L.1- Blue Folder.pdf — Redondo Beach City Council, August 15, 2023

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
August 15, 2023
• ORS Presentation City Council 2023-08-15
• Comment #1-RDG Revision
• Comment #2-Mark Nelson
• Comment #3 Mark Nelson-RDG
• Email from Courtney Welch
• OBJ Letter from Courtney Welch
• Email from BCHD
• Comment & Photo from Melanie Cohen
• Comment & Photo #2 from Melanie Cohen
• Comment & Photo #3 from Melanie Cohen
• Email from Nancy Skiba
• Photo’s from Nancy Skiba
• Yimby Law Letter-Keith Diggs
• Email from Keith Diggs
• Email from Grace Peng
• Letter from Grace Peng
L.1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF

ORDINANCES TO AMEND THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (RBMC) TITLE 10 CHAPTER 2 ZONING AND LAND USE AND TITLE 10 CHAPTER 5

COASTAL LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO

ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN

REVIEW IN COMPLIANCE WITH OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS AND

CONSIDERATION OF A CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH THE CEQA GUIDELINES
CONTACT: BRANDY FORBES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Redondo Beach
Objective Residential
Standards
City Council Public Hearing
August 15, 2023
Goals for Tonight
• Public Hearing on resolution to adopt Objective Residential Standards and introduction of ordinances for implementation
• Presentation on how the Residential Design Guidelines have transformed to Objective Residential Standards
• Discussion of revisions to Objective Residential Standards document based on July 18, 2023 direction
• Public testimony
• For consideration:
• Inland ordinance for introduction to implement ORS
• Coastal ordinance for introduction to implement ORS
• Resolution to forward coastal ordinance to Coastal Commission • Resolution for adoption of ORS 2
Why Update our Residential Guidelines?
• City Council Strategic Plan identified a need to update Residential Design Guidelines (last updated in 2003).
• Funding from Senate Bill 2 (SB2) Planning Grants Program • For California cities and counties to prepare, adopt, and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production.
• City Council hired Consultant Cityworks Design to update the City’s Residential Design Guidelines, with input from a Focus Group, Planning Commission, Community Workshops and online survey.
• Senate Bill 330 (SB330) adopted in 2019 restricts any development requirements adopted after January 1, 2020 to be objective, quantifiable, and written development standards.
3 Overall Goal for ORS
To streamline the residential application process and
achieve compatible development through objective
building and landscaping standards
Proposed to be achieved by…
• Replacing the 2003 Residential Design Guidelines with Objective Residential Standards (turning subjective into objective) • Adding Standards for R-1A Zone
• Eliminating confusion and uncertainty of existing guidelines • Clarifying Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance
4 Process to Date
5 July – Nov 2021 Background/Existing Conditions Research, Content Development for Initial Engagement Events
December 2021 Focus Group #1 and Planning Commission #1 Early - Mid 2022 Community Meeting #1, Public Survey, Prepare Draft ORS Fall 2022 - Spring 2023 Planning Commission Subcommittee Input January - March 2023 ORS Public Draft and FAQs Released, Input on Public Draft March 2023 Focus Group #2, Joint Planning Commission #2 and Community Meeting #2
May 18, 2023 Planning Commission #3
May - June 2023 Staff Prepared Zoning Amendments
June 15, 2023 Planning Commission #4 - recommendations to City Council on Zoning Amendments and Final Draft ORS
July 18, 2023 City Council discussion and input on draft August - Sept 2023 City Council / Public Hearing: Zoning Amendments and Adopting ORS Note: Schedule is driven by SB2 Grant
“involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal.”
Government Code Sections 65913.4 and 66300(a)(7)
Using straight-forward criteria that aim to reflect existing character of neighborhood so new buildings are compatible with old buildings What are “Objective” Standards?
6 How Standards differ from Guidelines
Enforceability
• Use of “shall” or “must” – indicates “REQUIRED”
• Use of “should” or “may” – indicates “RECOMMENDED”
7 EXAMPLE 1: Existing Guideline for Roof Deck Location (R-1) • Should be stepped back from the building edge above the second floor; • Should be oriented away from neighbors’ yards as much as possible; Proposed Standard
• A roof deck shall be set back at least 10 feet from the required first story setbacks on all sides.

EXAMPLE 2: Existing Guideline for Multi-Family Landscaping • Landscaping shall emphasize water-efficient plants.

Proposed Standard
• Multi-Family landscaped areas shall include drought tolerant live plants in 75% of the area.

