[00:00:01]
>> MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
[A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
IT IS FEBRUARY 20TH, AT 6:30.I'D LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
MAY I HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE?
>> COMMISSIONER BOSWELL. COMMISSIONER CRAIG.
>> PRESENT. IT IS NOW TIME TO SALUTE THE FLAG.
MR. CONROY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAD US?
[D. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA]
>> THANK YOU ALL. NOW WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF AGENDA.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF AGENDA?
>>MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA.
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
THE BLUE FOLDER ITEMS ARE ADDITIONAL BACKUP MATERIALS, WHICH WE CALL FOR NOW.
[F. CONSENT CALENDAR]
THEY ARE BACKUP MATERIALS TO ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND OR PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET FOR RECEIVE AND FILE.ARE THERE ANY BLUE FOLDER ITEMS FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING?
>> YES. THERE ARE BLUE FOLDER ITEMS FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
>> MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE BLUE FOLDER ITEMS.
>> MOTION CARRIES. CONSENT CALENDAR.
BUSINESS ITEMS EXCEPT THOSE FORMALLY NOTICED FOR PUBLIC HEARING OR DISCUSSION ARE ASSIGNED TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
THE COMMISSION MEMBERS MAY REQUEST THAT ANY CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS BE REMOVED, DISCUSSED, AND ACT UPON SEPARATELY.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR WILL BE TAKEN UP IN THE EXCLUDED CONSENT CALENDAR SECTION.
THESE ITEMS REMAIN ON THE CALENDAR AND WILL BE APPROVED IN ONE MOTION FOLLOWING ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.
ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION OR THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO PULL ITEMS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HEAR NONE. WE WILL APPROVE ALL THE CONSENT ITEMS IN ONE MOTION.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS.
NEXT UP IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON AGENDA ITEMS. THIS SECTION IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ANY SUBJECT THAT DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION.
THIS SECTION IS LIMITED TO 30 MINUTES.
[J. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION]
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE AFFORDED THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.EACH SPEAKER WILL BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK ONLY ONCE.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON NON AGENDA ITEMS?
I'D JUST LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE UPDATE ON OUR NORTH REDONDO BEACH ACTIVITIES, ESPECIALLY ON ARTESIA BOULEVARD.
I'M WORKING WITH JIM MUELLER AND SANDY ALU ON OUR ARTESIA COMMUNITY PROJECT.
THAT'S ART BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC ARTS GROUP 2.
JIM AND SANDY HAVE SOME GREAT ART PROJECTS UNDERWAY IN INDEPENDENT CINEMA.
WE'RE INVESTIGATING THESE INDEPENDENT CINEMA, SOME ART FAIRS, FARMERS MARKET, JUST TO NAME A FEW.
WE'RE ALSO MEETING WITH DAVE CHARBE NEXT WEEK ON A BID ON ARTESIA.
WE'VE GOTTEN SOME INFORMATION FROM SEVERAL OF THE POLITICIANS HERE AND OTHER PEOPLE, WE'VE TALKED TO MANHATTAN BEACH, DTMB ON HOW THEIR BID RUNS.
WE'RE GATHERING INFORMATION TO FLICK INTO A BID.
I'M A TECH GUY, AND I'VE TOLD YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE MODULES I WANT TO PROVIDE DESIGN ARTESIA, POPULATE ARTESIA, SEE ARTESIA, ACTIVATE ARTESIA.
I JUST WANT TO DIVE INTO THE CORE OF THIS AGAIN FOR A MINUTE.
AT THE NRBBA MEETING LAST WEEK, MAYOR JIM PRESENTED SOME GREAT FINANCIAL DATA ABOUT OUR NEED FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES.
FOR EXAMPLE, HE SAID THE CITY GETS 700% MORE OUT OF COMMERCIAL VERSUS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
I HOPE I'M QUOTING THAT PROPERLY.
PERSONALLY, I'M JUST VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSS OF
[00:05:01]
LOCAL RETAIL AND IT'S MOUNTING WITH CLOSURES LIKE MACY'S, COLES, BIG LOTS.BILLI PONG, DOLLAR TREE, JOANN.
ON AND ON AND ON. I BELIEVE OUR SOCIAL, CIVIC AND ECONOMIC LIVES SUFFER AS THIS GOES ON.
WE HUMANS NEED TO BE OUT AND INTERACTING WITH OURSELVES IN THE REAL WORLD.
MY BUSINESS IS FOCUSED ON A RENEWAL OF LOCAL RETAIL THROUGH WHAT I CALL COMMUNITY COMMERCE. IT'S A NEW CONCEPT.
THE SHORT VERSION IS THAT I WANT TO ELEVATE THE COMMERCE EXPERIENCE BY ENABLING MERCHANTS TO HELP CUSTOMERS ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOALS AND FULFILL NEEDS RATHER THAN JUST BUY PRODUCTS.
I'LL EXPLAIN THIS MORE IN PERSON AND IN TIME.
BUT COMMUNITY COMMERCE SHOULD IMPROVE INVENTORY FORECASTING AND MANAGEMENT FOR MERCHANTS, WHICH MEANS LOWER COSTS, IMPROVE CUSTOMER RELATIONS WITH PERSONAL SERVICE, WHERE MERCHANTS ARE SOLVING PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF SELLING PRODUCTS.
I'M TRYING TO TIP THE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE BACK FROM ONLINE TO LOCAL RETAIL. THAT'S WHAT I'M WORKING ON.
I ALSO MET WITH THE ACTIVE GALLERIA MERCHANT LAST WEEK.
SHE REALLY LIKE THE SEE ARTESIA DEMO MAP, IF YOU'VE SEEN THAT AND WANTS ONE FOR THE GALLERIA, WHICH I HOPE TO PROVIDE, AND SHE AND I BELIEVE COMMUNITY COMMERCE CAN HELP THE GALLERIA AS WELL.
I'M GOING TO TALK TO MICHAEL AND SUSIE WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
MY PLAN IS TO HAVE ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND THE GALLERIA AS THE FLAGSHIP CITES FOR THIS CONCEPT.
JIM AND SANDY HAVE SOME EXCELLENT, MORE PROVEN CONCEPTS TO IMPLEMENT.
LET'S DO THOSE AND ALSO TRY SOMETHING NEW. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.
AS ALWAYS, I WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS OR SUPPORT AT RICK@MTQCORP.COM. THANK YOU.
>> DON'T GO. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION OR A COMMENT, ACTUALLY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT IN ENSURING THAT ARTESIA IS ENLIVENED AND COMES BACK TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY.
JUST IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND REITERATING WHAT JIM AND SANDY, THE CONCEPTS AND WHERE THAT IS AT THIS POINT.
>> WELL, ALL OF IT IS IN AN INVESTIGATION PHASE, INCLUDING THE BID.
BUT JIM'S ACTUALLY A FILMMAKER AND HE'S DONE AN INDEPENDENT FILM, AND HE HAS A FRIEND WHO HAS AN INDEPENDENT FILM THEATER THAT HE BELIEVES AT LEAST WE'RE INVESTIGATING GETTING SOMETHING ON ARTESIA.
LIKE I SAID, WE'RE ALSO INTEGRATING WITH THE HALF A MILLION PUBLIC ARTS PROJECT ON ARTESIA.
WHAT I'M GOING TO TRY TO DO IS GET THE ART INTEGRATED WITH COMMERCE TO LEVERAGE BOTH.
BUT WE'RE INVESTIGATING A FARMERS MARKET UNDER THE POWER LINES.
THAT MIGHT REQUIRE THE BID TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT WE'VE SEEN THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE GOTTEN THAT GOING WITH THE BID, THEN IT ACTUALLY IS A PROFITABLE OPERATION FROM WHAT WE CAN TELL.
SANDY HAS TALKED ABOUT POP UP ART FARES, MAKERS FARES IN PARKING LOTS.
JUST SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. BOSWELL.
>> PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING, EXCEPT I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE LONG FORGOTTEN THAT ARTESIA BOULEVARD IS BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE AS A MAIN STREET.
IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A MAIN STREET.
I THINK THE EFFORTS THAT YOU GUYS ARE MAKING AS HAPPENS WITH A LOT OF THE GRASSROOT ORGANIZATIONS THAT POP UP YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR TO DEAL WITH SITUATIONS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DEALING WITH.
THANK YOU FOR GETTING THAT STARTED.
I SEE NO REASON WHY IT WON'T TURN OUT TO BE AN EXCELLENT WAY TO REVITALIZE ARTESIA BOULEVARD AND TURN IT INTO A TRUE REDONDO BEACH MAIN STREET. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ONLINE?
>> WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ONLINE.
WE DO HAVE ONE E ATTENDEE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. HELLO.
>> HI. THIS IS HOLLY OSBORNE, AND I HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THIS AS CLOSELY AS I WOULD HAVE LIKED. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I'M ASKING SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA OR NOT, BUT I FIRST WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK A MOVIE THEATER ON ARTESIA WOULD BE GREAT.
BUT FROM GOING TO SOME OF THE OTHER MEETINGS THAT I GO TO, THESE ARE FIRE RELATED QUESTIONS AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GET TO THEM OR NOT.
BUT ARE YOU GOING TO BE BOUND? YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER NOW, BUT LATER ABOUT THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS.
THEN THE OTHER THING, I WANTED TO KNOW BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF,
[00:10:04]
IS THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ARE THINKING OF SUSPENDING RENA IN LA COUNTY FOR AREAS THAT WERE AFFECTED BY THE FIRE.WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME ALL LA COUNTY WAS AFFECTED BY THE FIRE.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF ANY OF YOU GUYS WERE AWARE OF THAT, SO I DON'T HAVE TO DO ALL THE RESEARCH ON EVERYTHING.
THANK YOU. I WANT TO WATCH A MOVIE.
>> WE HAVE ONE MORE E ATTENDEE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
>> WHILE WE'RE WAITING, LET'S GO BACK TO THE AUDIENCE HERE.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON NON AGENDA.
WE'RE NOT HEARING ANY SPEAKERS ONLINE.
WE ARE ALL HERE THIS EVENING FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I'M SORRY.
>> I ALSO RECEIVED FINAL NON AGENDA ITEMS.
>> I MEAN NON. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY NON AGENDA.
>> I'M GOING TO READ IT FIRST.
WE'RE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN EXEMPTION DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW, AND SUBDIVISION VESTING TENTATIVE TRACK MAP, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 43 UNITS, THREE OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
THIS WILL BE LOCATED ON THREE PARCELS WITHIN THE HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL RH ZONE, AND THE LOW DENSITY MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE R3, AND THE ADDRESSES ARE 122 NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, 126 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 208 CENTRAL COURT.
NEXT UP, IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THE FIRST THING IS THAT WE'D LIKE TO ASK OUR COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, AND WE'LL START WITH MR. LIGHT.
>> COMMISSIONER GADDIS, MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND OUR COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, MR. WEINER.
>> YES. COMMISSIONER CRAIG AND COUNCILMAN LOWENSTEIN.
>> MAYOR LIGHT AND COUNCIL MEMBER LOWENSTEIN.
>> FOR ME, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE, PLANNING MANAGER SCULLY, AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH A MEMBER OF THE PROPONENT, MR. CHEN.
THAT'S IT FOR ME. LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION CARRIES. DIRECTOR WEINER, WILL THERE BE A PRESENTATION THIS EVENING?
THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE, MY NAME IS MARK WEINER.
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH.
BEFORE I TURN THIS OVER TO SENIOR PLANNER, STEPHEN JANG, TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION AT A FEW WORDS ON THIS ITEM, IN RECENT YEARS, THE STATE HAS PASSED A NUMBER OF LAWS PERTAINING TO HOUSING THAT HAVE REALLY BEEN A GAME CHANGER FOR LOCAL ZONING AND LOCAL DECISION MAKING ON HOUSING PROJECTS.
[00:15:02]
WE'VE ADDRESSED SOME OF THAT IN THIS REPORT.REALLY, THE REASON BEHIND IT IS THE STATES DECIDED THAT THERE IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHORTAGE, SO THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY SOME LOCAL CONTROL OVER HOUSING PROJECTS.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU CONSIDER THIS TONIGHT.
FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, IT INVOKES TWO STATE HOUSING LAWS, ONE IS SB 330, WHICH IS THE HOUSING CRISIS ACT THAT WAS PASSED IN 2019, AND THEN ALSO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, WHICH HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR QUITE A WHILE.
SB 330 IN PARTICULAR, REALLY LIMITS THE CITY'S DECISION MAKING ON MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS, AND IT'S QUITE A DEPARTURE FROM THE WAY THAT WE PREVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE REVIEWED A PROJECT.
THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE REPORT.
BUT BASICALLY, IT LIMITS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO DENY A PROJECT UNLESS IT'S STRICTLY TIED TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS THAT HAVE TO BE VERIFIED.
IT ALSO LIMITS THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO TAKE ANY ACTION THAT WOULD REDUCE THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT AS WELL.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A MAXIMUM DENSITY AND MAYBE ENVELOPE SIZE FOR THE BUILDING, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE A DISCRETIONARY ACTION THAT WOULD REDUCE THE DENSITY.
THEN FINALLY, THE CITY IS REALLY LIMITED TO ONLY APPLYING OBJECTIVE STANDARDS TO THIS.
I THINK THE COMMISSION IS AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE IN 2023, WE RECENTLY ADOPTED OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
THAT WAS DONE IN RESPONDS TO SB 330.
SB 330 ACTUALLY EVEN DEFINES WHAT OBJECTIVE IS, AND IT BASICALLY ARTICULATES IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S QUANTIFIABLE, SOMETHING THAT'S NOT SUBJECTIVE.
>> JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE, AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD WOULD BE LIKE A SETBACK OR HEIGHT LIMIT OR ALLOWED SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THE SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT WE USED TO APPLY TO THESE PROJECTS WOULD BE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY OR BUILDING MASSING.
THINGS ARE A LITTLE MORE GENERAL AND SUBJECTIVE.
SO THOSE ARE THE LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICATION, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT AS THE PRESENTATION PROCEEDS.
