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
October 17, 2023
• Email from Grace Peng
• Letter from Grace Peng-ADU’s in Coastal Zone
• Email from Xavier Alexis Rivas
• Letter from Xavier Alexis Rivas-ORD 3264-23
• Letter from Xavier Alexis Rivas-ORD 3265-23
• Email from Lexi Kopan
• Letter from Lexi Kopan – ORD 3264-23 and 3265-23
• ADU ORD CEQA Exemption Declaration
• Dean Skinner Email 10.12.23
• Dean Skinner Letter to the Council-1921 Vanderbilt Lane • 1921 Vanderbilt Lane-Plans
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
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES CONSISTENT WITH
STATE LAW AND CONSIDERATION OF A CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CEQA GUIDELINES
CONTACT: SEAN SCULLY, ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Grace Peng
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 8:19 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Bill Brand <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>
Subject: RB coastal ADU ordinance
CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Can you please share my comment letter with the appropriate city staff in planning? thank-you,
Grace Peng
16 October 2023
Honorable Bill Brand
Mayor, Redondo Beach
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Re: L2, Coastal ADU ordinance 3265-23
Dear Honorable Mayor Brand, City Council Members, and Staff, I downloaded the Agenda Packet at 15:30 on October 16, 2023 and my pages refer to that version of the Agenda Packet. The draft ordinance begins on page 1088 on this version.
I realize that state housing law is a fast-moving target and want to thank the city staff for their work complying with new laws.
I would like the city to strike out section 4.e.1,
The accessory dwelling unit shall use similar exterior siding materials, colors, window types, door and window trims, roofing materials, and roof pitch as the primary dwelling.
This unnecessarily constrains the use of modern and currently-available materials, which may be more energy efficient, safer or more economical. Regulating roof pitch can also limit design options and usable interior space, which could violate SB 9.
I am confused by sections 4.e.2 and 4.3.5 and would like them removed.
If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to a primary dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit shall have an entrance separate from the primary dwelling located so that it is not visible from a public street, where feasible.
For accessory dwelling units attached to a single-family primary dwelling unit, new entrances and exits are allowed on the side and rear of the structures only.
In the objective design standards, the city regulated R2/R2 doors so that their doors must face the sidewalk based on the rationale that it would foster a stronger “community”. Are residents of ADUs not also part of our community? Why should their doors and presence be hidden from public view?
When my parents first moved to the USA for grad school, and my in-laws married in post-WWII Sweden, they lived in attic ADU conversions with doors facing the street. There is nothing wrong with living in an ADU and ADUs doors are not a blight on the community that must be hidden.
Our city declared a Climate Emergency, but we seem obsessed with accommodating cars. There is a whole body of research that has proven that the best way to induce people to drive is to provide more car lanes and easy parking. No one wants more car traffic so let's stop inviting cars with parking mandates. California Air Resources Board requires us to reduce VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per capita by 25% from 2019 levels by 2030 and 30% by 20451.
Furthermore, people who have access to on-site parking buy more cars2. In the San Francisco affordable housing lottery case, people who previously didn’t own cars but won a lottery for an apartment with “free” parking purchased cars while people who won a lottery for apartments without parking remained carless.
I recognize that the California Coastal Commission constrains what we can do with respect to parking in the coastal zone. But they have recently been very flexible about parking adjustments that do not negatively impact coastal access3,4. For instance, they allowed Laguna Beach to swap out up to half of a development’s full-size car parking spots for compact ones and another 10% for bicycle or motorcycle/moped parking5.
Let’s be similarly flexible. Let’s allow golf-cart sized parking spaces to satisfy coastal ADU parking minimums on a 1:1 basis and 2-4 motorcycle/moped/bike parking spaces replace one car parking space. Let multi-generation households share cars, golf carts and eBikes/eTrikes as befits their daily journeys.
Thank-you,
Grace Peng, PhD
5 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2012/9/W22a-9-2012.pdf 4 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2023/9/Th14a/Th14a-9-2023-addendum.pdf 3 https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/lcp/DOCS/AB%202097%20in%20the%20Coastal%20Zone%20 Memo FINAL.pdf
2 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098021995139?journalCode=usja 1 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp.pdf page 72
10/16/2023
Honorable Mayor Bill Brand
Redondo Beach City Hall
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
RE: ORDINANCE NO. 3264-23 AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 2 ADU REGULATIONS INLAND (PAGE NO 11)
Dear Honorable Mayor Brand, City Council Members, and City Staff, I am writing to express my concerns about specific sections of Ordinance No. 3264-23, on Page 11, which pertain to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). I believe that certain requirements in the ordinance unnecessarily restrict design flexibility and increase costs. Specifically, I request that you strike the following section:
Section e 1 on Pg 11: "The accessory dwelling unit shall use similar exterior siding materials, colors, window types, door and window trims, roofing materials, and roof pitch as the primary dwelling."