Outline of Objective Residential Standards
8 • SECTION I: Introduction
• SECTION II: Standards Applicable to All Residential Districts • SECTION III: R-1 Single Family Zoning District Standards • SECTION IV: R-1A Single Family Zoning District Standards • SECTION V: R-2 and R-3 Multi-Family Zoning District
Standards
• SECTION VI: RMD and RH Multi-Family Zoning District
Standards
• SECTION VII: R-1 Character Area Design Guidelines
• SECTION VIII: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Council Direction on Draft ORS Document at July
18th Meeting
9 ITEMS REMOVED FROM DRAFT ORS DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER STUDY:
• Second story additional rear and front setbacks (R-1) • Second story additional side setbacks (R-1)
• Setbacks for neighborhood (R-2 & R-3, RMD & RH)
• Variation upper story setbacks (R-2 & R-3)
• Mezzanine setbacks (R-1, R-1A, R-2 & R-3, RMD & RH)
• Restricting balcony access from a mezzanine (R-1, R-1A) • Restricting balcony on side of dwelling (R-1, R-1A)
• Roof deck setbacks (R-1, R-1A, R-2 & R-3, RMD & RH)
• Restricting stairs/elevators to roof decks (R-1, R-1A) • Private Open Space (duplicative of zoning code) (R-2 & R-3, RMD & RH) • Balconies open to sky requirement (R-2 & R-3, RMD & RH) ITEMS REMOVED FROM DRAFT ORS DOCUMENT WITH NO FURTHER STUDY:
• Second story window placement (R-1, R-1A, R-2 & R-3, RMD & RH) • Comparison drawing requirement (R-1, R-1A, R-2 & R-3, RMD & RH) • Removed TRW and Firmona South as character areas
Council Direction on Planning Commission
Recommendations at July 18th Meeting
10 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL ADDED TO ORS DOCUMENT:
• For permeable surfaces, artificial turf is not permitted. • For irrigation, also allow a bubbler system as an alternative to the drip system option, as recommended by the water district.
• Add green roofs, bioswales, and greywater capture systems in the point systems in the Landscaping Matrices.
• Specify no artificial plants or artificial turf in parkways. • Revisit whether to limit the building materials for modular construction to add composites or other materials, or consider eliminating this standard that is limiting the materials.
• Add definition of MWELO requirements in ORS to the “Applicability” description of the Front Yard Permeability and Landscaping.
• Add rain sensor monitor as another option for irrigation system in the point systems in the Landscaping Matrices.

Council Direction on Planning Commission
Recommendations at July 18th Meeting (Cont.)
11 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL REQUESTED TO FURTHER STUDY:
• To objectify the requirement that R-2 and R-3 multifamily have the appearance of a single family residence, consider the garage of the front unit (R-2, R-3) shall be located at the “rear” of the front unit (not visible from the street). • Consider adding objective standards in the R-1 Standards section for the Faye & Susana character area regarding pitched roof parallel to the street; garages set forward shall have a pitched roof
• A single peak roof ridge required parallel to the street/front property line. • If the garage is set forward of the main structure then the roof shall be pitched (Define “pitched”)
• Consider streamlining or reconciling the definition of “story” and the determination of “basement” gross floor area included in the FAR to be the same, utilizing whichever measurement is more restrictive.
• Consider swimming pool setbacks of a minimum of 3’ from the property lines.

Remaining Planning Commission
Recommendations
12 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS NOT CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL:

The following Planning Commission recommendations were not addressed in the motion approved by City Council at the July 18, 2023 meeting. As discussed and per the presentation at that meeting, these items would require additional study to determine impacts and require legal analysis to determine if allowable per current state laws. • Eliminate FAR bonuses where that option in the zoning code would now be required in the ORS (e.g., for 2nd story rear and side setbacks). • Consider eliminating all FAR bonuses in the R-1 zones (e.g., side parking and front porch bonuses).
• To provide an objective standard to address the current subjective guidelines regarding “bulk and mass” and “compatible with the neighborhood”, add FAR limits for R-1A, R-2, and R-3 zones. The recommended FAR levels are 0.94 for R-1A zones and 1.14 for R-2 and R-3 zones.
• Add additional objective standard in R2 and R3:
• Only mezzanines open to the first floor shall be permitted in R2 and R3.

Mezzanines open to the second floor are not permitted, to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood character.

