Those two philosophies are dynamically opposed. One is akin to the City morphing into one big HOA the other an invitation to conflict and stress. What is needed is compromise: less dictatorial rules on one hand and acceptance of restriction on the other one. A shared vision of what individual neighborhoods look like and how they are likely to be developed in the near future.
There is a house under construction at 608 AVE D (See attached photos). This tear down/ rebuild exemplifies your dilemma as to how our City should be developed. This project is on a 50' X 100' lot. NEW CONSTRUCTION: Is a two story w/ basement; an ADU in rear (S/E corner); no garage; a roof top deck and a backyard pool is planned. The family that commission this residence consists of two adults and several school age children. At some point those children will matriculate to adolescence and start driving. By eliminating the garage & driveway requirements, the City of Redondo Beach can't help but create an increase in the neighborhood's street parking vehicle census. Already scarce parking becomes even more difficult and a neighborhood problem.
This particular housing track south of alley to the north of the structures on the north side of AVE D was developed ca 1952. The structures reflect the social needs and wants of the time.
Two and three bedroom homes with garages in the rear and driveways / curb cuts adjacent every other home. Times have changed. for that model of suburbia. The human dynamic attached to ownership of single family residences (SFR) hasn't. Our infrastructure and topography hasn't and won't (unless of course the BIG ONE hits SoCal).
As you can see from the attached pictures, set backs, light and the compactness of a structure like this has conflict written all over it.
I urge the City Council to proceed slowly and do more outreach from the citizens of Redondo Beach.
I think the Planning Commission has produced a workable and acceptable set of design criteria. As representative as they are of our community, it is the electorate that is (or should be) your guiding light .
As important an issue as this is, in my perfect world, it would be decided by referendum and not my five individuals of differing constituencies.
Just one man's opinion,
Good luck with you're collaboration efforts.
Joe Dawidziak
From: Holly Osborne
To: CityClerk
Subject: Agenda items for August 15 on Residential Req.
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5:17:07 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Subject: Agenda item on Guidelines for August 15
Good evening Mr Mayor and city council.
This is Holly Osborne, District 5.
I live in the R1 TRW tract, which you have apparently decided has no character.
Whether you think it has character of not, is open to debate.
But what it does have is rather different lot size layouts than some of the other R1 districts. For example, in District 2 there are a lot of narrow but deep R1 lots: I estimate 40 ft by 140 or 145 ft, for example. In District 5, they may be 50x110 or 55x110.
R1 areas in District 2, near Paulina R1 areas in district 5, (50 x 110, or 55 x110) (40x140?)
I think the different R1 areas, whether they have "character" or not, should have different rules for building in the different districts..
Regarding side setbacks: In a narrow lot area, such as District 2, it probably does not make sense to have side "wedding cake" set backs for the second floor. There would not be any space left to build.
If the lots are wider as in District 5, it may make sense, or it may not. In District 5 a majority of the houses are laid out as "driveway, house, driveway, house, etc. " There is a requirement for all R1, that side-setbacks be 5 ft from the property line. The fact that most houses in the TRW tract are laid out this "house/driveway" way means that the "de facto" setback on one side of your house is 9 or 10 ft, not 5 ft; and so the distance to your neighbor is 15 ft. . (i.e. 5 ft of his setback, plus the width of your driveway.) If your neighbors have the same layout, you are separated from your neighbor by 15 ft on both sides, I think that this "de facto" setback is one aspect of our neighborhood that really makes it desirable, because it increases privacy. (We think it makes good character!)
Some people, when expanding their house to two stories kept this basic layout, and thus the privacy.
Here is an example of a perfectly fine, no "wedding cake" design, that kept the footprint:
Notice it is perfectly flat on the side (no cake.). And also, no unnecessary infringement on neighbor.
Now here is an example of a house that did NOT keep its footprint: It did not keep its driveway. It built to the max on both sides.
It is also flat on both sides.
Here is a picture showing what had been its driveway side, and neighbors house, BEFORE the neighbor built up:
Yes indeed, the new house has a flat side; it has nice BIG windows on the side upper floor.
Then the neighbor built up, BUT HE HAD NO PLACE TO PUT HIS OWN WINDOWS. So he put up miniwindows: (no picture on zillow.) If the first guy had either kept the front footprint width OR had a second floor set back, then this second guy would not have had as severe light, air and privacy impacts.
If one developer were doing BOTH lots, he or she would be a little more respectful of the two lots, because he wants to sell them both. In some cases, however, it seems that if a developer has just one lot, he is in a frenzy to build his side up, and take the window space first, to shaft the neighbor.
THIS IS WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS TRYING TO PROTECT AGAINST, with its setbacks, and window specs.
I am sure there are at least a few brilliant architects in the room who know how to be a good neighbor and make money at the same time. If so, will you go out in the lobby, and come back with a reasonable spec on setbacks, and windows and lot sizes in 15 minutes.
Thank you.