I WILL SAY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ROLE IN REVIEWING THIS PROJECT IS STILL IMPORTANT DESPITE THE STATE LIMITATIONS, THERE ARE FINDINGS THAT NEED TO BE MADE FOR THE PROJECT.
I THINK THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO TRY TO GET THE BEST PROJECT POSSIBLE AND TO GET IMPROVEMENTS TO IT.
BUT IT PROBABLY WITH THAT SAID, IT IS A LIGHTER TOUCH THAT MAY BE WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE PAST.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT BACKGROUND ON STATE HOUSING LAW BECAUSE THAT'S THE LENS FOR WHICH WE'RE REVIEWING THIS PROJECT, AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO STEVE AND TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS STEPHEN JANG.
I'LL BE PRESENTING THE PROJECT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 43 UNITS, THREE OF WHICH ARE FOR AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS LOCATED ON THREE PARCELS WITHIN A HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND A LOW-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AT 122 AND 126 NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 208 CENTRAL CO.
THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE DEMOLITION OF ALL STRUCTURES AND PARKING LOTS ON THE SITE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW 43-UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROJECT CONTAINS THREE VERY LOW-INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS, WHICH ARE RESERVED FOR VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROJECT ALSO COMPLIES WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW AND WE WILL BE UTILIZING THOSE PROVISIONS TO ACHIEVE A GREATER DENSITY, ONE CONCESSION AND WAIVERS RELATES TO REDUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN VINCENT STREET AND EMERALD STREET.
THE SITE IS ZONED RH-2, WHICH IS HIGH-DENSITY MULTIFAMILY, AS WELL AS R-3, WHICH IS LOW-DENSITY, MULTIFAMILY.
YOU'LL SEE THAT THE R-3 ZONE IS THE SMALLER OF THE TWO LOTS.
PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE ZONED, LOW DENSITY, R-3.
PROPERTIES TO THE WEST ARE ZONE, HIGH DENSITY, MULTI-FAMILY RH-2.
PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE ALSO ZONED, HIGH DENSITY, MULTI-FAMILY RH-2, AND PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE ZONED PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY, WHICH IS A LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL CURRENTLY.
ON MAY 23, 2024, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A SB 330 PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT.
AS SUCH, THE CITY MUST ADHERE TO THE PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS, TIMELINES, AND PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
[00:20:03]
AS OUTLINED IN SENATE BILL 330 AND RELATED STATE LAW PROVISIONS.THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDEVELOP THE PROJECT SITE BY DEMOLISHING ALL THE STRUCTURES ON THE SITE TO CONSTRUCT THE 43-UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUSIVE OF THE THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
THIS WILL BE DISPERSED ACROSS EIGHT BUILDINGS.
VERY LOW INCOME IS DEFINED AS HAVING AN AREA IMMEDIATE INCOME, OF 50% OR LESS OF THE LOCAL AREA.
THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL RANGE DEPENDING ON THE HOUSEHOLD SIZE.
FOR EXAMPLE, A FAMILY OF FOUR, NEED TO MAKE A TOTAL OF $69,350 A YEAR, WHILE A COUPLE WOULD NEED TO MAKE LESS THAN 55,450 A YEAR TO QUALIFY.
ALL OF THE UNITS IN THIS PROJECT ARE FOR SALE.
THE BUILDINGS WOULD FEATURE VARYING HEIGHTS RANGING FROM 26'-34'4".
EACH UNIT WILL HAVE ITS OWN TWO-CAR GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING WHILE UNITS FOR BUILDING SEVEN AND EIGHT ON THE R-3 LOT WILL CONTAIN A MIXTURE OF ONE AND TWO-CAR GARAGES.
INGRESS AND INGRES ON THE SITE WILL BE PROVIDED VIA CENTRAL COURT, WHICH IS THE CENTRAL ALLEYWAY ABOVE BUILDINGS A AND B ON THIS PICTURE.
IT WILL REMAIN ONE-WAY ACCESS, AND A NEW DRIVEWAY IS ALSO PROPOSED BETWEEN BUILDINGS C AND D THAT WILL EXIT OFF OF VINCENT STREET.
THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF DEVELOPING THREE TOTAL LOTS, TWO OF WHICH ARE ZONED FOR HIGH DENSITY, AND ONE WAS ZONED FOR R-3.
THE ONE THAT'S ZONED FOR RH-2, THE HIGH DENSITY WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 35 UNITS, WHICH IS WITHIN THE PERMITTED DENSITY OF THE CITY'S BASE ZONING STANDARD OF 37 UNITS.
THE SMALLER PARCEL IS ZONE FOR LOW DENSITY, R-3, WHICH WILL INCLUDE EIGHT UNITS, AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE BASE DENSITY FOR THIS PARCEL IS FIVE UNITS.
HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY FOR EIGHT UNITS IS ALLOWED PER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.
THE TOTAL SIZE OF EACH BUILDING WILL RANGE FROM ABOUT 12,800 SQUARE FEET TO 15,400 SQUARE FEET FOR THE RH-2 ZONE, AND FOR THE R-3 ZONE, THEY'RE QUITE A BIT SMALLER AT 8,200 SQUARE FEET TO 9,500 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED IN A CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH AN ARRAY OF MATERIALS AND DETAILS.
WALL MATERIALS PRIMARILY CONSIST OF CONCRETE, STUCCO PAINTED, AND A WARM WHITE COLOR, WITH WOOD, SIMULATED PANELS, AND TRIM WITH COMPLEMENTARY METAL AND TILE ACCENTS.
THE PROJECT FEATURES MULTIPLE COLOR SCHEMES WITH NATURAL PALETTE AND TILING.
THE ROOFS WILL ALSO CONTAIN A MIXTURE OF GABLE ROOFS AND FLAT ROOFS THROUGHOUT.
ALONG THE FRONT FACADE ELEVATIONS, THE BUILDINGS PROVIDE VARYING PLANES AND ARTICULATION BY UTILIZING A MIXTURE OF BALCONIES, RECESS WINDOWS, AND OVERHANGS TO CREATE A SOFTER FACADE WHEN COMPARED TO A BUILDING THAT IS COMPLETELY FLAT ALONG THE FRONT OR ALL SIDES.
THE PROJECT BUILDINGS RANGE IN HEIGHT AND PROVIDE A VARYING LEVEL OF RIDGE LINES AND ARTICULATION.
OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL SIDES, I WILL SHOW EACH BUILDING ELEVATION AS THEY RELATE TO HEIGHTS AND IN ACCORDANCE TO THE SITE PLAN.
THIS IS BUILDING A, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS 34'AND 3" AT THE PEAK OF THE TALLEST ROOF PITCH, AND A MAX FLAT ROOF HEIGHT OF 36'5".
THE OTHER R-3 PEAKS ARE SHORTER THAN THE TALLEST ONE IN THE MIDDLE AND THEY VARY BETWEEN 38'3".
ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER OF EACH SLIDE, I'LL HAVE THE SITE PLAN AND THE BUILDING HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.
THIS IS GOING TO BE DIRECTLY FACING CENTRAL COURT.
THIS IS THE BACK OF BUILDING A AS IT RELATES TO CENTRAL COURT.
THIS IS THE ELEVATION THAT THE RESIDENTS IS ALONG CURRENTLY WOULD BE VIEWING DUE TO THE GREAT ELEVATION CHANGE.
THE MAXIMUM RIDGE ALONG THIS BACK IS SHORTER THAN THE FRONT, ABOUT ONE FOOT SHORTER ON THIS SIDE.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY FOR THIS LOT SLOPES DOWNWARD EAST TO WEST.
ALONG CENTRAL COURT, YOU'RE AT THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE GREAT ELEVATION AND ALONG PCH, IT'S THE LOWEST POINT.
THIS IS BUILDING B, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THIS STRUCTURE IS 34'AND 4" AT THE TOSS ROOF PITCH AND 36'2" AT THE FLAT ROOF.
THE OTHER PEAKS WILL VARY BETWEEN 36'-38'.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BACK SIDE OF BUILDING B.
THIS IS THE ELEVATION THAT THE RESIDENCES ALONG CENTRAL COURT WILL ALSO BE VIEWING.
THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ON THIS SIDE IS 7'9" WITH A FLAT ROOF HEIGHT OF 34'8",
[00:25:06]
ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF SHORTER ON THIS SIDE COMPARED TO THE FRONT ELEVATION JUST DUE TO THE GRADE CHANGE.THIS IS THE FRONT VIEW OF THE BUILDING LABELED CR.
THE C-LABELED BUILDINGS ARE IN BETWEEN THE TWO MAJOR BUILDINGS ON THE LARGER PARCEL BETWEEN CENTRAL CORE AND NORTH PCH.
THIS BUILDING IS SET INTO THE GRADE, WHICH RESULTS IN A MUCH SHORTER BUILDING HEIGHT COMPARED TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS, DESPITE ITS STILL BEING A THREE-STORY BUILDING.
THE BUILDING FEATURES TWO LARGE ROOF PEAKS AND TWO SHORTER PEAKS ON THE SIDES.
THE MAX HEIGHT OF THIS STRUCTURE IS SET, 11" WITH A HEIGHT OF 26' FOR THE FLAT ROOF.
THE SHORTER ROOF PEAKS RANGE FROM 28'-30'.
THIS IS BUILDING C, WHICH HAS SIMILAR FEATURES TO THE PREVIOUS BUILDING WE JUST WENT OVER, FEATURING TWO PROMINENT TALLER ROOF PEAKS IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN TWO SMALLER ONES ON THE SIDES.
THE MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT OF THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE 36'3", BUT THE FLAT ROOF IS AT 25'3".
EACH OF THESE ELEVATIONS WILL SHOW A DARK LINE ON THE VERY TOP THAT INDICATES THE BASE ZONING HEIGHT ALLOWED PER THE ZONING DISTRICT.
YOU CAN SEE ON THIS ONE, IT JUST BARELY PEAKS OVER THE BASE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE PEAKS, BUT THE REST OF THE BUILDING.
THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION FOR THE BUILDING LABEL DR, WHICH IS DIRECTLY FACING NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT IS 32'9" WITH THE FLAT ROOF HEIGHT OF 28'6".
THIS BUILDING IS ALSO SET INTO THE SLOPE, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY THE MAXIMUM RIDGES ARE LOWER HERE SINCE IT FOLLOWS THE NATURAL SLOPE OF THE ROOF.
THIS IS BUILDING D, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS BUILDING.
THIS ONE IS ALSO SET INTO THE GRADE AT A LOWER MAXIMUM OVERALL ROOF HEIGHT, EXCEPT WHERE THE GRADE MEETS VINCENT STREET.
IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT ON THE BOTTOM LEFT.
YOU'LL SEE HOW THE SLOPE SLOPES TOWARDS THE STREET MORE.
THIS WILL RESULT IN A TALLER OVERALL HEIGHT ON THIS SIDE.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THE STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE 36'6" AS INDICATED ON THE LEFT PART OF THE BUILDING, AND THE FLAT ROOF IS 30'8".
THIS IS THE FRONT ELEVATION FOR ONE OF THE TWO BUILDINGS IN THE R-3 LOT.
ORIGINALLY, THESE BUILDINGS WERE USED TO FEATURE A PITCHED ROOF SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS BUILDINGS, WHICH RESULTED IN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN HEIGHT.
BUT AFTER THE INITIAL PUBLIC COMMENT OR THE INITIAL PUBLIC NOTICE IN JANUARY THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO IT BEING CONTINUED TO TONIGHT'S MEETING, THE APPLICANT REDESIGNED THESE SPECIFIC BUILDINGS TO FEATURE A FLAT ROOF SO THAT THE OVERALL RIDGE LINES COULD BE SHORTER THAN THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THIS BUILDING IS 34'9", WHICH ALSO INCLUDES A 3' TALL PARAPET, WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SCREEN AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS UNITS AND SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOF.
LASTLY, THIS IS THE NORTHERNMOST BUILDING ON THE R-3 PARCEL.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE IS 32'11", AND ALSO FEATURES A SIMILAR FLAT ROOF CONSTRUCTION AS THE PREVIOUS BUILDING ACROSS THE ALLEY.
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS A STATE MANDATE THAT ALLOWS HOUSING PROJECTS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW AND TO RECEIVE AN INCREASE IN MAXIMUM DENSITY PERMITTED AND OTHER BENEFITS SUCH AS WAIVERS AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, THE CITY'S RECENTLY ADOPTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE, WHICH THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO PROVIDES FOR INCENTIVES OF FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
THE MAXIMUM BASED DENSITY FOR THIS PROJECT SITE IS 42 UNITS AMONG BOTH SIDES.
WE'RE LOOKING AT PARKING FIRST, THE BASE ZONING CODE FOR THE SITE WOULD REQUIRE 86 PARKING SPACES AND 14 GUEST PARKING SPACES FOR A TOTAL OF 100 SPACES.
STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, HOWEVER, ONLY REQUIRES A RATIO OF 1.5 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, WHICH RESULTS IN A TOTAL OF 65 SPACES.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A TOTAL OF 93 SPACES, SEVEN OF WHICH ARE FOR DEDICATED FOR GUEST PARKING WELL BEYOND THE STATE REQUIREMENT.
THERE ARE EIGHT WAIVERS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT.
I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE STAFF REPORT DID NOT INCLUDE BUT I'LL GO OVER THAT IN A LITTLE BIT.
THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE RH-2 LOT,
[00:30:01]
WHICH IS THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, REQUIRES A 15' MINIMUM.THIS IS GOING TO BE THE NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SIDE.
THE PROPOSAL IS SHOWING A 4'8" OF SETBACK, HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION IS ALSO REQUIRING AN ADDITIONAL 10' OF DEDICATION FOR THIS PROJECT.
IN REALITY, WE'RE LOOKING AT A 14'8" SETBACK FROM THE STREET FOR THESE BUILDINGS.
THE FRONT SETBACK, WHICH IS THE FRONT SETBACK FOR THE R-3 PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE SMALLER ONE IN THE BACK IS 14' FOR THE FRONT, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 8'.