Remaining Planning Commission
Recommendations (Cont.)
13 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS NOT CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL (Cont.):
• To meet the general plan and municipal code requirement of light, air, and privacy, prohibit cantilever of second story for front unit in R-2 and R-3 for the width of the driveway, and a maximum overhang over driveway of 2’ for middle units. • Add a standard in RMD and RH multi-family zoning that states that “buildings shall not cast shadows onto adjacent residential uses on Winter Solstice.” • Add additional objective standards in R-1A regarding maximum height flat roof and pitched roof; no mezzanines since these are distinctly different in traditional development in R-1A than in R-1:
• To maintain the compatibility with the established neighborhood character, revise maximum height to 24’ for flat roof designs in R-1A and revise maximum height to 28’ for pitched roof designs in R-1A. Define “flat roof” and “pitched roof.” • Only mezzanines open to the first floor shall be permitted in R-1A. Mezzanines open to the second floor are not permitted, to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood character.
• Add an overall structure height limit on upsloping and side sloping lots to be measured from the property line at the street level.

Current Zoning Code references “intent” of Residential Design Guidelines :
• The project shall be consistent with the intent of residential design guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council.

Revisions proposed to reference “comply” with Objective Residential Standards:
• 10-2.2500 [and 10-5 for coastal] Administrative Design Review. (b) Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in determining a project’s consistency with the intent and purpose of this section:
(7) The project shall comply with the Objective Residential Standards be consistent with the intent of residential design guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council.
• 10-2.2502 [and 10-5 for coastal] Planning Commission Design Review. (b) Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in determining a project’s consistency with the intent and purpose of this section:
(7) Consistency with residential design guidelines. The project shall comply with the Objective Residential Standards be consistent with the intent of residential design guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council.

When to use the new ORS - Implementation
14 City Council Action for Consideration Tonight

1. Open public hearing and take testimony;

2. Close the public hearing and deliberate;

3. Introduce the following two ordinances by title only;

4. Adopt by title only the resolution adopting the Objective Residential Standards; and

5. Adopt by title only the resolution submitting ordinance to the Coastal Commission. 15 INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 3259-23 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 2, ZONING AND LAND USE PERTAINING TO

ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL

STANDARDS AND DETERMINING SUCH AMENDMENTS AS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 3260-23 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 5, COASTAL LAND USE IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE

PERTAINING TO ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH OBJECTIVE

RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS AND DETERMINING SUCH AMENDMENTS AS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. CC-2308-081 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. CC-2308-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA

REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCE (TITLE 10, CHAPTER 5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE)

PERTAINING TO ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW AND PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH OBJECTIVE

RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE CARRIED OUT IN A MANNER FULLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COASTAL ACT; AND PROVIDING THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM

WILL TAKE EFFECT AUTOMATICALLY UPON COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 30514 AND TITLE 14, SECTION 13551 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: PUBLIC COMMENT - CITY COUNCIL - RDG Fwd: Comment #1 - RDG revision Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 11:20:26 AM
Good morning,
We received a few emails related to tonight’s public hearing. Could you please compile these and prepare as a Blue Folder item? I’d offer to help, but with Eleanor out of the office, there are several things that I have to prepare for the meeting tonight.

I have a couple more that emails that I will forward after this one.

Thank you,
Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2023 12:29 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - CITY COUNCIL - RDG Fwd: Comment #1 - RDG revision CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Date: Tue, May 23, 2023 at 8:11 PM
Subject: Comment #1 - RDG revision
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>
Cc: Sheila Lamb <[email protected]>, Gale Hazeltine <[email protected]>, Gwenn Godek <[email protected]>, Douglas Boswell <[email protected]>, Robert Gaddis <[email protected]>, Matthew Hinsley <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Mayor, Council, Planning Commissioners:

Planning states "Guidelines in the 2003 Design Guidelines that cannot be translated into Objective Standards have been removed and the Objective Residential Standards apply." Basically, Planning admits that it simply removed the RDGs that were subjective but functioned effectively for 20 years when it failed to translate those guidelines into objective standards.

The Planning Department has taken the easiest, yet worst performing path for property owners as it attempts to update the prior RDGs. Planning is attempting to develop so-called "objective" guidelines from subjective criteria when convenient. Public comments have been made to use descriptive statistics, statistical distributions, and other objective measures to assure compatibility, common character protection, mass, volume, view block, among other damaging attributes, are avoided in new construction or significant modifications. However, those suggestions were discarded and instead that which was too difficult was jettisoned instead of being retained as subjective.