Holly Osborne
Down oad ull e ol t on imag s
Ava ab e unt l S p 4 2023
@
m M
M V
ub c W N N m m m
e W M
See a ta hed
om Ma y we l <ma yewe l@ve zon ne >
Sent Tue day A gust 15 2023 4 37 M
To lea o Ma zano <E eano Manza o@ edondo o g> Sco t Beh ndt <Sc tt Beh endt@ e ondo o g> odd lowen te n@ eondo o g < odd lowen te n@ edondo o g> N ls Neh enhe m <N ls Neh enhe m@ ed ndo o g> ai e K lude ov c < a ge Ka ude o i @ dondo o g> Ze n Oba i <Ze n Ob gi@ e ondo o g> i l B nd Bi l B and@ edondo o > Sub ect w a k o p va y on No th s de o house at 402 No th uc a ome p c ta en om bath oom w ndow Th s house has no ya d 2 ove h ng ng al oni s o t and back o l ck o a ya d hou eho d ids p ay n he al ey beh nd the hou e- t gh ! CAUT ON Ema s om an ex e a sou e S op Look nd Think be o e open ng a chm n s o nks - -- o wa ed Me sage -- -
m hapm w l @ ma l om <c apm ewe @gma l c m>
T " " >
e ue day Au ust 5 2023 at 04 7 36 M D
e ack o p vacy on No th s de o h use at 402 No th u ia some ic aken om bath oom wi dow h s house has no ya d 2 o e hang ng ba co ies nt and back o ack o a ya d ouseh ld k ds p ay in he a ley be ind he hous - t gh ! On s uth s de s ve ui t y l ow house wh ch ove sh dowed the # 402 one s o y ouse t ki g w y mo t o s uth s de sun hi e an a tempt t p va y w s ma e w he boug in i ea pl nt aga n t the e pense o un i ht he el ow hou e h s a sw mm ng po l t at t kes up a l t e a d sp ce he al ey co ido beh nd th se 3 h uses a p t e n epea ed u he down he st eet o the no h o ig na house dwa d y 2 a e 2 s o y ouses l nk ng the o ig nal w th b lc ny ove hangs on he no h s de
Sent om my i one
From: Nils Nehrenheim
To: CityClerk
Cc:
Subject: FW: Planning Commission Guidelines
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5:46:10 PM
Thanks!
-Nils
(424) 374-7168
All communications are accessible via Public Records Act requests From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5:42 PM
To: Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>
Cc: Gary Gordon <[email protected]>
Subject: Planning Commission Guidelines
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi Nils,
We want to voice our support for the Planning Commissions recommendations for Objective Residential Design Standards and Guidelines, and to restore their recommendations that were “gutted” by the two new councilmembers. We are not in favor of the proposed unrestricted “Mansionization” as put forth by developers and these two councilmembers.
Gary & Mary Gordon
From: Nils Nehrenheim
To: CityClerk
Subject: FW: This is new construction looking into my bedroom Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 4:03:39 PM
-Nils
(424) 374-7168
All communications are accessible via Public Records Act requests From: Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:39 PM
To: Melanie Cohen
Cc: Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: This is new construction looking into my bedroom CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Please use my City email, [email protected]
Thanks!
-Nils
On 8/15/2023 1:36 PM, Melanie Cohen wrote:
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
--
-Nils Nehrenheim
All City of Redondo Beach related requests please use:
[email protected]
All City of RB items are accessible via Public Records Act Requests and follows a strict 30-day retention policy
From: Nils Nehrenheim
To: CityClerk
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 4:03:55 PM
For the public hearing
-Nils
(424) 374-7168
All communications are accessible via Public Records Act requests From: Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 1:35 PM
To: Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: 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.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:This was the roofline of the house behind/then new contruction. Looks into my bedroom and kitchen. How is this reserving the neighborhood?
Date:Tue, 15 Aug 2023 13:23:30 -0700
From:Melanie Cohen
To:Eleanor Manzano <[email protected]>, nils nehrenheim@gmail. com <[email protected]>, Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>, [email protected]
From: Mark Nelson (Home Gmail)
To: CityClerk; Todd Loewenstein; Nils Nehrenheim; Zein Obagi; Bill Brand; Paige Kaluderovic; Scott Behrendt Cc: Garth Meyer; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kevin Cody; Lisa Jacobs Subject: Re: Public Comment for Tuesday Redondo Beach Council Meeting - RDGs Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:02:21 PM
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Codifying aggressive standards won't break state law. During the approval phase, if they cannot do the work and the City Attorney's opinion is that some constraint has to give, then do what you need to do. But don't negotiate against property owners, voters, and taxpayers with the flawed work product you have right now.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 1:42 AM Mark Nelson (Home Gmail) <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
From: Nils Nehrenheim
To: ERICK BAER
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: RE: Support of Planning Commission Recommendations for Objective Design Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5:47:06 PM
Thank you!
-Nils
(424) 374-7168
All communications are accessible via Public Records Act requests -----Original Message-----
From: ERICK BAER <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 5:06 PM
To: Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Support of Planning Commission Recommendations for Objective Design CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Nils,
I can’t make tonight’s meeting so I am emailing you & your fellow Council members that I and my neighbors want the Planning Commission Recommendations adopted!!
Thank you,
Erick Baer
Sent from my iPhone
From: gerryjim
To: CityClerk
Subject: Residential Design Guidelines for the city meeting on 8-15-23.
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:20:00 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hi,
We live at
Residential guidelines are very important. Especially setbacks. Privacy is of the utmost importance, since we don't want to live in a dwelling where the neighbor can look into our bedroom or bathroom, or even living room.
Controling the height of new developments is important to us. Two stories tops.
McMansions are not what should be built in a world where climate chang is being accelerated by human behavior. McMansions use more energy than our world should be allowing individual dwellings.
Gerald Orcholski
Jim Phillips