From: Amir Dori
Fame Civil Engineers
608 Meyer Lane Suite 205
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
(310) 318-5828
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