THE SIDE SETBACK FOR THE R-3, WHICH IS A SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE IS 7', APPLICANTS REQUIRING APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 5'2".
THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR THE RH-2 LOT IS THAT EACH UNIT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE 200 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE PER UNIT.
THIS CAN TYPICALLY BE DONE IN A MIXTURE OF WAYS LIKE COMBINING OPEN SPACE WITH BALCONIES AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ABOUT 164 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE PER UNIT WHEN LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF ALL THE OPEN SPACE ON THE SITE, INCLUDING THE BALCONIES, AS WELL AS EACH UNIT.
THE R-3 LOT REQUIRES 350 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE PER UNIT.
THE APPLICANT AGAIN, IS PROPOSING 164 SPREAD AMONG ALL THE UNITS.
THE BASE ZONING STANDARD REQUIRES A 30' HEIGHT MAX FOR THE R-3 PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT'S MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 34'9".
THE RH-2 ZONE DISTRICT REQUIRES A 35' BASE STANDARD.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THE BUILDINGS ON RH-2 IS GOING TO BE 39'4", AND SPECIFICALLY THE R-3 ZONE DISTRICT HAS A SPECIFIC CALL OUT FOR THE NUMBER OF STORIES ALLOWED.
THE BASE ZONING CODE REQUIRES TWO STORIES.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSAL IS REQUESTING THREE.
STAFF IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPOSED USE MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THE PROPERTY IS ADEQUATE IN SIZE AND SHAPE AND CONFORMS WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT.
THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY PROVIDES ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR THE PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT AND WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC, AIR QUALITY, AND NOISE, AS INDICATED BY THE THREE STUDIES FOR THIS PROJECT.
THERE HAS ENOUGH PARKING ON SITE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL RESIDENCES AND COMPLIES WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW REQUIREMENTS.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO DETAILED REQUIREMENTS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO COMPLY WITH FIRE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION AROUND THE SITE.
USING THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, THE PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
THE PROPERTY WILL PRESERVE MATURE EXISTING TREES, OR THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OF A 2:1 RATIO OF ANY TREES TO BE REPLACED, MATURE TREES.
THE BUILDING INCORPORATES GRADING WHEN POSSIBLE TO REDUCE THE OVERALL HEIGHTS OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES.
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS ARE ALSO PROPOSED TO ALLOW FOR CIRCULATION IN AND AROUND THE SITE.
THE COMMON OPEN SPACE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AS IT WILL ALLOW THE USE OF PASSIVE OPEN SPACE AREAS BY ALL RESIDENCES OF THE PROJECT SITE.
UTILIZING EXISTING ALLEY ACCESS AND ONE NEW DRIVEWAY LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF NEW CURB CUTS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S PARKING AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS.
VARIATIONS ON SETBACKS, MATERIALS, AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT, AND LANDSCAPING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE NATIVE AND DROUGHT TOLERANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS.
THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION, PRISCO GUIDELINES, SECTION 15332.
THE CLASS 32 EXEMPTION IS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT AS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
SINCE IT MEETS THE ABOVE CONDITIONS, THESE FIVE CONDITIONS ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE THREE STUDIES PROVIDED BY THE PROJECT APPLICANT.
>> STAFF RECEIVED SEVEN PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SUPPORT AND TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS, DETAILING CONCERNS TO THE PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THIS PROJECT.
SUPPORT OF COMMENTS GENERALLY FOLLOW THEMES ABOUT THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING, COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, HOUSING ELEMENT, AND STATE LAWS.
CONCERNED COMMENTS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON STREET PARKING OVERFLOW, TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND MAINTAINING THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST OF NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
SINCE THE REPORT WAS PUBLISHED LAST WEEK,
[00:35:04]
THE RESOLUTION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE ALSO UPDATED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE RELATED TO CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC.THESE INCLUDE THINGS SUCH AS PROVIDING AN ADA-ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL ALONG FRONTAGES ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND VINCENT STREET.
DRIVERS TURNING OFF OF THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ONTO VINCENT STREET ARE PROHIBITED FROM MAKING LEFT-HAND TURNS ONTO NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WITH SIGNAGE.
IN TERMS OF PARKING, PARKING IS PROHIBITED WEST OF THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY TOWARDS NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ACROSS CENTRAL COURT.
THIS CONDITION HIGHLIGHTS THE 10-FOOT EASEMENT I CALLED OUT EARLIER ALONG NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FOR PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION.
BASED ON THE FINDINGS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, TAKE TESTIMONY, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND MAKE A DETERMINATION REGARDING THE EXEMPTION DECLARATION AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WITH 43 UNITS, THREE OF WHICH ARE AFFORDABLE TO VERY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS LOCATED ON THREE PARCELS WITHIN A HIGH DENSITY, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AT 122, 126 NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 208 CENTRAL COURT.
THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU. SENIOR PLANNER JIANG.
NOW, NEXT WILL BE AN OATH TAKEN BY THE PROPONENT.
ANY OF YOU WHO WISH TO SPEAK OF THE PROPONENT, YOU CAN STAY THERE.
DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE A PRESENTATION?
>> SHE'S QUEUING UP THE PRESENTATION.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIRWOMAN LAMB AND MEMBERS OF REDONDO BEACH PLANING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS PATRICK CHEN, AND I WORK ON THE CITY VENTURES DEVELOPMENT TEAM.
I'M REALLY EXCITED TO PRESENT OUR PROPOSAL TONIGHT FOR 43 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES TO THE CITY, WHICH WILL CREATE MUCH NEEDED FOR SALE HOUSING FOR FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M VERY HAPPY TO GO BACK AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.
THIS PROJECT AIMS TO ADDRESS THE GROWING DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THIS VIBRANT COASTAL COMMUNITY.
REDONDO BEACH IS A VERY DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE.
AND THE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TO THE COMMUNITY FABRIC.
CITY VENTURES GENERALLY FOCUSES ON INFILL FOR SALE HOUSING AND HAVING THIS SITE NEXT TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY HERE, AND REDONDO BEACH HAS BEEN A PRIORITY PROJECT FOR OUR COMPANY, STARTING FOR ME AND ALL THE WAY UP TO OUR CEO, WHO HAS ALSO BEEN VERY HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN.
THE PROPERTY IS IN THE CIVIC CENTER CORRIDOR AND WILL ULTIMATELY ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
IN THE AUDIENCE OR MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN TEAM WHO ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL DESIGN RELATED QUESTIONS AFTER THE PRESENTATION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
AS AN INTRODUCTION, THE COMPANY WAS FORMED IN 2009.
THE COMPANY'S PRINCIPALS HAVE MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH URBAN INFIELD DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
WE SPECIALIZE IN FOR SALE HOUSING OR HEADQUARTERED IN IRVINE, AND WE'VE ALSO PREVIOUSLY BUILT PROJECTS IN COASTAL CITIES, SUCH AS OCEANSIDE, LONG BEACH, GOLETA, CARLSBAD, DANA POINT, AND SANTA BARBARA.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS SOME OF OUR PAST PROJECTS AND THEN ALSO DIFFERENT TYPES OF STYLES THAT WERE DONE IN THESE CITIES.
NEXT SLIDE. THE SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN VINCENT STREET, AND ENCOMPASSES 1.67 GROSS ACRES TOTAL.
THERE ARE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES AND THE ST. JAMES COMMUNITY CAMPUS NEARBY.
REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND APARTMENTS NEARBY. NEXT SLIDE.
WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2022 AND BEGAN PRELIMINARY TALKS WITH THE CITY PLANNING DIVISION REGARDING A POTENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS PATH.
AS THIS IS A HOUSING ELEMENT SITE, THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A ZONE CHANGE OR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
FROM THERE, WE'VE HELD NUMEROUS MEETINGS WITH CITY PLANNING, FIRE DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS, AND BUILDING AND SAFETY TO DETERMINE AN ACCEPTABLE SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING DESIGNS.
WE GATHERED THIS FEEDBACK AND WE SUBMITTED THE FORMAL APPLICATION IN MAY OF 2024. NEXT SLIDE.
[00:40:03]
FROM THE COMMENT LIST THAT WE GOT BACK FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN JULY, WE HELD MORE MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND ALSO ANOTHER MEETING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESS REQUIREMENTS.IN MID SEPTEMBER, WE SENT OUT A 300 FOOT COMMUNITY NOTICE MAILER TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY TO INFORM THEM OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
TO DATE, I'VE HAD EIGHT PEOPLE REACH OUT TO ME TO INQUIRE AND DISCUSS THE PROJECT BY BOTH EMAIL AND PHONE.
SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTALS WERE DONE IN NOVEMBER AND SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR, AND THEN THE APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE IN DECEMBER.
AS STEPHEN POINTED OUT EARLIER, JANUARY AND FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR WERE ALSO SPENT IN WEEKLY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO MODIFY THE ELEVATION DESIGNS AND DEFERENCE TO RESIDENTS CONCERNS REGARDING THE HEIGHT.
NEXT SLIDE. HERE'S SOME OF THE PROJECT DETAILS, 43 THREE STORY SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES ON 1.67 ACRES.
WE'RE OFFERING FIVE DIFFERENT PLAN TYPES RANGING FROM 1,466 SQUARE FEET TO 2,096 SQUARE FEET.
ALL THE UNITS HAVE THREE BEDROOMS, HAVE TWO CAR ATTACHED GARAGES, AND SOME PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.
WE WILL HAVE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO MAINTAIN THE PRIVATE STREETS, COMMON AREA LANDSCAPE, AND ALSO THE BUILDING EXTERIORS AND ROOFS.
WE HAVE SET ASIDE 6.98% OF THE PROJECT OR THREE UNITS FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, TWO PROJECT ENTRIES ON VINCENT STREET AND CENTRAL COURT.
THEN WE ARE SOLAR ALL ELECTRIC DEVELOPER AND HOMEBUILDERS, SO THERE'S NO GAS NEEDED FOR OUR HOMES. NEXT SLIDE.
HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN OUTLINING WHAT I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, SHOWING THE TWO PROJECT ENTRIES OFF VINCENT STREET AND CENTRAL COURT.
THE TWO ROWS OF HOMES NEAR PACIFIC COAST HIGH WIRE ACCESSED BY THE VINCENT STREET ENTRY. NEXT SLIDE.
THIS SHOWS OUR PROPOSED STREET SCENE AND ELEVATIONS FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, BUT WE HAVE WORKED PRETTY HARD TO DESIGN A PRODUCT THAT WILL HAVE A PRESENCE NEXT TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
THIS CAN BE DESCRIBED AS MODERN WITH A TOUCH OF SEASIDE, INCLUDING SIGHTING AND VENEER, TO GIVE IT A RESIDENTIAL FEEL.
THE PITCH ROOF PROFILES WERE DESIGNED TO MIMIC THE TRADITIONAL GABLE END AND ALSO MORE OF A CONTEMPORARY FEEL.
THE OVERALL COLOR SCHEMES ARE HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY SEASIDE ARCHITECTURE TO PAY HOMAGE TO THE LOCATION AND PROXIMITY OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN. NEXT SLIDE.
I MENTIONED WE ARE A SOLAR ALL ELECTRIC HOMEBUILDER, SO WE'RE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY WITH SOLAR PANELS, NO GAS AT ALL, AND OUR GARAGES ALSO INCLUDE PRE WATER CONDUITS FOR ELECTRIC CARS.
NEXT SLIDE. IN SUMMARY, THIS DEVELOPMENT OF 43 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS CITY.
IT ADDRESSES MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING NEEDS, BUT ALSO FOSTERS ECONOMIC GROWTH AND COMMUNITY INTERACTION.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE THIS COMMISSION TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
DON'T GO. I'M LOOKING AT COMMISSIONERS HERE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. COUPLE, THIS WOULD BE, I THINK FOR STAFF.
I THINK SHAW PROBABLY HAS THIS ANSWER.
SHE WAS I DON'T REMEMBER THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BEING INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL HOUSING ELEMENT THAT WAS IN FRONT OF US.
YES. IT'S WITHIN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT.
>> GAIL, DO YOU HAVE I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER HAZEL TIME.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR.
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR HIM?
>> WHAT WAS THE INCOME REQUIREMENTS AGAIN FOR THE THREE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS?
>> THESE ARE CENTERED FOR VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND THEN I THINK STEPHEN MENTIONED THIS EARLIER TOO.
FAMILY FOR THE MAXIMUM INCOME LIMIT IS $69,350.
YES. AND WHAT'S THE COST OF THESE UNITS GOING TO BE?
>> THESE ARE GENERALLY SET BY HCD FOR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND THEN THAT DOES CHANGE YEAR BY YEAR.
WE ARE CURRENTLY PRICING THEM AT AROUND $100,000.
>> SO IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THEIR INCOME?
>> OKAY. I THINK MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT BUILDING B, THE ONE THAT GOES ALONG CENTRAL COURT.
I COULDN'T REALLY TELL FROM THE RENDERINGS THERE.
IS THAT GOING TO BE GARAGE DOORS ALONG CENTRAL COURT OR IS THAT GOING TO BE FRONT DOORS?
>> THOSE WOULD BE THE GARAGE DOORS.
>> CAN I ASK WHY NOT HAVE THE FRONT DOORS ALONG THAT? IT SEEMS THAT COULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH
[00:45:02]
AN EXISTING ROAD WITH NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN HAVE THE GARAGE DOORS ON THE OTHER SIDE SO THAT THEY BUT WITH THE GARAGE DOORS FROM THE OTHER BUILDING?>> I CAN HAVE OUR ARCHITECT ANSWER THAT DESIGN QUESTION A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT HAVING ONE PROJECT ENTRY IS A LITTLE BIT MORE CONDUCIVE TO THE AREA VERSUS HAVING TWO SEPARATE PROJECT ENTRIES.
SINCE THERE ARE THREE ROWS OF HOMES THERE.
>> WAS THAT A CITY CONSIDERATION THAT THE AESTHETICS AND AND THE CONTINUITY OF CENTRAL COURT WAS LESS IMPORTANT THAN HAVING ONE POINT OF ENTRY RATHER THAN TWO?
