure and also a stranded segment as Torrance has rejected the work from the Torrance border to Beryl & Flagler.
BCHD should not be allowed to waste scarce taxpayer resources on a 200-foot strip of stranded bike path for $2M. We have homeless residents inside the District and BCHD needs to stop playing real estate developer for a 100% privately owned building and get back to basics - providing benefits to the "Residents who reside" in the District.
Mark Nelson
Redondo Beach
Public Comment: Torrance and Redondo Beach Councils, Public Works Directors, and Planning Commissions
From BCHD self-serving public promotion announcement:
Redondo Beach Phase of the Diamond Street and Flagler Lane Bike & Pedestrian Path
Beach Cities Health District (BCHD) is working with the Cities of Redondo Beach and Torrance to implement a bicycle and pedestrian improvement project that runs adjacent to its Prospect Campus. The Diamond Street and Flagler Lane Bike & Pedestrian Path will provide an important connection between commercial, residential and recreational areas within the region. The new path will add bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and improved lighting to enhance safety and accessibility and promote active transportation. This project is funded by a Measure M grant from Los Angeles County Metro.
The Diamond Street & Flagler Lane Bike and Pedestrian Path Project is under Measure M Multi-Year Subregional Program (MSP) projects for the South Bay Subregion for the Transportation System & Mobility Improvement Program. The project was recommended to Metro for funding by the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) in February 2019. The project will add a bike path, pedestrian infrastructure and improved lighting and safety enhancements to improve accessibility, promote active transportation and enhance multi-modal mobility options.
Project Updates:
Redondo Phase Plans & Rendering – Scheduled Summer 2023 The Redondo Phase is expected to start July 2023, and expected to be completed by fall 2023. Official dates will be posted and updated on this page
Complete Project Overview (Redondo and Torrance Phase Plans) – City of Torrance Phase to be determined, the City of Torrance will need to approve the Torrance Phase of the project
Press Release – May 15, 2023 (BCHD's
Primary Product)
From: Amir Dori
Fame Civil Engineers
Re: Planning Commission meeting on March 29th, 2023
To: City of Redondo Beach Council members
City of Redondo Beach Planning Commissioners
Respectfully, I am reaching out to have a better understanding of some of the topics that were discussed and motions that were voted on at the said meeting.
I would like to point out that the purpose of the above public meeting was to hear the concerns of the Architects, Designers, Builders & the residence of Redondo beach. I witnessed just about all the attendees had major concerns about most of the Topics, and yet all the objections and comments were totally ignored and most of the topics were voted on in favor of the Planning Department’s proposals.
I must point out that the surveys that were taken from the residence of Redondo Beach have mostly been ignored by the planning department as well. Attached please find a summary of that survey for your review.
Below please note my objections to the new proposals.
Thank you for listening to me.
Amir Dori
Fame Civil Engineers.
R-1 Setbacks
PG. 6, Second floor Side Setbacks
Current RBMC: There are no additional side setbacks on the second floor.
Proposed: Average 2ft. additional setback on each side of the building. Applicable for properties > 40’ Objection : This proposal creates a “Wedding Cake” effect which would look horrible in addition there will be a loss of 240 sq. ft. on the second floor. This loss of square footage means eliminating one bedroom or a laundry room and a primary closet.
Please note that most lots in North Redondo are greater than 40 feet in width. This will create an undesirable design for the entire North Redondo.
PG. 6, Second floor Rear Setback
Current RBMC: There is no additional rear setback on the second floor.
Proposed: 50% of rear elevation shall be an average of 30 ft. from the rear property line, second floor to be Min 25 feet setback from the rear property line.
Objection : This proposal causes a loss of 300 to 400 square feet, which is about the size of the Primary Bedroom.
Please note with the above two proposals so far, there is a loss of space between 540 & 640 square feet on the second floor, which is nearly a 20% reduction of the square footage of most new homes in Redondo Beach.
I just don’t understand the rationale behind these proposals. Why are the smaller lots in Redondo Beach being punished?
Roof Decks & Balconies
PG. 7, Front Entry and Porches
Current RBMC: Currently encouraged by FAR (floor area ratio) bonus.
Proposed: Project 6 feet into front yard area
Objection : This proposal is confusing. It does’t explain if this refers to the front yard or the front setback.
B. Hillside / Sloping Lot Standard
PG. 9, Section 2.d & 2.e
Proposed: Front door with entry directly from the street is located on the same plane as the garage, in front of the garage or recessed no more than 7 feet to provide a front porch.
Objection : I am not sure what the objective of this proposal is ! The photo on this page is a better design than what is being proposed. If the front door is in line with the garage or 7 feet back, it makes the building appear with a much bigger mass. As shown in the photo, the first story patio deck creates a desirable outdoor environment that Redondo Beach deserves.
C. Basement Standards
PG. 10, section 2 basement garage.
Current RBMC: A basement, or portion thereof, may function as a garage, and be considered a basement and shall not be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating the FAR (floor area ratio).