Just because a task is difficult, doesn't mean it should be ignored. Furthermore, the obvious alternative after failing to develop objective criteria is to leave the subjective ones in force in order to protect other property owners from wholesale development chaos. There is ample time to replace them with objective standards in the future when the work has been completed. For now, the existing standards in those areas are far superior to NO STANDARDS as Planning has proposed.

That approach has also been suggested in comments.

Planning has removed the strongest criteria in the multifamily residential and the results will allow developers, such as the Catalina project, to have their way with surrounding property. That is clearly not the intent of the RDGs, nor it is appropriate for the billions of dollars of existing property to be degraded due to a lack of standards.

Further detailed comments will follow, however, this is the basis of largest defect in the current proposal.
3/23/23
Subject: Brief comments on the proposed Residential Design Guidelines I understand the intent of moving from subjective to objective criteria. I am formally trained in engineering and quantitative methods, so I prefer quantification when possible. At the same time, I recognize that the pornography standard was effectively “I’ll know it when I see it” or “local standards” due to a lack of ability to quantify it.

The RDGs are little different in some respects.

When faced with hard issues, such as, subjective criteria requiring respect of the surrounding properties or avoidance of overwhelming scale, the authors apparently chose not to attempt to quantify – and more problematic – they simply abandoned the subjective with no attempted objective measure. The next page show a number of those cases.

While I can see no reason to move a half baked proposal into operation, if that action is a serious consideration, then I would require that all subjective criteria that were “punted” remain in the subsequent document. They can be removed when they are quantified, but until that time, they need to remain in order to protect both the intent of the RDGs and the public’s very clear intent for protection of character and consistency.

As a first step, the document should be redlined and all subjective criteria that were not specifically quantified should be returned into the RDGs. This document can then be circulated for comment and the team and public can work harder at quantifying.

Typical statistical methods such as means, medians, variances, etc. can you used in many cases to quantify scale, bulk, mass, etc. Respect is a term that is often used in design, such as, respecting nearby neighborhoods and structures. Again, a set of characteristics can be used statistically such as mean volume, mean height, mean FAR, etc. to provide a semblance of objectiveness.

Given the work product that is put forward, I recommend the Planning Commission reject it and send the team back to salvage the many places where subjective consistency in character, respect, and scale were cast away.

Mark Nelson
Retired VP & Director of Planning for SCE and Subsidiaries Expert Witness
Experienced Developer
The new RDGs need some serious work. The document attempts to agenda-set that they heard that neighborhood character is important and needs to be protected. It also implies this new policy does that – BUT IT DOESN’T.

IT SAYS:

But when the rubber meets the road – you could get all sorts of out of character development in neighborhood because the document outright removes compatibility requirements and standards. We go from protections to “NO STANDARD”. This will make appeals and public input MUCH HARDER and damage local character.

Goes from Standards to
NONE for most all
categories – materials, etc.
“respect”
is removed
Overwhelming
scale is now ok
From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: Public Comment for Tuesday Redondo Beach Council Meeting - RDGs Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 11:21:52 AM
Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 1:42 AM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Bill Brand <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>
Cc: Garth Meyer <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody <[email protected]>; Lisa Jacobs <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comment for Tuesday Redondo Beach Council Meeting - RDGs CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Good Evening Mayor and Council:

My name is Mark Nelson, I am a Redondo property owner since about 1990 and a retired development executive with several companies, including Berkshire subsidiaries. In today’s dollars, I have worked on between $5 and $10B in projects. I'm done developing, so I can tell the “developer truth” that the developers and contractors won’t.

Time tonight is short and this is going to be a to-the-point public comment.

The current draft of the RDGs failed in their key objective to protect neighborhood character – despite their self-congratulatory language on Page 2 of the document. The overwhelming property owner protections in the existing RDGs were cast aside. The language the consultant used was “no applicable standard”. I would have preferred a more honest “it was too hard” or “we don’t care.” The required work to create objective standards to protect voters was simply not completed.

It’s not the “shalls” that get developers to donate land, build parks, put in berms, fund your political campaigns, lobby the governor, assembly, senate, state commissions, counties and cities – IT’S NOT THE SHALLS - IT’S THE SHOULDS. And this defective document punted on the SHOULDS. They were too hard.

A decade ago I proposed a $50M project in a coastal city. It was well inside the 4 corners of the "shall" box. The Mayor called for lunch and informed me that city policy (a SHOULD) didn’t want my project. They had a different vision. They denied the project. I appealed. They denied the appeal. I sued.