>> WELL, IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER, WE IN OUR OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS, WHEN THERE'S AN ALLEY, THE OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS ENCOURAGE, REQUIRE.
I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EXACT LANGUAGE, ACCESS OFF OF THE ALLEY.
SO WE PREFER TO HAVE ACCESS OFF THE ALLEY SO WE CAN PRESERVE LESSEN THE NUMBER OF CURB CUTS THAT WOULD ACCESS A PROPERTY.
AND BY DOING THIS, THEN WE ONLY HAVE THE ONE DRIVEWAY ON VINCENT.
IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THOSE STANDARDS IN THE OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS.
>> COULD WE SEE THAT RENDERING AGAIN TO GET A VISUAL OF THAT?
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ON CENTRAL COURT IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A BIG WALL OF.
>> AND THE FRONT EXIT IS OUT THE BACK ON THE ALLEY, THE FRONT DOOR.
>> SO ARE YOU FINISHED, MR. CONROY?
>> FINISHED WITH THAT QUESTION.
>> WE CAN TAKE CARE. WE CAN TAKE CARE FINISH YOUR SUBJECT.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION BEFORE I PASS THE GAVEL.
THERE'S TALK ABOUT LANDSCAPING.
I SEE THAT, BUT IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENTS OR ANY CONSIDERATION FOR DROUGHT RESISTANT LANDSCAPING?
>> OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT WE GENERALLY HAVE WE GENERALLY HAVE DROUGHT RESISTANT LANDSCAPING IN ALL OF OUR PROJECTS.
>> GENERALLY HAVE VERSUS REQUIRED?
>> IS INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS.
>> IT IS INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS. THANK YOU.
RIGHT. I WILL PASS THE GAVEL WITH THAT. THANK YOU.
>> YOU SPOKE WITH [INAUDIBLE].
>> I WAS ASKING FOR IF WE COULD SEE THE RENDERING? NOT THE FLOOR PLAN SO THAT WE COULD SEE WHERE THESE GARAGE DOORS ARE ON THIS ON THE VINCENT DRIVEWAY AND AND THEN THE BACK SIDE, SO WE CAN SEE WHERE THE FRONT DOORS ARE.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN ENTER FROM THIS SIDE IS THROUGH THE GARAGE>
>> NO. THESE STILL HAVE FRONT DOORS.
>> WHERE IS THE FRONT DOOR? I SEE GARAGES.
THAT'S THE BACK SIDE. THAT'S THE BACK SIDE?
>> THAT'S THE FRONT THE FRONT SIDE.
>> WHEREVER THE GARAGE IS? THAT'S THE BACK.
OKAY. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER. OKAY. SO FROM THIS SIDE, THE ONLY ENTRANCE IS THE GARAGE?
IF YOU DO VENTURE ONTO THE PROPERTY, YOU'LL NOTICE THE FRONT DOORS ARE ACTUALLY FACING THE OTHER UNITS LIKE SEAT IN THE BUILDING SEAT.
>> I'M GOING TO GET TO THAT. THESE GARAGE DOORS ARE FACING WEST OR EAST?
>> EAST. SO THEY ARE THE BACK SIDE.
THIS IS THE ALLEY, WHAT WE'RE SEEING?
>> LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE FRONT DOORS.
THIS IS ON THE VINCENT STREET.
>> NO. THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IN A PATHWAY BETWEEN THESE BUILDINGS A, B AND C HERE.
WHEN YOU'RE SIALLY STANDING RIGHT HERE LOOKING AT THIS ELEVATION, WHERE MY MOUSE IS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT.
>> IT'LL BE LIKE A WALK STREET.
>> IN RELATION TO THE BUILDINGS IN THE MIDDLE THAT ARE OFF THE STREET THAT COMES OFF VINCENT, FIRST QUESTION, IS THIS STREET THAT COMES OFF VINCENT A PUBLIC STREET OR A PRIVATE STREET?
>> THIS WOULD BE A PRIVATE STREET.
>> GENERAL PUBLIC CAN'T JUST PULL IN THERE?
>> AND THERE'S NO PARKING IN THERE EITHER, RIGHT? OTHER THAN IN YOUR GARAGE?
>> THERE IS SOME PARKING, IF YOU'LL NOTICE BY BUILDING A, AND THEN ALSO BETWEEN BUILDING D AND DR.
[00:50:03]
I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT STRIP OF BUILDINGS IN THE MIDDLE.
>> ONE SAID THAT C. [OVERLAPPING] BUILDING C AND BUILDING CR.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE TIME.
>> THOSE ARE THE FRONT DOORS. CAN WE SEE THE BACK OF THIS SAME BUILDING?
>> OH, I HAVE TO PULL THE PLANS UP FOR THIS ONE.
ACTUALLY, LET'S SEE WHERE WE CAN GO.
>> THIS DOWN HERE IS GOING TO BE THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ALONG VINCENT STREET AND THIS IS THE SLIDE WE WERE JUST ON THE TOP.
>> THE FRONT DOORS ARE FACING WEST?
>> THE GARAGES ARE FACING EAST?
>> YES. SORRY. [OVERLAPPING] THE FRONT DOORS ARE EAST.
>> THE FRONT DOORS ARE FACING WEST, FRONT DOORS ARE FACING EAST ON THIS BUILDING.
>> ON THIS BUILDING, THEY'RE EAST.
THE GARAGES ARE ON THE VINCENT PRIVATE ROAD.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO ENTER THE HOUSE WHEN YOU MOVE IN WITH YOUR GIGANTIC KING SIZE BED, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT THROUGH THAT FRONT DOOR.
SO CLEARLY, THERE MUST BE A WAY TO GET
[K. COMMISSION MEMBER ITEMS AND FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA TOPICS]
YOUR LARGE FURNITURE IN THROUGH THE GARAGE AND THEN INTO THE HOUSE.>> THEY DO HAVE INTERIOR GARAGE DOORS THAT LEAD INTO THE TOWNHOUSE, YES?
>> THERE ARE GARAGE DOORS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE GARAGE THAT LEAD INTO THE HOUSE.
BUT ARE THEY BIG ENOUGH TO MOVE STUFF INTO THE HOUSE, LIKE A REFRIGERATOR?
>> I CAN HAVE OUR ARCHITECT SPEAK TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE DOORS, BUT THEY SHOULD BE, YES.
>> I WOULD HOPE SO, BUT IF THEY'RE JUST SINGLE-DOOR WIDTH, THAT'S TOUGH, LARGE COUCH, ETC.
I'M JUST JUST GETTING SOME DETAILS.
>> MR. BOSWELL, COULD YOU HOLD YOUR OTHER QUESTION?
>> NO. THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION. I'M PRETTY MUCH DONE.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE BACK OVER HERE.
>> [LAUGHTER] LET'S GO BACK TO THE OVERHEAD VIEW THAT WE HAD UP HERE BEFORE.
THERE WE GO. IS THERE A PROPOSED NAME FOR THIS PRIVATE STREET OFF OF VINCENT THAT WE CAN REFER TO IT AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN JUST THE STREET OFF OF VINCENT?
>> I HAVEN'T GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION TO THAT YET, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT A NAME TONIGHT, IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> WILL THAT BE A GATED ENTRY?
>> IT WILL NOT BE A GATED ENTRY.
>> YOU MENTIONED A SECOND AGO, SOMETHING ABOUT SOME PARKING.
THE QUESTION CAME UP WHETHER THERE WAS PARKING ON THE STREET AND YOU SAID, WELL, SOMETHING IN THE EFFECT OF, YES, THERE IS.
>> NOT ON THIS PRIVATE STREET, WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO, AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THE BUILDING OVER HERE ADJACENT TO CENTRAL COURT.
>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT LITTLE PRIVATE STREET OVER THERE.
THERE'S NO PARKING ON THIS STREET, SO PEOPLE PULL IN AND OUT OF GARAGES BASICALLY INTO THE STREET.
IT SAYS ENTRY, BUT THEY ENTER AND EXIT ONTO VINCENT, AND THERE'S NO LEFT TURN ONTO VINCENT.
>> ALL OF THESE GARAGES OPEN UP DIRECTLY ONTO CENTRAL COURT, WHICH IS CLEAR TO ME NOW, ACTUALLY, EARLIER IN LOOKING THIS OVER.
NOW I UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS.
THERE WAS A STATEMENT EARLIER DURING THE PRESENTATION THAT THERE WERE UNITS THAT ONLY HAD A SINGLE SPACE.
[00:55:07]
HE'S SAYING THAT ALL UNITS HAVE TWO SPACES.>> THE STAFF REPORT IS INCORRECT.
ALL OF OUR TOWN HOMES ARE DESIGNED WITH TWO CAR GARAGES.
DO I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT ONLY THE THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS HAVE TANDEM PARKING?
>> ALL THE OTHERS HAVE SIDE-BY-SIDE, DOUBLE-CAR GARAGE?
>> THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT REALLY WASN'T FLESHED OUT IN THE REPORTER PRESENTATION.
[NOISE] WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY THREE TANDEM PARKING GARAGE.
>> THEY ARE IN THE CENTRAL COURT ENTRY UP THERE.
THERE ARE THREE SMALLER UNITS.
>> THEY ARE ALL THREE BEDROOMS.
>> THREE BEDROOMS WITH THE TANDEM PARKING, AND THEY'RE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, BASICALLY.
LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SETBACK FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
THERE ARE A LOT OF NUMBERS BEING THROWN AROUND, AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW FAR THIS BUILDING ACTUALLY SETS OFF OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
I GUESS THAT'S ONE OF THE WAIVERS THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE.
IS THERE SOME WAY THIS CAN BE LAID OUT IN A FASHION THAT THE PUBLIC AND THIS PARTICULAR COMMISSIONER CAN UNDERSTAND?
>> WE ARE BEING SET BACK, ACCORDING TO THE STAFF REPORT, 14'8" FROM THE EXISTING SIDEWALK, AND AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET OF DEDICATION ARE ALSO BEING PROVIDED AS PART OF THAT 4'8".
THAT'S WHERE THE 14'8" COMES FROM.
>> IS THERE AN ELEVATION THAT SHOWS THAT?
>> STEPHEN PUT IT IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> THAT'S FROM THE SIDEWALK, NOT FROM THE STREET?
>> IT'S 14 FEET FROM THE STREET, BUT FOUR FROM THE SIDEWALK?
>> NO. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING.
>> ARE YOU TALKING FROM THE CURB? ARE YOU TALKING FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SIDEWALK? [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] NO.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT.
>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
>> HOW FAR IS THIS OFF OF THE BUILDING ITSELF? I DON'T KNOW. SHOULD WE BE TALKING ABOUT THE BALCONIES? BECAUSE THEY STICK OUT FURTHER THAN THE ENTRYWAY, RIGHT?
>> HOW FAR IS THE END OF THE BALCONY TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY?
>> I CAN HAVE OUR ARCHITECT COME UP HERE AND SPEAK TO THAT MORE CLEARLY IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE THAT INFORMATION.
>> ALSO, HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE SIDEWALK?
>> [BACKGROUND] NO, I'M AWARE OF THAT.
WELL, YOU SHOULD ASK THAT QUESTION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'LL ASK THE QUESTION.
>> I WILL. ALSO, ARE YOU CUTTING INTO THE IVY?
>> NO. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT, BUT THEY'RE BRINGING IT DOWN TO SIDEWALK LEVEL.
>> WE'RE 21'4" AWAY FROM THE CURVE OF THIS STREET.
>> IT IS NOT. WE'RE MEASURING RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE MEASURING [OVERLAPPING] TO THE BOUNDARY LINE.
WE DON'T SHOW DIMENSION TO THE CURVE LINE.
>> IS THAT THE DISTANCE FROM THE DOOR TO THE STREET, OR IS IT THE BALCONY?
>> THE WALL FOR THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER, LET ME SEE HERE.
>> IT'S ABOUT ANOTHER 18 INCHES OR SO.
>> RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A HILL OF IVY, ESSENTIALLY, I THINK, THAT GOES UP FROM THE STREET TO WHERE THE STRUCTURES ARE NOW.
HOW IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE IN THIS PLAN? ARE THESE GOING TO SIT UP AT THE SAME PLACE THE CURRENT BUILDINGS ARE, OR IS THAT HILL OF IVY GOING FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY UP TO THE STRUCTURES ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE THE BUILDINGS PUT INTO THAT HILL?
>> YES. OUR CIVIL ENGINEER WILL BETTER ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT FROM OUR ORIGINAL ESTIMATES FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL STANDPOINT, WE ARE GOING TO BE LOWERING THE BUILDINGS A LITTLE BIT.
WE'RE GOING TO BE CUTTING A LITTLE BIT OF THE SITE, I'D SAY, IN THE BALLPARK OF 3-4 FEET.
>> I THINK IT'S ABOUT 20, 25 FEET TO THE FIRST BUILDING.
SO IF YOU WERE TO CUT IN, THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT NOW, IT'S RAISED.
>> YOU FINISH WITH YOUR QUESTION, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
>> I'LL LET THE THE NEXT QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING.
>> I HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
[01:00:01]
I KNOW SOMETIMES WHEN YOU DESIGNATE AFFORDABLE UNITS IN A COMPLEX, IT'S NOT IN PERPETUITY.IT'S FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, SOMETIMES IT'S 5, 10, OR 20 YEARS. I'VE SEEN THE PROJECTS.
IS THAT SIMILAR TO THIS SITUATION? ARE THEY GOING TO BE DEED FOR ONLY 20 YEARS AND THEY GO TO MARKET RATE AFTER THAT?
>> I'VE SEEN DEED RESTRICTED COVENANTS UP TO 50 YEARS.
NOW THIS DISCUSSION WOULD BE HELD WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I BELIEVE IT'S THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE NUMBER OF YEARS.
>> THEY'D BE PUTTING THE CONDITION ON HOW LONG THAT WOULD BE? BECAUSE I KNOW SOME CITIES LIKE TORRANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY CAP IT AT 15, 20 YEARS.
