City Council on 2023-07-18 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER Meeting Time: 07-18-23 18:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting Agenda Comments Support Oppose Neutral Time Items
City Council on 2023-07-18 6:00 PM - 07-18-23 70 4 2 2
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 18:00
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
• Support(0%)
• Oppose(50%)
| Neutral(50%)
No Response (0%)
City Council on 2023-07-18 6:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 07-18-23 18:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
N.1. 23-6333 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING 2 0 0 2
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE WATERFRONT EDUCATION CENTER
RECEIVE AND FILE A PRESENTATION FROM M. ARTHUR GENSLER
JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC. ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DESIGN
CONCEPT PREPARED FOR THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT EDUCATION
FACILITY AT THE FORMER JOE'S CRAB SHACK SITE
APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OR PROVIDE DIRECTION ON
MODIFICATIONS
N.2. 23-6324 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING 2 2 0
OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS TO REPLACE CURRENT
RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
CONSIDERATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT OBJECTIVE
RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS AND AMEND TITLE 10, CHAPTER 2
(ZONING ORDINANCE) AND TITLE 10, CHAPTER 5 (COASTAL LAND
USE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE) OF THE REDONDO BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE
RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
| Support (0%)
| Oppose(50%)
Neutral(50%)
No Response (0%)
Agenda Item: eComments for N.1. 23-6333 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE
WATERFRONT EDUCATION CENTER
RECEIVE AND FILE A PRESENTATION FROM M. ARTHUR GENSLER JR. & ASSOCIATES, INC. ON THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
AND DESIGN CONCEPT PREPARED FOR THE PUBLIC WATERFRONT EDUCATION FACILITY AT THE FORMER JOE'S CRAB
SHACK SITE
APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OR PROVIDE DIRECTION ON MODIFICATIONS Overall Sentiment
Support(0%)
Oppose(0%)
Neutral(100%)
No Response (0%)
Grace Peng
Location:
Submitted At: 7:00pm 07-18-23
We don't have to be slaves to parking requirements. BeachLife has taught us that bikes are a space-efficient way to bring people to the area. Recognizing this, the coastal commission allows us to swap car parking stalls for bike racks. We should use that. If we install double decker bike parking like at universities, train stations and even my condo building in Boulder, we can have more education space and less asphalt.
Brianna Egan
Location:
Submitted At: 1:11pm 07-18-23
The conceptual design of the Waterfront Education Center incorporates a lot of unique features. I feel that this space could have much more potential if there was a larger buildable area and reduced parking requirements (102 spaces!), but that would probably require updates to the city's zoning code and back-and-forth with Coastal Commission. In lieu of that, improvements could be made with permeable parking surfaces, plants, and bike access. On Pg 19 of the conceptual design, I see that a proposed bike hub is located at the North end of the lot, at the far end of the parking lot away from the building. Bikes should be encouraged to come and park much closer to the building. Can we locate the bike hub adjacent to the building with a dedicated walking/biking path directing bikes to the hub? This way, families can easily access the building by bike, including tourists who rent bikes along the waterfront and may like to stop at the education facility. No one wants to park a bike at the furthest point to walk. People will lock their bikes to railings and sign posts if there are no bike racks close to the building.
I know this is at the conceptual phase, but further questions remain such as who will manage the space and administer programs. Will the city put out an RFP for an educational nonprofit or company to manage the entire building or offer several leases on different spaces in the building? A small cafe/dining area would be nice as well.
I think it's also important that we not get lost in the shininess of tech and VR, when the ocean is right there for viewing. Suggested truly-immersive exhibits would be: boat storage and programs using the hand launch for groups/field trips to take boat trips to the water, native gardens (on the rooftop or deck) with signage and educational activities, and education on the Tongva people who are the original caretakers of the land.
Agenda Item: eComments for N.2. 23-6324 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL
STANDARDS TO REPLACE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
CONSIDERATION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS AND AMEND TITLE 10, CHAPTER 2 (ZONING ORDINANCE) AND TITLE 10, CHAPTER 5 (COASTAL LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE) OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS
Overall Sentiment
Suppor(0%)
Oppose (100%)
Neutral (0%)
No Response 0%]
Brianna Egan
Location:
Submitted At: 7:04pm 07-18-23
I appreciate the city's efforts to update the residential design guidelines to objective residential standards in compliance with state law. I think it's also wise to write objective standards that discourage the building of more single-family homes with monstrous bulk and mass (McMansions) but help to streamline family-sized units in R-2, R-3, and multifamily zones.
With regards to the Planning Commission's implementing ordinances, I disagree with Section 5.9 (prohibit cantilever of second story for front unit in R-2 and R-3 for the width of the driveway). I think this is an arbitrary requirement with no real justification, citing "light, air, and privacy" but no objective grounds on health and safety.
These lots are usually narrow to begin with, and building above driveway space creates additional living space for families. I support Section 5.11 and 5.14 in principle (prohibiting artificial turf). I strongly oppose the "additional recommendation" of Section 6.7 that "buildings in multi-family zoning not cast shadows onto adjacent residential uses on Winter Solstice." This is an impossible requirement that effectively bans new multi-family buildings and will set the city up for scrutiny by HCD and the state Attorney General.
Looking at the Draft ORS document, I oppose the standards on the R-2 and R-3 and Multi-family sections that state that "projects located on a site larger than 10,000 sq ft shall include more than one primary building...so as to appear as a set of smaller-scaled structures." This is an arbitrary requirement that could have unintended consequences. I find multi-family buildings that are one continuous building to be much more visually appealing than buildings that have various facades and setbacks (think: brownstones in NYC vs the One South development on PCH). As long as building codes are met, we should allow architects to design beautiful buildings. The standards for multi-family could also legalize point access block or single-staircase buildings that allow for daylight and cross-ventilation on both sides of a unit.
Mark Nelson
Location:
Submitted At: 7:59pm 07-13-23
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Recently Councilmember Lowenstein was forced to appeal a multifamily monstrosity on Catalina. Once the strongest protections the RDGs are gutted the developers will hold all the cards. The simple fact that the Planning Department couldn't find objective standards that codify the important subjective standards in the existing RDGs should not be carte blanche to damage residents and property owners.
The revised Residential Design Guidelines remove many strong protections that existing property owners deserve. Single family and other existing residential is now at risk from excessive multifamily that will not be required to be compatible with the existing neighborhood, its character, or visual style. Please reject the May 2023 revision and direct the Planning Commission to return the following strong protections to any revision:
(This is a 3 column table - sadly - granicus can't handle it) COL#1CURRENT PROTECTION COL#2Page Number in RDGs COL#3 STATUS IN REVISION "...ensuring that new homes or additions to existing homes are of high architectural quality; are compatible in mass, scale, and other design features with surrounding development; and preserve and contribute to the unique character of established neighborhoods" pg 1 Status: Removed "All new multi-family developments should be compatible with the character of the neighborhood." 37 Removed "New multi-family residential development should respect the development in the immediate area" 37 Removed "avoid overwhelming building scale and visual obstructions" 37 Removed "Appropriate building siting should be used to reduce the perception of bulk" 37 Removed The property owners of Redondo Beach deserve better than tall, commercial, multifamily buildings destroying neighborhood privacy, consistency, and character.
Thank you.