In the end, the public received a donation of land for a nature preserve, funding to maintain and support it into perpetuity, support for more recycled water, and a host of other concessions that were PURELY DRIVEN BY SHOULDS. My $50M project ended up costing $75M with the recipients of most of that cost increase being the Voters and City.

Whether I walked away from a project the Mayor's policy didn’t want – or – I was forced in massive concessions – THE VOTERS WERE THE WINNERS.

Redondo voters are the losers if this defective document is affirmed. They lose the power, value and optionality of the “SHOULDS” because the consultant created “no applicable standard.” As a former developer no longer in the business funding campaigns and lobbying, I urge the Council to send the document back to Planning Commission to create OBJECTIVE STANDARDS for the most important issues to VOTERS – CHARACTER. Don’t accept the flawed work product of “no applicable standard.”
Let’s DO THE HARD WORK and approve a document that preserves the rights and value that VOTERS deserve. Don't accept "it's too hard" as an excuse. WE CAN DO IT.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: Ordinance No. 23-6324: Objective Residential Standards Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 11:22:22 AM
Attachments: Redondo Beach - Obj. Standards Letter - 2023.08.11.pdf Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Courtney Welch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 3:00 PM
To: Bill Brand <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>
Cc: CityClerk <[email protected]>; City Attorney <[email protected]> Subject: Ordinance No. 23-6324: Objective Residential Standards CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Dear Redondo Beach City Council,
Attached you will find a letter regarding the objective residential standards for your review.

Thank you.
--
Courtney Welch
Investigation and Enforcement Director
California Housing Defense Fund
Aug 15, 2023
City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond St
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
By Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
Re: Ordinance No. 23-6324: Objective Residential Standards Dear City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter, once again, to remind the Council of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when considering the proposed Objective Residential Standards in Ordinance No. 23-6324 (the “proposed standards”), calendared as agenda item L.2. at tonight’s meeting. On July 8th, 2023, CalHDF submitted a letter informing the city that the proposed standards do not adhere to these laws: many of them fail to articulate objective standards. We write again for tonight’s meeting to remind the Council that they must comply with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), and other state housing laws. The proposed updated standards, as currently drafted, do not adhere to these laws: many of them fail to articulate objective standards.

SB 330 bars cities from “[i]mposing or enforcing design standards [...] that are not objective.” (Gov. Code § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(C).) SB 9 allows cities to impose “objective zoning [...] subdivision [...] and [...] design” standards (but not subjective standards) on SB 9 projects. In addition, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) renders non-objective standards unenforceable in most circumstances. (See California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal. App.5th 820, 839-44 (overturning city’s denial of housing project based on design guidelines requiring “a transition or step in height” where a building is more than one story taller than its neighbors on the grounds that it was not objective).) SB 330, SB 9, and the HAA define “objective” as “being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5, 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
[email protected]
subd. (h)(8); Gov. Code § 66300, subd. (a)(7); see also Gov. Code § 65852.21, subd. (i)(2) [similar language]; Gov. Code § 66411.7, subd. (m)(1) [similar language].) Unfortunately, several provisions in Ordinance No. 23-6324 fall short of this requirement.