NOW THERE'S A BUNCH OF UNITS FOR SALE THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE A MARKET RATE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR 20 YEARS.
>> WE GENERALLY WILL DO IT, AND I CAN RECONFIRM THIS, ANYWHERE BETWEEN 25-30 YEARS.
>> WE'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW-UP WITH THAT.
>> I DON'T THINK THE DEVELOPER IS ENFORCING THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT WILL BE A STAFF QUESTION.
>> LET'S SEE. MR. LIGHT, YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET?
>> AGAIN, ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASPECT OF IT, IT'S LESS THAN 7%, 3 OF 43, AND THAT GOT YOU THE BONUS.
IS THAT THE MINIMUM AMOUNT YOU CAN HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO GET THAT BONUS?
>> THE MINIMUM IS 5% FOR VERY LOW.
THEN AS YOU POINTED OUT, WE'RE SETTING ASIDE 6.98%.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THIS COMMISSION SPENT A LOT ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND THEN IT WAS PUT OFF A LITTLE BIT.
BUT AS A COMMISSION, WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSES ACTUALLY MIXED WITHIN THE REGULAR UNIT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE ONE BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE STICKING OUT, THAT BUILDING IS LESS AFFORDABLE.
IS THAT A CONCERN OF YOURS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE THREE UNITS SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE COMPLEX?
>> WELL, I DID WANT TO CORRECT YOU ON THAT ONE, COMMISSIONER, IS WHILE THE THREE UNITS ARE ON THE BACK PARCEL, THERE ARE TWO IN ONE OF THE BUILDINGS AND ONE IN THE OTHER ONE, SO THEY ARE ACTUALLY SPREAD OUT.
>> THERE ARE MARKET RATE UNITS IN THOSE BUILDINGS AS WELL.
>> WE HAVE THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
>> BUILDING 7 HAS ONE, IF YOU NOTICE, THAT'S UNIT 36 AT THE END.
THEN BUILDING 8 OVER HERE, UNITS 41 AND 42 ARE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
>> FORTY-ONE AND 42, AND THEN 36.
>> THEY'RE STILL THE ONES THAT ARE IN THAT SMALLER PARCEL.
THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THE MAIN BUILDING.
>> THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. IT'S ON THAT SITE PLAN.
>> I KNOW AS A COMMISSION, THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO US THAT THEY NOT STICK OUT.
THOSE THREE OVER THERE, MAYBE TWO OF THEM WOULD BE WITHIN THE SIX UPFRONT OR THE FOUR, [BACKGROUND] THE OTHER BUILDINGS.
>> WE FEEL THAT THIS ACTUALLY IS DISPERSED SINCE BOTH BUILDINGS ALSO HAVE MARKET RATE UNITS.
>> WE FEEL THAT THESE ARE DISPERSED, CONSIDERING THERE ARE MARKET RATE UNITS IN BOTH OF THESE BUILDINGS AS WELL.
>> MAYBE THIS IS A STAFF OR A LEGAL QUESTION.
AREN'T THESE LOWER INCOME AFFORDABLE UNITS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME AS THE FULL PRICE UNITS? THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE A DIFFERENT KIND OF UNIT, AND SO OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE PRICED DIFFERENTLY.
ISN'T AFFORDABLE SUPPOSED TO BE, YOU CAN MOVE INTO AN APARTMENT OR A CONDO JUST LIKE YOUR NEIGHBORS, BUT YOU QUALIFY FOR A LOWER PRICE? DOESN'T IT HAVE TO BE THE SAME APARTMENT? IS THIS SOMEHOW SKIRTING SOME LEGAL ISSUE BY MAKING THE APARTMENTS DIFFERENT AND SADDLING THEM WITH TANDEM PARKING INSTEAD OF PARALLEL PARKING OR SIDE-BY-SIDE PARKING? IS THIS LEGAL?
>> THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE UNITS BE UNIFORM AND DESIGN THE AFFORDABLE VERSUS MARKET RATE.
THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OF STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.
>> YET OTHER DEVELOPERS IN OTHER CITIES HAVE BEEN REPRIMANDED FOR TRYING TO PUT THEIR AFFORDABLE UNITS AWAY FROM THE NORMALLY PRICED UNITS AND HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK AS THE APPLICANT HAD STATED, THERE ARE MARKET RATE UNITS WITHIN THAT BUILDING ALSO.
>> IT'S A DIFFERENT APPLES AND ORANGES.
THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS,
[01:05:02]
THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT PARKING SITUATIONS, THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT SIZES.>> THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE THE SAME.
>> BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY'RE PRICED LOWER?
>> BECAUSE THERE'S A CONDITION REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO ENTER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY THAT THESE BE DEED-RESTRICTED AT THE RATE.
>> BUT WOULDN'T THEY NORMALLY BE LESS EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THEY'RE SMALLER AND HAVE LESS AMENITIES?
>> EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING.
MR. BOSWELL, WE HAVE ANOTHER GENTLEMAN HERE, I THINK, WHO HAS SOME INFORMATION.
>> I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'M VERY SNEAKY.
>> JUST SIT DOWN AND COME BACK.
>> EXCUSE ME. YOU MUST TAKE AN OATH.
>> DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> I WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND ALSO THE TERM OF AFFORDABILITY QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BEFORE.
UNDER THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THE TERM OF AFFORDABILITY FOR FOR-SALE UNITS IS 45 YEARS.
THAT'S A STATE LAW REQUIREMENT.
NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE DESIGN OF THE UNITS, AS REPRESENTED BY YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, THERE IS NO STATE LAW REQUIREMENT OF SIMILARITY BETWEEN UNIT TYPES AND SIZES.
THE ONLY STATE PROHIBITION IS THAT UNITS WITHIN A BUILDING CANNOT BE SEGREGATED TO A SINGLE LEVEL, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING DONE HERE.
>> YEAH. I FOUND A GRAY AREA, IT APPEARS.
WHY WOULD YOU SINGLE OUT AFFORDABLE UNITS AND MAKE THEM LESSER PROPERTIES THAN THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT? WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
>> I'M NOT THE DEVELOPER HERE.
I SPEAK TO THE QUESTIONS OF THE LAW, BUT I THINK ALL OF THE UNITS ARE THREE BEDROOM UNITS, AND A THREE-BEDROOM UNIT RESERVED FOR A LOWER INCOME FAMILY AT $100,000 COST IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE MARKET RATE COST OF OTHER UNITS.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT.
>> WHICH WOULD BE LARGER AND MORE EXPENSIVE ANYWAY, SO I'M NOT SEEING THE LOGIC.
I'M SEEING FALSE EQUIVALENCIES.
WHY WOULD YOU SAY, THESE ARE FOR LOWER INCOME, BUT OF COURSE WE'VE MADE THEM LOOK LIKE LOWER INCOME APARTMENTS, SO YOU CAN HAVE THOSE.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE.
THERE ARE THE ECONOMIC REALITIES OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
IN SOME CASES, UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE BY DESIGN, SO THEY HAVE TO BE SMALLER, IT HAS TO BE A DIFFERENT DESIGN IN ORDER FOR A PROJECT TO PENCIL OUT FINANCIALLY.
>> WHEN YOU SAY IT HAS TO BE, WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING IS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MAKE MONEY ON IT, IT MUST BE.
>> THE REASON THAT IT HAS TO BE.
[OVERLAPPING] THERE'S NOBODY STANDING THERE SAYING, YOU WILL MAKE THIS A SMALLER OR LESS.
>> OUR ROLE IS NOT TO MAKE SURE YOUR PROJECT IS PROFITABLE FOR YOU.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO BY DESIGNING A PROJECT THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SELL THESE UNITS AT THE MARKET RATE OR WHATEVER YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO FOR AFFORDABILITY, AND IN THE PROCESS OF THE EXPENSES TO BUILD THAT IS HOW YOU DETERMINE WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO EVEN START THE PROJECT.
>> I'M NOT SEEING A QUESTION HERE, SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT, AND WE'LL MOVE OVER HERE TO MR. GADDIS WHO HAS A QUESTION.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR LEGAL EXPERT HERE.
>> YOU SEEM TO BE WELL VERSED IN THE REQUIREMENTS OF AFFORDABILITY.
IS THERE A PROHIBITION ON THE PURCHASER OF THE AFFORDABLE UNIT FROM TURNING RIGHT AROUND AND RENTING IT OUT AT MARKET RATES?
>> YEAH, SO THERE ARE A LOT OF STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS ABOUT BUYERS, INCLUDING THAT IF THEY SELL IT, AND IT HAS INCREASED IN VALUE, I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE WAY TO SAY THIS MOST SIMPLY.
THE DELTA BETWEEN THE PURCHASE AND SALE PRICE, ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO THE CITY TO THEN BE USED FOR A COMPONENT OF OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.
>> THE THING IS FOREVER BEING SOLD AT $100,000?
>> NO, THE AFFORDABILITY LEVEL WILL CHANGE.
BUT IF AN OWNER, AN AFFORDABLE OWNER THAT BUYS THE PROJECT, THEN SELLS THE UNIT AT A HIGHER PRICE, THEY DON'T GET TO RETAIN THE REWARD OF THAT SALE, FOR EXAMPLE.
IT WILL STILL BE DEED RESTRICTED AT THE LEVEL SET BY THE STATE.
>> BUT THE SECOND PURCHASER ALSO HAS TO MEET THE LOW INCOME REQUIREMENTS.
>> THE UNITS WILL BE DERESTRICTED FOR 45 YEARS TO ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE OF VERY LOW INCOME AS DEFINED BY THE STATE AT A PURCHASE PRICE, ALSO DEFINED BY THE STATE.
[01:10:01]
>> WHOEVER'S HOLDING THE UNIT AT THE END OF 45 YEARS CAN THEN SELL IT AT MARKET?
>> THE PRICE IS CHANGING, BUT THAT PRICE IS DICTATED.
>> NO. THE AFFORDABLE UNIT PRICE IS SET BY THE STATE.
>> RIGHT. OKAY. GOT IT. FOR IN EACH SUBSEQUENT SALE?
>> I SHOULD HAVE INTRODUCED MYSELF. I'M SORRY.
I'M CRISPER COX CASTLE ON LAND USE COUNSEL.
>> CHAIR LAM, I WANT TO NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE SOMEONE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
IT'S WITH US, VIRTUALLY, DIANA VERRAT.
SHE ASSISTED WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND HELPED PREPARE THIS ITEM.
SHE'S AVAILABLE ON THE CITY SIDE TO ANSWER LEGAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. I'M LOOKING ON EACH SIDE HERE. MR. CONROY.
>> THE PROPOSED SETBACKS ARE LESS THAN THE ZONING CODE MINIMUM.
THERE'S LESS OPEN SPACE THAN THE CODE MINIMUM.
>> IS THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD DESIGN THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROFIT MARGIN YOU NEED IT OR WHY? WHY NOT JUST BUILD IT TO CODE?
>> AS YOU GUYS PROBABLY KNOW, THIS SITE IS A LITTLE BIT CONSTRAINED IN THAT REGARD.
THEN WHILE WE DO THREE STORY TOWNHOUSES, WE WORK WITH OUR DESIGN TEAM SUCH AS OUR ARCHITECT, JUAN FLORES, WHO SPOKE EARLIER.
THEN THIS IS THE DESIGN THAT WE CAME UP WITH THAT WE FELT BEST COMPLIMENTED WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE HERE.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE CITY WANTED LARGER UNITS WITH SMALLER SETBACKS AND LESS OPEN SPACE?
HOWEVER, WE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST PROJECT THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE HERE.
>> WHAT? IT SEEMS YOU COULD HAVE BUILT TO CODE AND STILL BUILT.
LAST QUESTION. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, IS THAT CONSIDERED A HIGH TRAFFIC CORRIDOR THAT PROVIDES A DEVELOPER WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO BUILD THERE?
>> IT IS A HIGH TRAFFIC CORRIDOR.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES FOR BILLING.
YOU SAID NEXT TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY?
>> YEAH. CORRIDOR IS WHERE THERE'S ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES FOR BUILDERS IF THEY'RE WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FEET OF BUS STOPS OR HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS.
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES IN PLAY HERE FOR THAT.
>> A QUESTION REGARDING IN OUR BLUE FOLDER PACKET, WE HAD A LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED FROM RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.
I THINK THERE'S 500 EMERALD HOMEOWNERS.
I GUESS THE HISTORIC HOMES IN THE AREA.
THEY MENTIONED IN THERE THAT THAT THEY HAD DISCUSSED SOME SOLUTION WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO PARKING.
I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR SOLUTION WAS THAT YOU GUYS HAD WORKED OUT.
LIKE A PARKING PASS THING OR SOMETHING OR.
>> FROM MY CONVERSATION WITH I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. GOLDMAN.
THIS CONVERSATION CONSISTED OF SEEING IF THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD BE WILLING TO DO PERMITTED PARKING.
I DO REMEMBER MENTIONING THIS TO STAFF, AND THEN THEY WERE I'M NOT SURE IF THEY WERE STILL GOING TO LOOK INTO IT.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY WERE POTENTIALLY GOING TO LOOK INTO AT THE TIME.
>> FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE, IN THE BLUE HOLE, THESE ARE SOME OLDER HOMES IN THE AREA THAT WHEN THEY WERE BUILT, THERE THEY WERE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OF AUTOMOBILES, SO THERE'S NO GARAGES OR PARKING FOR THEM.
THEY WERE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING I GUESS THEY USE STREET PARKING FOR THOSE HOMES SPECIFICALLY.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD FALL UP WITH STAFF THEN.
>> MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, YOU HAVE GARAGES FOR TWO CARS.
AS WE KNOW IN THE SOUTH BAY, MANY PEOPLE DO NOT USE THEIR GARAGES FOR THEIR CARS.
DESPITE THAT, SO YOU HAVE SEVEN PARKING SPACES, THAT ARE FOR VISITORS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WHERE ARE THOSE VISITOR PARKING ON THE PROPERTY?