This requirement, although well-intentioned, imposes inherently subjective design constraints that creates uncertainty in the design process, and can significantly increase the cost of construction. It also limits the ability to innovate and apply modern design principles, which could otherwise enhance the aesthetic and functional value of ADUs. Sometimes the best way to pair an ADU with a home, is to build something unique that contrasts and complements it.
Similar is not always desired.
Similarly, I suggest that this section be struck from the ordinance to allow for greater design flexibility and cost-effectiveness.
Section e 2 on Pg 11: "If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to a primary dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit shall have an entrance separate from the primary dwelling located so that it is not visible from a public street, where feasible." While I understand the intent behind this requirement is likely to maintain the visual integrity of neighborhoods, I believe it imposes unnecessary limitations on design and could even compromise the safety and accessibility of the ADU. A street facing entrance may be the safest, most convenient solution in many cases.
I urge you to consider these two simple amendments to Ordinance No. 3264-23. I believe that doing so would make the development of ADUs in Redondo Beach more feasible, affordable, and aligned with modern architectural and urban planning practices. I am available for further discussion on this matter and would be happy to provide additional insights if desired.
Generally, I would also encourage you to promote the construction of ADUs in Redondo Beach, and allow for maximum design flexibility.
I'm confident many of my fellow homeowners share my views. I hope that you consider my recommendations, and I would be happy to continue the conversation or provide further detail.
Thank you for your time and dedication to our city.
Sincerely,
Xavier Alexis Rivas
Redondo Beach Resident
10/16/2023
Honorable Mayor Bill Brand
Redondo Beach City Hall
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
RE: ORDINANCE NO. 3265-23 AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 5 ADU REGULATIONS COASTAL (PAGE NO 18)
Dear Honorable Mayor Brand, City Council Members, and City Staff, My name is Xavier Alexis Rivas and I’m a homeowner and resident of Redondo Beach. I moved here last year and love it here. I also have a degree in architecture from The Cooper Union in New York City, where I received a full-tuition merit scholarship, and my work has been featured in over 20 publications including the LA Times, Forbes, Dwell, Bloomberg, and Architectural digest.
I support ADUs in Redondo Beach. They provide financial flexibility to households, add much needed entry-level housing supply to our neighborhoods, and provide the perfect setup for multigenerational living. While I do not yet have an ADU in my backyard, I do plan to build one in the future.
I am writing to express my concerns about specific sections of Ordinance No. 3265-23, particularly those found on Page 18, which pertain to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). I believe that certain requirements in the ordinance unnecessarily restrict design flexibility and increase costs. Specifically, I request that you strike the following section:
Section e 1 on Pg 18: "The accessory dwelling unit shall use similar exterior siding materials, colors, window types, door and window trims, roofing materials, and roof pitch as the primary dwelling."
This requirement, although well-intentioned, imposes inherently subjective design constraints that creates uncertainty in the design process, and can significantly increase the cost of construction. It also limits the ability to innovate and apply modern design principles, which could otherwise enhance the aesthetic and functional value of ADUs. Sometimes the best way to pair an ADU with a home, is to build something unique that contrasts and complements it.
Similar is not always desired.
Similarly, I suggest that this section be struck from the ordinance to allow for greater design flexibility and cost-effectiveness.
Section e 2 on Pg 18: "If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to a primary dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit shall have an entrance separate from the primary dwelling located so that it is not visible from a public street, where feasible." While I understand the intent behind this requirement is likely to maintain the visual integrity of neighborhoods, I believe it imposes unnecessary limitations on design and could even compromise the safety and accessibility of the ADU. A street facing entrance may be the safest, most convenient solution in many cases.
I urge you to consider these two simple amendments to Ordinance No. 3265-23. I believe that doing so would make the development of ADUs in Redondo Beach more feasible, affordable, and aligned with modern architectural and urban planning practices. I am available for further discussion on this matter and would be happy to provide additional insights if desired.
Generally, I would also encourage you to promote the construction of ADUs in Redondo Beach, and allow for maximum design flexibility.