CalHDF urges the Council to carefully review all the proposed standards for objectivity and specifically points out many egregious examples:
● Section IV.D.5 “Guard Rails”: “The sides of balconies, decks and roof decks facing a neighboring residential use shall be enclosed with a minimum 42-inch high, nontransparent, solid barrier that is designed to be consistent with the overall style of the building.” The phrase “designed to be consistent with the overall style of the building” is not objective. Overall styles are not cleanly defined, and what counts as “consistent” or inconsistent with the building’s style is in the eye of the beholder. An applicant cannot know ex ante and with certainty whether their proposed design will satisfy the ordinance, and thus the ordinance is unenforceable on this point. ● Section V.B.5 “Vehicular/Pedestrian Path Intersections”: “The intersection of pedestrian and automobile circulation paths shall be separate or delineated to highlight the pedestrian path through use of decorative paving or similar materials as approved by the Director.” The phrases “to highlight the pedestrian path” and “decorative paving or similar materials” are not objective. Additionally, requiring material approval from the Director means an applicant cannot know ex ante and with certainty that their proposed design will satisfy the ordinance. ● Section V.C.1 “Architectural Style”: “Each project shall have an architectural style described in the application with supporting photographic examples and design statements written by an Architect. All material selections and design details shall match that style.” This language appears in Section VI.D.1 as well. Compatibility within a style is not an objective standard, as it cannot be applied uniformly. Architectural styles, and their materials and design details, are subjectively defined and therefore cannot be enforced by the City.
● Section V.C.2 “360-Degree Design”: “The project shall have consistent design features or patterns that render it as unique with all elevations designed at the same level of architectural detail and articulation as the front elevation.” This language appears in Section VI.D.4 as well. The phrases “consistent design features or patterns,” “render it as unique,” and “same level of architectural detail and articulation as the front elevation” are not objective. It is not clear what counts as “consistent” or “unique,” and the city might, under this language, reject applications based on subjective aesthetic preferences. That is not allowed.
● Section V.F.2 “Carport Roofs”: “Carport roofs shall be designed to be consistent with the architecture of the primary residential structure. Flat carport roofs shall only be permitted if designed consistently with the primary residential structure (i.e., modern style).” This language appears in Section VI.G.2 as well. The phrase “if designed consistently” is not objective, and what counts as “consistent” or 2 of 4
inconsistent with the building’s style is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, an applicant cannot know ex ante and with certainty whether their proposed design will satisfy the ordinance.
● Section V.F.4 “Gutter/Downspout Color”: “Exposed gutters and downspouts shall be colored to match fascia or wall materials, unless designed to stand out in contrast as part of an overall architectural theme.” This language appears in Section VI.G.4 as well. Architectural themes are not clearly defined, and it is not clear what counts as coloring “to match fascia or wall materials.”
● Section V.I.5 “Tree Planting”: “Young trees shall be securely staked with double stakes.” This language applies in Section VI.J.6 as well. The term “young tree” is not clearly defined, and is therefore not an objective requirement. This section is ambiguous and unenforceable without clarification as to that definition. ● Section VI.B.3 “Pedestrian Paths”: “For projects located near compatible land uses, the Director may require gates and pathways to shorten the walking distance for residents to access these uses.” An applicant must be able to know with certainty whether their proposed design will satisfy the ordinance. Allowing the Planning Director to add discretionary requirements violates SB 9, SB 330, and the HAA. ● Section VI.D.5 “Durable Materials on the Ground Floor”: “Long-lived (higher quality) materials shall be integrated into the first floor elevations. Acceptable materials are stone, brick veneer, architectural tile, or board formed concrete for contemporary/modern styles.” While the explicit acceptable materials to constitute “long-lived” and “higher quality” are objective, architectural styles are not cleanly defined, and cannot be treated individually. The City must draft more specific language before it can impose such rules.
● Section VI.D.8 “Accessory Structures”: “Accessory structures to the primary residential building(s) on the site shall be designed in the same architectural style as the primary buildings(s) in the complex.” Compatibility within a style is not an objective standard, as it cannot be applied uniformly. Architectural styles of primary residential buildings are subjectively defined. This language, similarly found in Section VI.E.2 “Roof Decks” (“Roof decks shall be designed consistently with the building’s architectural style”), is not enforceable by the City.

CalHDF appreciates Redondo Beach’s effort to establish objective residential standards. We remind the City, however, that it must take care to follow the law in doing so. The current proposal needs many revisions before it can be finalized and implemented in accordance with state law. We are re-submitting this letter, as the proposed ordinance has not been amended with these revisions since we submitted it in July.

CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
3 of 4
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
Courtney Welch
CalHDF Director of Investigations and Enforcement
4 of 4
From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: Oppose Flawed Draft of Residential Design Standards Revision Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 11:22:54 AM
Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Stop BCHD <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 4:00 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]> Subject: Oppose Flawed Draft of Residential Design Standards Revision CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

With respect to the proposed and flawed objective design standards, the 50+ local residents continue to oppose their approval. As noted in letters to the Council, Planning Commissioners, and Staff, the ODS fail to capture the intent, policy, or implementations of resident taxpayer protections. While the Council contends that the public was never conferred any rights by the "shoulds" in the prior RDGs, that is very shortsighted. The "shoulds" are frequently used in the process as guidance and in the worst case, as a lever to deny project approval. As a former developer, I have lost years and millions of dollars in litigation against cities to overturn what were defective decisions. In many other cases, I did not move to litigate due to legal advice and cost, and instead, provided concessions. The optionality value of "shoulds" is immense, and the City should not be flushing that taxpayer value down the toilet in an effort to meet an imaginary deadline. This information was repeatedly injected and ignored in the process. I suspect the Consultant was "full speed ahead" to collect their consulting fees. Taxpayers/Property Owners/Voters deserve more than acquiescing to Developers. We deserve strong protections, even if the work is HARD. Difficult objective metrics were not even attempted. This option value was simply ignored.
--
StopBCHD.com ([email protected]) is a Neighborhood Quality-of-Life Community concerned about the quality-of-life, health, and economic damages that BCHDs 110-foot above the street, 800,000 sqft commercial development will inflict for the next 50-100 years. Our neighborhoods have been burdened since 1960 by the failed South Bay Hospital project and have not received the benefit of the voter-approved acute care public hospital since 1984.Yet we still suffer 100% of the damages and we will suffer 100% of the damages of BCHDs proposal.