>> IF YOU GO, STEPHEN, CAN YOU ZOOM BACK INTO THE BACK PARCEL? THERE'S TWO SPACES OVER THERE THAT SAY FOUR AND FIVE.
[01:15:03]
>> IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE MAIN PARCEL, THERE'S ONE RIGHT THERE IN THE CORNER, NUMBER THREE.
THERE'S NUMBER TWO, AND THERE'S NUMBER ONE RIGHT THERE.
>> WHERE ARE BOTH THE RESIDENTS AND THE VISITORS THAT ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE PROPERTY, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK?
>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
WHERE ARE THE RESIDENCES THAT ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR?
>> LET ME GO BACK. HERE IN THE SOUTH BAY, IT'S WELL KNOWN THAT PEOPLE GENERALLY IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PARK IN THEIR DRIVEWAY.
THEY DO NOT PARK IN THEIR GARAGES.
THAT IN ITSELF IS GOING TO PUT ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON THOSE VISITOR SPACES.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE REALITY OF OUR OUR COMMUNITY.
THE VISITORS THAT WOULD THAT ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR, YOU HAVE ONLY FIVE.
MY QUESTION IS WHERE ARE THE PEOPLE GOING TO PARK IF THEY'RE NOT PARKING ON THE SITE?
>> I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION REGARDING USING YOUR CAR FOR A GARAGE.
OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS HAVE CC AND OUR REQUIREMENTS THAT SAY, YOU MUST PARK YOUR CAR IN YOUR GARAGE. THAT IS A REQUIREMENT.
>> THAT IS A REQUIREMENT. SECOND, A LOT OF OUR COMMUNITIES ALSO USE BASICALLY AN ENFORCEMENT APP FOR THE GUEST PARKING SPACES.
PEOPLE CANNOT JUST BE ALLOWED TO PARK THERE FOR AN UNDETERMINED PERIOD OF TIME.
IT'S USUALLY SOME TIME LIMIT FOR THAT KIND OF THING.
>> OKAY. THEN LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.
DID YOU DETERMINE IN ANY STUDY THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT WOULD NEED TO PARK ON THE STREET? IS THERE ANY TRAFFIC STUDY THAT HAS ESTIMATED THE NUMBER?
>> WE DID A VMT BASICALLY SCREENING MEMO COMMISSIONER LAM, AND THEN IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC IMPACT AT THIS POINT, THEN WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED WOULD BE LESS FROM THESE 43 UNITS THAN THE CURRENTLY ACTIVE PRESCHOOL.
WHAT I'M AFTER IS HAS THERE BEEN ANY ASSESSMENT AS TO HOW MANY CARS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT ARE GOING TO BE PARKING ON THE STREET. ANYBODY?
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRIVATE STREET?
>> PUBLIC STREETS NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, PARKING IN REDONDO BEACH IS A VERY BIG ISSUE.
WHAT I'M WANTING TO KNOW IS WHAT THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE OVERFLOW PARKING FROM THIS PROJECT.
TRUST ME, I UNDERSTAND SB 330.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO KNOW WHAT THE PARKING IMPACT IS GOING TO BE FROM THIS PROJECT.
>> I CAN HAVE OUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT POTENTIALLY SPEAK TO THAT.
DO YOU PROMISE TO SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING TIME COMMISSIONERS I'M ABBY PAL, THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER ON THIS PROJECT.
FOR A PARKING STUDY, AS THE PROPERTY HAS PROPOSED PARKING IN THE GARAGES,
[01:20:03]
AND WE SCREENED OUT FOR VMT, THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT TO DO A PARKING STUDY.THE STREETS FOR OVERFILL PARKING WERE NOT STUDIED AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT AND UNLESS IT'S ANALYZED, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
BUT PER THE GUIDELINES TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES, WE SCREEN, AND IF PROJECT GENERATES LESS THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TRIPS, IT'S NOT REALLY REQUIRED TO DO THOSE STUDIES BECAUSE THE EFFECT OF TRAFFIC ON THE NEIGHBORING STREETS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO REQUIRE THOSE STUDIES.
LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS CORRECT.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PARKING STUDY IS RELATED TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT GUIDELINES DO NOT STATE THIS REQUIREMENT.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT IF THE CITY REQUIRES IT, BUT PER THE GUIDELINES OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY GUIDELINES THAT THE CITY PROVIDES, IF WE SCREEN FROM AVMT ANALYSIS, WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO DO THOSE KINDS OF ANALYSIS.
IT WAS NOT DONE AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT.
>> THE ONLY ANALYSIS WE DID WAS A VMT SCREENING ANALYSIS.
WHERE WE ACTUALLY STUDIED THE TRIPS THAT THE CURRENT USE ON SITE IS GENERATING.
THAT IS THE PRESCHOOL CHART SITE.
THE TRIPS THAT THIS USE WILL PROPOSE IS LESS COMPARED TO THAT.
IT'S IN THE NEGATIVE SUCH THAT THE EXPERIENCE OF TRAFFIC ON THE STREET IT DOES NOT NEED ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I THINK WHERE I DISAGREE WOULD BE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VMT AND PARKING.
BUT WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED.
>> THAT STATE LAW HERE, RIGHT?
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY STAFF IF THEY HAD ASKED IT, THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
>> YEAH. WE WERE NOT REQUIRED AS A PART OF THE OUR STUDY TO DO IT AT THIS POINT OF TIME.
>> FOR YOU. THIS 43 UNITS OF THREE BEDROOMS EACH, RIGHT?
>> EACH BEDROOM COULD REASONABLY HOUSE TWO ADULTS OR TWO DRIVING AGE PEOPLE?
>> THAT'S 258 VEHICLES OF WHICH YOU PROVIDE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
WHAT IS IT 80 [OVERLAPPING] EVEN IF IT'S 93, TAKE THAT OUT, THAT'S STILL 165 VEHICLES THAT ARE GOING TO BE ADDED TO THE SURROUNDING STREETS.
DO YOU AGREE? DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF VEHICLES WHEN I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY PARKING THAT'S GOING TO BE PROVIDED ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, NOR IS THERE ANY PARKING THAT'S GOING TO BE PROVIDED IN THAT CENTRAL COURT, SO THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE ALONG THAT SHORT STRIP OF VINCENT STREET. AM I WRONG?
>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL PARKED VEHICLES.
I SEE THAT THERE'S CURRENTLY PARALLEL PARKED VEHICLES THERE.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HOUSE NEARLY ENOUGH.
I'M JUST CURIOUS, I GUESS, FOR CITY STAFF FOR YOU, WHY BASED ON WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT 165 CARS, WHY THERE WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT BY THE CITY OR AN ANALYSIS DONE BY YOU.
IF THERE WAS, OR COULD THERE STILL BE DIAGONAL PARKING LIKE THERE IS ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF VINCENT STREET TO AT LEAST ADD A FEW MORE PARKING SPACES THERE.
>> COMMISSIONER CONROY, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
THE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR THIS MANY HOUSING USE IN UNITS.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT WE DO ADDITIONAL PARKING STUDIES TO EVALUATE WHAT THE POTENTIAL OVERFLOW COULD BE.
IT'S JUST NOT PART OF OUR PROCESS, AND THAT'S NOT TYPICALLY PART OF THE PROCESS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
IN THIS CASE, 100 IS REQUIRED BY THE CODE.
THEY'RE PROPOSING 93, SEVEN HAVE BEEN REDUCED DUE TO THE DENSITY BONUS LAW.
BUT IT'S REALLY A MATTER, IF THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER
[01:25:03]
EVALUATING WHAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS WOULD BE TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD DO THE PARKING, WE WOULD REALLY HAVE TO FORMULATE SOMETHING IN THE CODE AND HAVE IT BE ONE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN A REQUIREMENT, BUT IT'S CURRENTLY NOT.>> IS THE DIAGONAL PARKING A CONSIDERATION OR NOT?
>> IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING?
>> NOT IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
I'M JUST SAYING EVEN IF IT CAN ADD FIVE TO TEN MORE SPOTS ALONG VINCENT.
>> I WOULD SAY IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONDITION THE PROJECT TO REQUIRE SOME MORE PARKING, THAT'S AN OPTION POTENTIALLY.
HOWEVER, WITH ANY CONDITION THE PLANNING COMMISSION IMPOSES ON THE PROJECT, WE REALLY NOT ABLE TO TAKE ANY ACTION THAT WOULD REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDINGS OR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CREATIVE SOLUTION TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING ON THE SITE BUT MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO.
>> WITH WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING, AND LAST NIGHT, I ATTENDED A ZOOM CONFERENCE CALL WITH COUNCILMEMBER TODD LOEWENSTEIN, WHO WAS IN DISTRICT 2, WHICH IS RIGHT BY THE HIGH SCHOOL.
THEY HAD SEVERAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERS AT THAT MEETING AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH TRAFFIC.
BUT BASICALLY, TRAFFIC COMING UP.
VINCENT DROPPING KIDS OFF AT SCHOOL, ALSO DIAMOND, AND THEY HAD A WHOLE COMPLEX ANALYSIS THAT THEY WERE GOING THROUGH ON THAT.
IT WAS PRETTY IN-DEPTH AND THEY WERE TRYING A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS JUST TO MINIMIZE THE REALLY SERIOUS PROBLEM THEY HAVE OVER THERE BECAUSE THAT'S A MAIN HUB FOR EVERYONE DROPPING THEIR KIDS OFF FROM ALL OVER THE CITY OF REDONDO.
THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD HAVE DIRECT INTERFERENCE OR INTERACTION WITH ANY OF THE TRAFFIC HERE AND ALSO WITH PARKING.
I GUESS THE QUESTION IS IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD BE LOOKING AT? BECAUSE IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT'S ALREADY GOING TO AGGRAVATE AN EXISTING PROBLEM THAT HASN'T HAD A SOLUTION.
THERE WAS A LOT OF ANGRY RESIDENTS ON THE CALL JUST TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S THERE NOW.
I CAN JUST IMAGINE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THESE ADDITIONAL CARTRIDGES THERE.
>> IF I MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> PRESCHOOL IN GENERAL DURING THE DROP OFF HOURS DO HAVE VERY HEAVY TRAFFIC.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMUTER PEAK HOUR, WHEN PEOPLE ARE DROPPING KIDS TO SCHOOL, IT'S BASICALLY BETWEEN THE 7:00 AM AND 9:00 AM WINDOW.
BUT BECAUSE WE TOOK COUNTS, WE CAN SPEAK TO THIS WITH CONFIDENCE BECAUSE WE DID TRAFFIC COLLECTION AT THE EXISTING SITE, AND WE NOTED 237 DAILY TRIPS AT THE SITE.
IN THE AM PEAK HOUR ITSELF, THERE WERE LIKE ABOUT 79 TRIPS.
IN THAT RANGE, THERE WERE 79 CARS VISITING THAT SITE, DROPPING OFF KIDS AND LEAVING.
IN THE PM PEAK HOUR, THAT WOULD BE A 4:00-6:00 PM WINDOW.
IT'S MUCH LOWER. IT'S 14 BECAUSE STAFF IS LEAVING AND KIDS HAVE LEFT.
BUT IN CASE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, THE PEAK HOUR, AND WE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THIS DATA BECAUSE OF RESIDENTIAL DATA, THERE'S A LOT OF SURVEYS.
FOR THE NUMBER OF UNITS BEING PROPOSED, THE PEAK HOUR IS ACTUALLY 17.
THE EXPERIENCE OF TRAFFIC DURING THESE COMMUTER PEAK HOURS IS GOING TO BE MUCH LESS THAN WHAT IS BEING EXPERIENCED ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
OUR CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, RYAN LOU, WITH THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT FOR THE APPLICANT, REVIEWED THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, AND THERE WAS MUCH DIALOGUE BACK AND FORTH.
REALLY AS SHE'S DESCRIBED, THIS IS GOING TO REDUCE THAT MORNING CONGESTION TIME BECAUSE OF THE USE THAT'S THERE NOW IS A DAYCARE WHEN ALL THE PARENTS COME AND GO.
IT'S REALLY A SIGNIFICANT NET REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC AND PARKING NEED AT THE PROJECT SITE, CERTAINLY FOR THE AM PEAK AND JUST A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE PM.
AGAIN, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER THOROUGHLY VETTED.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I'M HEARING YOU SAY THAT DURING THESE PICKUP/DROPOFF PERIODS, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A SIMULTANEOUS SCHOOL AND PRESCHOOL, CORRECT?
>> THESE NUMBERS ARE HIGHER THAN THE NUMBERS THAT WOULD OCCUR WHEN THIS WAS FULLY OCCUPIED. IS THAT CORRECT?
[01:30:05]
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. SOMETHING WAS ADDED WHICH WAS A NO LEFT HAND TURN IN THE BLUE PACKET.
THAT'S ACTUALLY NEW BECAUSE WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO IS MOVE TRAFFIC INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEREAS BEFORE, THE RESIDENTS WERE PROBABLY THINKING, OH, PEOPLE WOULD BE TURNING LEFT OUT OF THE AREA.
I COULD SEE WHY THEY WOULD STOP IT.
YOU TURN LEFT AND THERE'S A CAR.
THERE'S SO MUCH TRAFFIC ON VINCENT AND PCH DURING RUSH HOUR AT 8 O'CLOCK, IT'S CRAZY.
I CAN SEE THAT THAT WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT TO ME, THAT'S A REAL CONCERN FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA.
NOW THEY HAVE TRAFFIC MOVING INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY PROBABLY WEREN'T ANTICIPATING, AND THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT NO LEFT HAND TURN WAS IMPLEMENTED THERE. THAT'S A CONCERN.
>> WHEN DID YOU DO THIS SURVEY? BETWEEN WHAT DATES?
>> NO. SURVEY TIMES ARE TYPICAL DURING A WEEKDAY.
WE WOULD PICK ANY WEEKDAY THAT WOULD BE TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, WE CONSIDERED THOSE REGULAR TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON WEEKDAYS BETWEEN THOSE THREE DAYS.