Proposed: If any part of the basement is located within the font 40 feet of the property, the entire basement area shall be counted as floor area for purposes of calculating the FAR (floor area ratio).
Objection : This proposal may work for “Down-Sloping properties” to have the basement starting at 40 feet of the property line. However, it is a very unfair proposition for “Up-Sloping Properties”. You are basically forcing the owner to eliminate the basements altogether. Please think about it, one factor to consider by having the basement is to not have tall retaining walls at the adjacent property walls. Or else the design should be considered as shown on page 9 which you also have objection with.
It's important to point out the current RBMC on basement areas versus FAR (floor area ratio). 10-2.402 (76) b. Residential uses in “R” residential zones. Gross floor area shall mean the floor area of the ground floor and any additional stories of all buildings on the lot including accessory buildings. The gross floor area shall include mezzanines, lofts, and garages. Gross floor area shall not include decks, balconies, attics, basements where the finished first floor above the basement (or the roof of the basement where there is no first floor above) is no more than two (2) feet above the existing grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, within the front forty (40) feet of the lot, or basements not located within the front forty (40) feet of the lot.
D. Mezzanine Standard
PG. 11, section 2 Applicability.
A-Proposed: Basement garage and mezzanine are prohibited on an Up-Sloping lots.
Objection: Since there is a roof over the mezzanine which is totally concealed within the building walls as well as the structure being below the total height of 30 feet, I see no rationale behind this decision, what difference does it make what is below the 30 feet maximum height.
B-Proposed: Mezzanine shall not include any plumbing fixtures.
Objection : I don’t see why we can’t have plumbing fixtures within the mezzanine space !! Most mezzanines are utilized as office space or in many cases there is access to a rooftop deck. Not having a bathroom causes the inconvenience of going to the lower floors to use a bathroom. If the resident uses the rooftop deck often or entertaining, lack of a bathroom can become a big issue.
E. Roof Deck Standard
PG. 12, section 2 Applicability.
C-Proposed: Rooftop decks shall not be permitted on properties that are 40 feet in width or less.
Objection : If all the setbacks are applied to keep the privacy of the neighbors ’what difference is between the lot sizes ? Why are you punishing the homeowners of South Redondo with mostly lot sizes of 40 feet in width? R-1A Rear Setback & Rooftop Decks
PG. 20,
Current RBMC: Second story Rear setback, same as first story, 16 ft. average at no point less than 10 ft.
Proposed: Rear elevation shall be an average of 25 ft. from the rear property line.
Objection : Most homes in R-1A zone aka “skinny tall” buildings utilize the second story to the living room, dining room, kitchen, primary room (with an average depth of 16 feet), bathroom, and closet. The proposal to eliminate an additional 9 feet from the second story leaves about seven feet for the primary bedroom or eliminate the dining area. The result is an average loss of 180 square feet, which is about 10% of the living space in these rather small homes. I see no rationale within this proposal.
Redondo Beach Residential Design Guidelines Update Community Survey 2022 Q11, do you think the current height maximum (30-feet, 2-stories) is still appropriate for Redondo Beach neighborhoods?
Answer: 83% Agreed to keep the height as 30 feet 2 stories.
Q12 Which of the following is the appropriate height level for single-family and low-density neighborhoods in Redondo Beach?
Answer: 72% Agreed to keep the current height.
Q13 Should the new standards differentiate and lower the maximum height of a flat roof? Answer: 63% Agreed to keep the current height.
Q15 If roof decks are permitted, should shade structures or covers be allowed on them? Answer: 26% Yes, unrestricted
47% Yes but limited to a portion of the deck area.
27% No
Q16 Which of the following is most appropriate for the new standards for mezzanines? Answer: 49% Maintain current standards
25% Open to either the first or second floor below
20% Allow unenclosed mezzanines within the envelope of the home only if open to the first floor below (no solid walls, only railing from mezzanine to room below) Q17 Which of the following is most appropriate for the new standards for semi-subterranean and basement levels?
Answer: 58% Maintain the current standards
32% Maintain this definition only for sloping lots & do not allow on lots that are substantially flat Q20 Where a property can take access from an alley, should the garage be required to be located in the rear? Answer: 30% Yes, with no driveway access allowed from the street to park a car in front of house (access from alley only)
13% Yes and allow a driveway from the street frontage to park a car in front of the house. 56% No, it should be the homeowner’s option to put garage in front or in back.
Q22 A curb cut allows a driveway across the sidewalk and reduces street parking to allow access to the property.
Should the City allow a double curb cut for front-facing two-car garages? Answer: 64% Yes
From: Holly Osborne
To: CityClerk; Vickie Kroneberger
Cc: Nils Nehrenheim; Brandy Forbes; Michael Webb
Subject: RHNA numbers in 5th and 6th cycle.
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 1:45:39 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Please put this in Blue Folder for tonight's council meeting.
I am going to talk about this on non-agenda items.
Thank you
Holly Osborne, District 5