From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: This was the roofline of the house behind/then new contruction. Looks into my bedroom and kitchen. How is this reserving the neighborhood?
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:52:44 PM
Here’s another….

Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Eleanor Manzano
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:51 PM
To: Melissa Villa <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: This was the roofline of the house behind/then new contruction. Looks into my bedroom and kitchen. How is this reserving the neighborhood? Blue folder...

From: Melanie Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:23 PM
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; nils nehrenheim@gmail. com <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>
Subject: This was the roofline of the house behind/then new contruction. Looks into my bedroom and kitchen. How is this reserving the neighborhood?
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: Dismayed at your impending decision
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:38:39 PM
Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Melanie Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Michael Webb <[email protected]>
Subject: Dismayed at your impending decision
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

As a longtime resident of District 2 I am dismayed and flabbergasted that the Council would DISREGARD the 2+ years of work of the PLANNING Commission's recommendations for residential guidelines. To allow for these ridiculous "mezzanine" structures with ROOFTOP decks is essentially allowing the new construction to supplant height and density restrictions. I forwarded pictures of the the new construction in my neighborhood that shows how the rooftop decks TOWER over the mult unit apartment complex and my nine unit building. Please REVISIT and ACCEPT the NEW building recommendations of the Planning Commission.

Sincerely,
Melanie L Cohen
115 S Guadalupe Ave, H Redondo Beach, CA 90277
From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: This is new construction looking into my bedroom Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:55:01 PM
Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Eleanor Manzano
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Melissa Villa <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: This is new construction looking into my bedroom Blue Folder
From: Melanie Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:36 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>; nils nehrenheim@gmail. com <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]> Subject: This is new construction looking into my bedroom CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

I am NOT a fan of roofdecks at ALL. Tower over all the older units. Please forward emails to other council people. ELEANOR is out of town

Sincerely,
Melanie L Cohen
115 S Guadalupe Ave, H Redondo Beach, CA 90277
From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: Dismayed at your impending decision
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:38:39 PM
Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Melanie Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:34 PM
To: Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; CityClerk <[email protected]>; Michael Webb <[email protected]>
Subject: Dismayed at your impending decision
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Sincerely,
Melanie L Cohen
115 S Guadalupe Ave, H Redondo Beach, CA 90277
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: Big homes on Carnegie in NRB
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:49:35 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Last one…
Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Melinda Lau
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Melissa Villa <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Big homes on Carnegie in NRB
Hi Melissa,
Sorry, I sent them to Laura by mistake! Here are the photos. She said they need to go as a “Blue Folder” item.

Thank you!
Melinda Lau
Project Coordinator
City Clerk’s Office | City of Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street Door 1 | Redondo Beach, CA 90277
310.318.0656 Ext. 3176
[email protected] | www.redondo.org
From: Nancy Skiba <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:42 PM
To: Melinda Lau <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Big homes on Carnegie in NRB
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Complex at 2112 Carnegie and adjoining.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: Big homes on Carnegie in NRB
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:49:35 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Last one…
Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Melinda Lau
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:48 PM
To: Melissa Villa <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Big homes on Carnegie in NRB
Hi Melissa,
Sorry, I sent them to Laura by mistake! Here are the photos. She said they need to go as a “Blue Folder” item.

Complex at 2112 Carnegie and adjoining.

From: Nancy Skiba
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:35 PM
To: Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>
Subject: Big homes on Carnegie in NRB
Windows face windows of bldg north of it. Roofline. Big wide complex on Carnegie. 877 Cedar Street #150 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
August 15, 2023
via email
The City Council of Redondo Beach ([email protected]) Re: No-Net-Loss Implications of Proposed Objective Design Standards (Agenda Item L.1, File No. 23-6477)
Dear Councilmembers:

We write to express concern regarding the City’s proposed Objective Design Standards, as being considered at tonight’s council meeting. These standards likely violate the “no net loss” provision of Gov. Code § 66300, which conditionally prohibits “reduct[ions] in the intensity of land use, including height limits, new open-space requirements, and any other actions that would reduce “residential development capacity.” (Id., subd. (b)(1)(A).) The city’s proposed design standards introduce requirements—apparently new, and for multifamily dwellings only—related to permeable surfaces (ODS, p.57) and open-space mandates (id., p.49). Such requirements may trigger the no net loss law. They hinder residential development by shackling builders’ ability to innovate, making it more difficult for the City to realize its regional housing need allocation.