>> YOUR CONCLUSION WAS THAT THERE'S REALLY NOT THAT MUCH TRAFFIC?
>> NO, THERE IS TRAFFIC. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE CONCLUDING THAT FOR THE EXISTING USE ON SITE, AS PER THE SURVEY THAT WE DID, DOES HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
AS I MENTIONED, THERE WERE 273 DAILY TRIPS.
IN 24 HOURS, WE RECORDED 273 CARS ACCESSING THE SITE CURRENTLY.
>> ACCESSING THE CURRENT SITE.
>> NO. IT'S IN ACCESSING THE SITE FOR THE USE OF THE SITE.
DURING THE PEAK HOUR, WHICH WOULD BE DROPOFF TIME, I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT THE TABLE, JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
DURING THE PEAK HOUR, THERE ARE 46 TRIPS TURNING IN AND 33 LEAVING THE SITE.
IT'S TOTAL 79 TRIPS, WHICH IS QUITE HIGH.
>> FORTY SIX WENT IN, BUT ONLY 33 WENT OUT?
>> YES, BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE THAT.
>> THERE'S EVAPORATION INVOLVED? [LAUGHTER]
>> STAFF COMES IN, THEY TEND TO STAY IN.
YOU CAN SEE THOSE STAFF MEMBERS LEAVING LATER IN THE DAY.
THAT'S WHAT THE NUMBERS REFLECT.
USUALLY PARENTS ARE DROPPING OFF KIDS AND STAFF STAYS BACK.
THAT'S ALWAYS THE DIFFERENCE IN IN AND OUT.
THE TOTAL TRIPS IN THE AM PEAK HOUR IS 79, AND IN THE PM PEAK HOUR, WHICH WOULD BE AROUND 4:00-6:00 PM, IT'S ONE TRIP COMING IN AND 13 TRIPS LEAVING THE SITES.
WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT DURING THE PEAK HOURS, THE SAME TIME, IF YOU CONSIDER IN THE DROPOFF TIME, THERE ARE FOUR TRIPS THAT WOULD COME IN, 13 THAT WOULD LEAVE.
THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A TOTAL OF 17 TRIPS.
THESE ARE SURVEY BASED ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.
FOR RESIDENTIAL, WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF VARIANCES IN THESE NUMBERS.
THESE ARE HIGH CONFIDENCE NUMBERS.
IT'S GOING TO STAY IN THAT BALLPARK.
COMPARED TO WHAT IS THERE ON SITE RIGHT NOW, DURING PEAK HOURS, THE EXPERIENCE OF TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION IS GOING TO BE MUCH LESS.
THIS DOESN'T SAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE LESS NUMBER OF CARS.
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT HOW PEOPLE USE THEIR CARS AND AT THE TIME THAT THEY USE THEIR CARS, IT'S MORE DISPERSED.
DURING THOSE PEAK HOURS, THE EXPERIENCE OF TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE MUCH LESS THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON SITE, HOW IT'S BEING USED.
>> BUT YOU HAVE THIS LESSER AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC PULLING OUT ONTO VINCENT AND CAN ONLY GO UP THE HILL INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY CAN'T GET OUT TO PCH WITHOUT GOING AROUND THE BLOCK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH IS WHERE THE HEAVY, HEAVY TRAFFIC IS? CONTRARY TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE, WHERE YOU COULD TURN BOTH WAYS, THIS IS QUITE DIFFERENT.
WHAT IS YOUR PLAN TO TO MITIGATE THAT TRAFFIC SITUATION?
[01:35:05]
THERE'S PRETTY MUCH GOING TO BE SOME GRIDLOCK.>> I THINK THE LEFT HAND RESTRICTION WAS PUT IN FOR SAFETY TO AVOID FOR CARS COMING UP EAST ON FROM VINCENT, FOR SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE SOMETIMES THERE ARE SIGHT DISTANCE ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHY THE LEFT TURN WAS BLOCKED.
>> IT'S LARGELY FOR SAFETY EVEN THOUGH THERE'LL BE LESS TRAFFIC THAN BEFORE.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, THERE'S A SAFETY ISSUE WHERE THERE WASN'T ONE BEFORE.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE REQUIRED.
>> IT'S BECAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION'S PROXIMITY TO PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
IT'S SO CLOSE THAT DRIVER WON'T HAVE TIME TI REACT.
THEN ALSO FOR THE VEHICLES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO TURN TO THE RIGHT, THEY CAN GO DOWN CENTRAL COURT AND NOT GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF THEY WANT TO GET TO PCH.
THEY'RE REALLY JUST IMPACTING.
>> YOU CAN EXIT FROM BOTH ENDS OF THE CENTRAL COURT?
>> YOU CAN EXIT FROM BOTH ENDS OF THE CENTRAL COURT.
>> THE DRIVEWAY ONTO VINCENT, TURN RIGHT AND THEN TURN RIGHT ON CENTRAL COURT.
>> CENTRAL COURT'S A ONE WAY SOUTH?
>> CENTRAL COURT TAKES THEM TO WHERE?
>> MY MATH ISN'T WORKING HERE.
CAN WE TAKE A WALK THROUGH THE GUEST PARKING SPACES AGAIN? BEFORE, WHEN YOU COUNTED THEM OFF ON THE DRAWING, WE CAME UP WITH FIVE, RIGHT?
>> IF WE HAVE 86 SPACES IN THE UNITS AND WE HAVE FIVE GUEST PARKING SPACES, THAT GIVES US 91, NOT 93.
>> LET ME TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
>> SO THE REPORT IS INCORRECT?
>> CITY RELYING ON THE 93 NUMBER.
>> AS YOU CAN SEE IN TABLE 4 IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PROJECT FAR EXCEEDS THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
I DON'T HAVE THAT PULLED UP IN FRONT OF ME, BUT 65 SPACES ARE REQUIRED, AND THEY'RE PROVIDING 91.
>> I THINK ONE THING YOU MAY NOT HAVE COUNTED, THERE IS A A PARKING SPACE THAT ISN'T NUMBERED.
IT JUST SAYS AN ACCESSIBLE PARKING.
>> DO YOU SEE THAT? IT'S AT THE TOP VERY MIDDLE AT CENTRAL COURT?
THAT IS AN OPEN PARKING SPACE.
>> AN ACCESSIBLE PARKING, IT SAYS.
>> NO, THAT'S FOR ACCESSIBLE PARKING.
THAT'S THE AREA THAT YOU HAVE TO PRESERVE FOR ACCESS.
>> THE VEHICLE PARKING SPACE 2, THAT IS MARKED AS HANDICAP SPOT.
>> TO BE ABLE TO GET THINGS IN AND OUT.
>> THAT'S NOT A SPACE FOR PARKING.
WE'RE REALLY FIVE PLUS THE 86, WE'VE GOT 91 SPACES, NOT 93.
>> COULD YOU GO TO SOME PLACE IN THE RENDERINGS THAT SHOWS US THE MEASUREMENT OF THE 39-FOOT PLACES?
ONE OF THE BUILDINGS ALONG CENTRAL COURT.
THE 39 IS GOING TO BE TO THE TOP OF THIS PEAK DOWN TO HERE TO THE EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION.
>> THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN WHAT WE PERMIT.
IS THAT REALLY NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT MUCH HEIGHT? IS THAT PART OF A LIVING SPACE?
>> ACTUALLY OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DO ALLOW FOR EXCEEDING THE BASE HEIGHT LIMIT BY FOUR FEET IN ORDER TO SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ETC.
[01:40:02]
>> IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? IT'S THE SAME HEIGHT.
PART OF THE HEIGHT IS THE PARAPET WALL THAT'S ABOVE THE 35 FEET.
HOWEVER, I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THIS IS ONLY FOUR FEET ABOVE THE PERMITTED HEIGHT, WHICH WOULD BE ALLOWED PER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> PART OF IT DUE TO HIGHER INTERIOR CEILINGS, THOUGH.
HOW HIGH ARE THE CEILINGS IN THERE? ARE THEY 10-11 FOOT CEILINGS?
>> COULD WE LOOK AT ON A MAP THE OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY'RE ASKING FOR WHERE WE DON'T HAVE PROPER SETBACKS ACCORDING TO CODE.
CAN WE JUST HAVE A LOOK AND HAVE THOSE PLACES JUST POINTED OUT SO WE CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHY THIS IS OCCURRING?
>> THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE HERE IS ONE AREA THAT'S BEING CALLED OUT AS NOT MEETING THE SETBACK.
>> I CAN LOOK AT AN AERIAL PHOTO OF THAT.
I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT INSUFFICIENT SETBACK.
IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW THERE'S A PARKING LOT OVER THERE, AM I CORRECT?
>> THIS WAS ALSO ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WAS CALLED OUT AS BEING INSUFFICIENT ALONG NORTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
>> I THINK WE'VE DISCOVERED THAT'S QUITE A BIT MORE THAN WHAT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN ON HERE.
>> THEN I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE LAST ONE.
I WANT TO SAY IT WAS THIS ONE HERE.
LET ME SEE WHAT MY TABLE SAYS. WESTERN AND SOUTHERN.
>> ALONG CENTRAL COURT. FOR R-3, IT'S THIS CORNER HERE AND THEN THIS DOWN HERE.
IT'S CLOSER TO THE ALLEY THAN WE WOULD NORMALLY ALLOW.
>> THE STANDARD IS 14 FEET, AND THEY HAVE EIGHT, AND IT'S COMING OFF THE ALLEY. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> COULD YOU SHOW THAT AGAIN? THERE'S NO DRIVEWAY, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THE QUESTION FOR THE PARKING.
I'M JUST HAVING A LITTLE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING HOW IF YOU GOT, LET'S SEE, 24, 32 ON THIS MAIN THING HERE, AND YOU ASSUME AT LEAST ONE PERSON IS GOING TO BE LEAVING IN THE MORNING IN RUSH HOUR, HOW THAT IS LESS THAN THE 40 SOME ODD THAT ARE ANTICIPATED THAT ARE CURRENTLY LEAVING AND COMING IN HERE.
AM I MISSING SOMETHING? ALL THESE THINGS HAVE TO LEAVE THROUGH VINCENT, ALL OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE MAIN LOT, OR IS THERE ANOTHER EXIT?
>> THERE ARE FOUR BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALONG THAT PRIVATE STREET, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO USE THAT PRIVATE STREET AND VINCENT STREET.
IF THAT'S THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING, COMMISSIONER.
>> I'M MISSING HOW THE NUMBERS YOU GAVE THERE AS CURRENTLY 40 SOMETHING COMING IN, 33 LEAVING, HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE DECREASED WHEN THERE'S THIS MANY BUILDINGS IF THEY ALL HAVE TO LEAVE AND ASSUMING ONE PERSON HAS TO LEAVE, WHICH IT COULD BE TWO, IT COULD BE SIX.
HOW ARE YOU CONCLUDING THAT IT WILL ACTUALLY GO DOWN? I'M MISSING THAT.
>> WE'RE NEVER TALKING ABOUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF THE ENTIRE CARS IN THE PROPERTY.
WHEN WE DO SURVEYS, WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT IN THE RUSH HOUR IN A PARTICULAR HOUR, HOW MANY CARS ARE LEAVING.
THEY USUALLY DON'T LEAVE TOGETHER.
THAT'S A NOTED BEHAVIORAL PATTERN IN TRAFFIC.
NOT ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MORNING BETWEEN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME WILL LEAVE TOGETHER.
IN THAT SEPARATION, THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION
[01:45:03]
OF VEHICLES THAT WILL LEAVE THE PROPERTY AT THE SAME TIME, AS WE ARE SEEING, IT WOULD BE FOUR CARS IN TO THE PROPERTY IN THE MORNING HOURS, THE RUSH HOURS, AND THERE WILL BE 13 CARS LEAVING THE PROPERTY.THERE WILL BE A MOVEMENT OF 17 VEHICLE TRIPS FROM THIS PROPERTY AT THAT POINT OF TIME.
AS I SAID, THAT THESE ARE FROM SURVEYS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.
USUALLY, IT'S ALWAYS IN THIS BALLPARK RANGE. IT DOESN'T VARY.
WHAT I MEAN IS THAT LET'S SAY FROM 6:00 AM-7:00 AM, MAYBE 10 CARS LEAVE, AND THEN FROM 7:00 AM-8:00 AM, 14 CARS LEAVE, THEN FROM 8:00 AM-9:00 AM, SOME MORE CARS LEAVE.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE PEAK HOUR, IT'S WHAT IS THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC LEAVING BETWEEN THOSE RUSH HOURS, WHICH IS A PERIOD.
IT'S NOT AN HOUR PARTICULARLY, BUT A PERIOD.
WHEN I'M SAYING IT'S 13 CARS LEAVING THE SITE, I'M REFERENCING THE HIGHEST HOUR, WHICH NOTES THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF CARS LEAVING THE SITE, BUT THEY LEAVE THE SITE DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
>> YOU'RE USING THE EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF UNITS HERE.
IF THERE'S ONE EXIT COUNTRYWIDE, THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW MANY CARS WOULD GO OUT PER TIME?
I MIGHT NOT BE UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION, I GUESS.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THE NUMBER IS LOWER HERE.
ARE YOU TAKING THAT FROM SURVEYS OF OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE ABOUT THIS SIZE WITH ONE EXIT? WHAT'S THAT DENOMINATOR? WHAT'S THE NUMBER?
>> THE DWELLING UNIT IS THE DENOMINATOR.
>> THE DWELLING UNIT. THIS NUMBER, YOU'D EXPECT THAT MANY AT THAT HOUR.
I JUST DIDN'T SEE WHERE YOU GOT THAT NUMBER FROM BECAUSE THEORETICALLY, I WOULD THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD LEAVE AROUND THE SAME TIME GIVEN THAT THAT'S WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO BE TO WORK, 09:00-5:00 WORKERS, BUT APPARENTLY THAT'S NOT TRUE.
>> NO. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT LEAVE AT 7:30.
>> SOME OF THEM ARE LATE LIKE ME, I GUESS.