I'm confident many of my fellow homeowners share my views. I hope that you consider my recommendations, and I would be happy to continue the conversation or provide further detail.
Thank you for your time and dedication to our city.
Sincerely,
Xavier Alexis Rivas
Redondo Beach Resident
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Lexi Kopan
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 11:59 PM
To: CityClerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Zein Obagi <[email protected]>; Scott Behrendt <[email protected]>; Paige Kaluderovic <[email protected]>; Nils Nehrenheim <[email protected]>; Todd Loewenstein <[email protected]>; Bill Brand <[email protected]> Subject: Comments re: ORDINANCE NO. 3264-23 AND 3265-23 CAUTION: Email is from an external source; Stop, Look, and Think before opening attachments or links.
Hello,
Please pass the attached letter to the appropriate city staff and councilmembers for review and inclusion in tomorrow's meeting.
Thank you,
Lexi Kopan
October 16, 2023
TO:
City Council
Redondo Beach City Hall
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
REGARDING:
ORDINANCE NO. 3264-23 AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 2 ADU REGULATIONS INLAND
AND
ORDINANCE NO. 3265-23 AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 5 ADU REGULATIONS
COASTAL
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Staff,
I’m a resident and homeowner in Redondo Beach, and am concerned with the subjective and restrictive design restrictions the draft ordinance would place on ADUs. I believe these restrictions financially harm homeowners, and place unnecessary burdens on the design. I also believe both are subjective, and may not be in compliance with state law.
I request that you strike the following restrictions from both ordinances:
"The accessory dwelling unit shall use similar exterior siding materials, colors, window types, door and window trims, roofing materials, and roof pitch as the primary dwelling." "If the accessory dwelling unit is attached to a primary dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit shall have an entrance separate from the primary dwelling located so that it is not visible from a public street, where feasible."
Sincerely,
Lexi Kopan
1 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH
EXEMPTION DECLARATION
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
DATE: October 17, 2023
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide: Single-family and multi-family residential zones.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Consideration 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 Ordinance pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Residential Zones consistent with State Law.
In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 10, Section 10-3.301(b) and (c) of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code, the above-referenced project is Statutorily exempt and exempt by the general rule from the preparation of environmental review documents pursuant to the following:
The amendments to the City’s ADU and JADU ordinance are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as provided by Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 because it implements the provisions of Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. Furthermore, the adoption of an ordinance to implement state law will not result in direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2)) and the activity is not considered a project under CEQA and therefore qualifies for the general rule exemption under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The residentially zoned properties subject to the proposed Ordinances are neither located within an area designated as an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern, nor within an officially designated, state scenic highway, nor within a hazardous waste site included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The project is not a successive project in the same place that may have a cumulative impact over time nor will the project have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
Sean Scully,
Acting Community Development Director
To the Council, 10/12/23
I am writing in regard to the property my client, Ebrahim Soltani, owns located at 1921 Vanderbilt Lane. I met with planning and we reviewed the Vanderbilt plan and guidelines for proposed ADU's. We discussed the owner-occupied rule for a JADU as well as the rule of converting ADU's from non-living space only, ultimately removing offstreet parking from an already congested area. We are aware of the state regulations regarding the conversion space and that the jurisdiction has the authority to adjust the requirements.
With regards to our project, we believe our proposed plan is a win-win for both the property owner and the city as well as the neighborhood. With our proposal the property owner gets his ADU and we keep the existing EIGHT (8) off-street parking spaces and the city gets another lower rent unit as the ADU is a one bedroom unit.
The alternative, according to city rules, is to take garage space and create the ADU and remove three (3) off-street parking spaces. This just doesn't make sense as the neighborhood already has a congested parking environment.
The property to the east,1923 Vanderbilt Lane, has just completed an approved renovation that added 3 more units to an existing five-unit apartment. They were approved to remove all 6 of the covered parking spaces and convert the area to living space. Upon completion, the property has 8 units and only 3 off-street parking spaces.
With our proposal we intend to keep all 8 of the existing off-street parking spaces and provide only 1 additional unit. We believe this is a win for the city, neighborhood, and property owner.
It is our hope that the council will review this and make a future adjustment to the requirements if a property owner takes into consideration the impact on the neighborhood when planning an improvement to their property.
We would request that you review this at your meeting on October 17, 2023 and consider amending the current ADU guidelines to something that makes more sense and would benefit all involved.
We would appreciate any discussion and/or consideration.
Regards,
Dean Skinner
Ebrahim Soltani