More generally, design requirements to preserve “neighborhood character” (id., passim) lack any health or safety justification. Character comes from the community, not 92 pages of government red tape. State and county law already ensure the health and safety of new residential construction by, for example, requiring earthquake-resistant designs and taxing nonpermeable surfaces. There is no reason for the City to pile aesthetic mandates on top of these sound policies.

To avoid a no net loss violation, the City must not enact any provisions limiting density that it has not already codified. We call on the City to carefully review its proposed standards to make sure each one is objectifying, rather than adding to, existing design requirements.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs ([email protected])
Attorney, YIMBY Law
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Melissa Villa
To: Latrice Williams; Brandy Forbes
Subject: FW: YIMBY Law comment on Redondo Beach ODS
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:54:21 PM
Attachments: 230815 YL Letter to Redondo Beach.pdf
I’m sorry…they just keep coming in.

Melissa Villa
Ext. 3182
From: Keith Diggs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 2:53 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: YIMBY Law comment on Redondo Beach ODS
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

Hello,
Please find attached a comment from YIMBY Law for tonight's discussion of objective design standards. Best,
Keith Diggs ♂
Attorney
703-409-5198
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Brandy Forbes
To: Latrice Williams
Subject: FW: Comment on ORS
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:23:07 PM
Attachments: Obj Design 20230815.pdf
image001.png
Latrice,
Here is an additional item that just came in for Blue Folder.

Thank you,
Brandy Forbes
Community Development Director
Department of Community Development
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310) 697-3185 Direct
(310) 318-0637 Planning Division
[email protected]
www.redondo.org
From: Grace Peng <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 3:10 PM
To: Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; Brandy Forbes <[email protected]>; Bill Brand <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on ORS
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.

In case this did not make it into the blue folder in time, here are my comments on the objective residential standards, particularly the landscaping requirements.

Grace Peng
15 August 2023
Honorable Bill Brand
Mayor, Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Re: L1, Objective Residential Standards August 2023
Dear Honorable Mayor Brand, City Council Members, and Staff, I have a few more comments on the ORS in the Agenda Packet.

Section V:R-2 and R-3
V.C.5. Building Entries: Doors don’t need to face the street. As long as they are in the front of the house, let people have perpendicular doors if they want it. Mention wind direction.

V.C.5 Articulation rules just drive up costs. We don’t need to tack on more costs, corners and more termite food.

Strike all of the permeability and landscaping section I.

V.I.1: Permeability is good, but how is the fire department going to access from the front to the rear if it’s planted? The plants can block passage. If you don’t plant your side yard, then you have to plant more of your backyard, which leaves no space for patios or children’s play equipment.

People put down artificial turn under children’s play structures.

V.I.2: if water efficiency matters, why plant narrow side yards? V.I.3: current R2/R3 have narrow strips with vines that are not 2’ wide. They help handle runoff from driveways. No need to require a minimum width. Strike this.

V.I.4: Bioswales need to be below road or sidewalk level. Strike this.

V.I.5: This is too vague. Strike this.

V.I.6: In a 700 sf area, it is impractical for a homeowner to have large trees. We don’t need to require any. If people want them, they will plant them.

Landscaping matrix. Just strike it. You can do it later, after more thoughtful consideration of needs and tradeoffs. Eg curvilinear paths just increase hardscaping area and decrease permeability.

The Multi-family design standards need not micromanage design. For instance, I want to show a new multi-family community near my childhood home in San Mateo. Notice that there are no private yards but they open up to a large shared park space. All of the rainwater from parking lots, roads and rooftops are routed to bioswales.

Home open up to a community garden with raised beds.

At the end of the row of raised beds, you can see a pergola with several picnic tables and adjacent BBQs.

Children’s playgrounds are sprinkled throughout the park space.

As you review residential projects, be mindful that you don’t legislate to ban creative, functional and joyful spaces like this.

Grace Peng. PhD

Redondo Beach City CouncilAugust 15, 2023

Redondo Beach City Council
August 15, 2023