>> I'M THE LATE PERSON TOO, BUT YES.
>> THERE ARE DIFFERENT PERIODS AND INTERVALS, 15-MINUTE INTERVALS BETWEEN 6:30-9:30, WHERE PEOPLE DECIDE TO GO TO WORK, SO THEY ARE ALL NOT LEAVING AT THE SAME TIME.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION HERE.
THAT'S THE CALCULATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROJECT.
YOUR CALCULATION USING NATIONAL SURVEYS IS DIFFERENT FOR THE EXISTING. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK THE ASSUMPTION THAT IS BEING MADE HERE IS THAT FOR THE CHILDCARE, THE PERIOD OF TIME IS MORE CONDENSED.
YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR MEASURING IS BROADER FOR THE PROJECT THAN IT IS FOR THE CHILDCARE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SORT OF. I'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN THIS.
THERE ARE COMMUTER PEAK PERIODS.
WHEN YOU SEE THAT THE TRAFFIC ON THE STREET, IT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC, THAT STARTS BETWEEN LIKE 6:00 AM-9:00 AM.
IN THE COMMUTER PEAK PERIOD, THERE IS A PEAK HOUR.
WE ARE ALWAYS COMPARING PEAK HOURS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE WORST CASE TRAFFIC COMPARISON.
WHAT WE DID, WE TOOK SURVEY ON THE EXISTING SITE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A TYPICAL USE.
WHEN I SAY IT'S NOT A TYPICAL USE, WE CANNOT REALLY USE THE ITE MANUAL, WHICH GIVES NATIONWIDE SURVEYS, TO CORRELATE DATA CORRECTLY FOR WHAT IS ON THE SITE.
IN THAT CASE, TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS WILL DO A TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION SURVEY TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE DATA ON THE SITE.
THAT'S WHY WE WILL TAKE 24-HOUR COUNTS, AND WE'LL KNOW TRAFFIC FROM 12:00 AM-11:59 PM IN THE NIGHT.
THEN WE GET THESE TRAFFIC PATTERNS.
WHEN I SAY IN THE AM PEAK HOUR, THAT'S THE HIGHEST RECORDED TRAFFIC IN THE INTERVALS OF 7:00-9:00.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EXACT HOUR WHICH IS THE HIGHEST, BUT THAT IS THE HIGHEST PEAK HOUR AT THAT TIME.
[01:50:04]
>> AS THESE HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED AS FAMILY UNITS AND THEY SEEM TO BE LARGE ENOUGH FOR THAT, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR ADDRESSING THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY IN THE MORNING, WHEN X NUMBER OF THESE FAMILIES DRIVE THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOL? WHICH WILL BE ALL RIGHT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, CONTRARY TO PEOPLE LEAVING FOR WORK, WHICH IT DEPENDS ON HOW FAR ARE THEY DRIVING.
HOW HAVE YOU ADDRESSED THE DROPPING OFF OF KIDS AT ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN THE AREA, PRIVATE SCHOOLS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DON'T DRIVE AT REDONDO HIGH, PUBLIC SCHOOL.
>> I DIDN'T ASK ABOUT HIGH SCHOOL, DID I? [LAUGHTER]
>> THE TRIP GENERATION SURVEYS INCLUDE ALL KINDS OF TRIPS IN THE PEAK HOUR.
IT'S NOT JUST WORK TRIPS. IT'S SCHOOL TRIPS.
BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MIGHT JUST WANT TO GET COFFEE AND GO READ SOMEWHERE.
SOME PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK.
SOME PEOPLE ARE DROPPING THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOL AND GOING TO WORK.
SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST DROPPING THEIR KIDS OFF TO SCHOOL.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT MIGHT BE THE INTENTION OF THE TRIP, THAT IS THE NUMBER OF TRIPS IN THE PEAK HOUR.
THE SURVEY DOES ACCOUNT FOR ALL KINDS OF TRIPS BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE COLLECTING COUNTS, YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PERSON IS GOING.
YOU CAN ONLY COLLECT THE COUNTS.
>> BUT WE DO KNOW THAT ANYBODY WITH SCHOOL AGE KIDS IS GOING TO DRIVE THEM TO SCHOOL, AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALL GOING TO LEAVE RIGHT ABOUT THE SAME TIME.
>> I WOULD POINT OUT COMMISSIONER BOSWELL, THAT REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL IS WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE.
>> I SPECIFICALLY DID NOT MENTION REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL.
I SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS.
>> MR. BOSWELL, WOULD YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION?
>> THE QUESTION IS, HOW ARE YOU ADDRESSING THIS ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION? YOU SAY THAT IT IS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE 14 IS AN AWFULLY LOW NUMBER FOR AN ENTIRE HOUR WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE 20 OR 30 FAMILIES, MAYBE HALF OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE THAT ARE GOING TO DRIVE THEIR KIDS TO SCHOOL.
THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE 14 COVERS THAT PLUS THE PEOPLE COMMUTING TO WORK.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERABLY HIGHER.
I MAY BE MISTAKEN, BUT IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE THIS STUDY IS NOT LOOKING AT THE FULL IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT ON THE COMMUNITY.
>> IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER BOSWELL.
OUR CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER THOROUGHLY VETTED THIS REPORT.
HE'S THE PROFESSIONAL FOR THE CITY.
WE RELY ON HIS EXPERTISE AS A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, AND WE STAND BEHIND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THAT REPORT.
>> THIS IS THE SAME GUY WHO DID THE GALLERIA TRAFFIC STUDY, DID HE?
>> THIS IS THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BRIAN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS IS THE SAME CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER THAT EVALUATED THE GALLERIA PARKING ISSUES BECAUSE WE DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS COMPLETELY BOGUS, AND NOBODY BUT THE PEOPLE WHO APPEALED THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT BECAUSE IT WAS SO BURIED.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS NOT TO HOLD YOUR FEET TO THE FIRE SO MUCH, BUT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS STUDY MIGHT NOT BE COMPLETE.
>> I'M GOING TO TRY AND SHED A LITTLE LIGHT ON THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE THE AGENDA PACKET AND ALL THE MATERIALS.
>> ATTACHMENT 5 IS A VMT AND TRAFFIC SCREENING ANALYSIS.
>> AT THE END OF THAT STUDY IS A TABLE.
THAT TABLE IS THE SOURCE OF THE NUMBERS WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE.
THE EXISTING TRIPS VERSUS EXPECTED TRIPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
TO DETERMINE THE EXPECTED NUMBER OF TRIPS, WHAT TRAFFIC ENGINEERS DO IS THEY LOOK TO A MANUAL CALLED THE ITE MANUAL.
THAT'S THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS.
THOSE NUMBERS ARE ALLOCATED BASED ON A SPECIFIC TYPE OF USE.
MULTI-FAMILY LOW RISE, MULTI-FAMILY HIGH RISE, SINGLE FAMILY, THINGS LIKE THAT, HIGH CUBE INDUSTRIAL.
THERE'S HUNDREDS OF TYPES OF CATEGORIES.
THE NUMBERS THAT THEY GENERATE ARE BASED UPON NATIONWIDE SURVEYS THAT REFLECT A SIMILAR TYPE USE.
HERE, YOU HAVE A MULTI-FAMILY USE.
THEY LOOK TO THE ITE MANUAL, WHICH THIS IS ALL STANDARDIZED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STUFF.
THEY LOOK TO THE ITE MANUAL, PULL THE RATE FOR THAT TYPE OF USE.
NOW, THAT RATE, AS IT'S BEEN BASED ON A SURVEY FROM NATIONWIDE SIMILAR TYPE PROJECTS, IS INCLUSIVE OF, AS NOTED, PEOPLE GOING TO GET COFFEE, PEOPLE DROPPING OFF THEIR CHILDREN,
[01:55:01]
PEOPLE GOING TO WORK.THIS RATE REFLECTS PEOPLE THAT ARE DROPPING OFF THEIR CHILDREN ALREADY.
>> FOURTEEN IN ONE HOUR IS THE MOST YOU WERE ABLE TO DETERMINE?
>> THAT IS WHAT THE ITE MANUAL SUGGESTS FOR THIS PROJECT.
>> THIS IS STANDARD TRANSPORTATION PLANNING.
NO NEED TO QUESTION IF THE GENERIC SHOES I BOUGHT FIT.
>> MR. BOSWELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR LINE OF QUESTIONING, BUT I'M HEARING FROM STAFF AND I'M HEARING FROM THE PROPONENT HERE THAT THEY'RE USING STANDARD MEASURES.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT YOU ACCEPT OR NOT ACCEPT THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONING ON THIS MATTER IS GOING TO ELICIT ANY CONCLUSION.
>> WELL, I THINK THE CONCLUSION IS THAT UNLESS THEY'RE FORCED TO DO SOMETHING, THEY JUST DON'T DO IT.
I THINK THAT'S THE CONCLUSION HERE.
NOW, WHETHER THAT LEAVES US WITH A GOOD TASTE OR BAD TASTE IN OUR MOUTH WHEN WE MAKE OUR FINAL DECISION IS UP TO EACH OF US.
>> BUT SO FAR, I'M SEEING THESE STUDIES ARE USED AS AN EXCUSE TO SHOEHORN A PROJECT THAT APPEARS TO NEED A MUCH LARGER LOT IN A LESS TRAFFICKED ENVIRONMENT ONTO A PLACE THAT IT JUST DOESN'T FIT.
NOW, UNTIL YOU CAN CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE, WHAT I'M SEEING IS AN EFFORT TO MAXIMIZE YOUR PROFITS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
PEOPLE IN REDONDO BEACH ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THAT.
IT'S EVERY SINGLE TIME SOMEONE COMES IN.
THEY CAN'T JUST LOOK AT THE LOT AND SAY, HERE'S WHERE THE SETBACKS ARE, HERE'S WHAT I'VE GOT TO DO.
I'M GOING TO DESIGN WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT ARE GIVEN TO ME.
NO. THEY ALWAYS STRETCH IT OUT.
THEY TRY TO BAMBOOZLE EVERYBODY.
THEY GIVE US A PRESENTATION THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY OF THE SHADY GRAY AREA STUFF.
IT'S OUR JOB UP HERE TO PULL THAT ALL OUT AND GET IT OUT INTO THE LIGHT OF THE DAY SO THAT WE CAN ALL SEE EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE ONCE IT'S BUILT, IT'S TOO LATE. THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD ASK THE AUDIENCE INSTEAD OF CLAPPING IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS HAS GENERATED SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
>> JUST TWO QUICK ITEMS. FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE ELEVATION HEIGHT AGAIN BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THAT'S ON THE BRINK OF WHAT'S TYPICALLY ALLOWED.
YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU BUILT THE CEILINGS TO NINE FEET. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WHAT'S THE MINIMUM HEIGHT THAT YOU MUST BUILD CEILINGS TO?
>> IT'S SEVEN AND A HALF FEET I BELIEVE FOR THE BUILDING CODE.
>> YOU BUILT EACH OF THEM A FOOT AND A HALF HIGHER OR THREE FEET IN TOTAL. WHY IS THAT?
>> WE BELIEVE THIS IS A HIGHER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR PEOPLE WHO PURCHASE THESE SORTS OF UNITS.
>> OUR SALES PRICING WHILE NOT SET YET IS GENERALLY IN LINE AND COMPARABLE WITH THE CURRENT FOR SALE SINGLE FAMILY DETECTION IN THE CITY.
>> BUT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT AT EIGHT FEET OR EVEN SEVEN AND A HALF FEET IF THE CITY OR YOU CHOSE THE CITY REQUIRED IT OR YOU CHOSE TO DO IT AND IT WOULD STILL MEET THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, AND YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSER OR UNDER THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> TO BE CLEAR, I THINK THERE'S SOME COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED.
I WISH WE DIDN'T GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT CARDS.
I WANTED TO REITERATE SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW.
ULTIMATELY, UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS LAW, A PROJECT REQUEST WAIVERS.
IT'S ENTITLED TO THOSE WAIVERS TO THE EXTENT IT PROVIDES AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT MAKES IT A DENSITY BONUS LAW PROJECT.
AN AGENCY IS NOT PERMITTED TO SECOND GUESS THE NEED FOR WAIVERS.
ULTIMATELY, AND THEN SECONDARILY, YOU HAVE THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, WHICH WAS SP230 BEFORE, BUT IT'S ULTIMATELY THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT INTENDS TO DO.
IT HOLDS AGENCIES ACCOUNTABLE BY APPLYING THE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT EXIST IN THEIR CODE AND COUPLED WITH THE DENSITY BONUS LAW ALLOWS PEOPLE TO DEVIATE FROM THOSE STANDARDS.
AN AGENCY CAN DENY A PROJECT OR REDUCE ITS DENSITY ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCONSISTENCY WITH AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD AND A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT.
[02:00:01]
THERE'S NO SUCH HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACT HERE.NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE FLOOR HEIGHTS, THERE IS A QUESTION OF LIVABILITY HERE.
>> OF LIVABILITY. SEVEN AND A HALF FEET IS A VERY NARROW FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT. ULTIMATELY.
>> THERE ARE STRUCTURES HEIGHT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THERE ARE. THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT, RIGHT IS DESIGNED A CERTAIN WAY TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDED, $100,000 FOR A UNIT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE MARKET RATE.
THE OTHER UNITS NEED TO COMPENSATE FOR IT.
THAT'S THE WHOLE INTENT OF THE DENSITY BONUS LAW HERE.
THE DESIGN THAT THE PROJECT APPLICANT HAS COME UP WITH REFLECTS THE REALITIES OF THE THE DESIGN THAT'S NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE AS WELL.
>> WERE YOU REQUIRED TO BUILD AFFORDABLE UNITS ON THIS DEVELOPMENT OR DID YOU CHOSE TO VOLUNTARILY?
>> I'M SORRY. DID YOU WANT THE FLOOR?
>> NO, I DON'T. [OVERLAPPING].
>> MR. CONROY, PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> AM I UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY THAT YOU CHOSE TO MAKE 7% OR THREE OF THE UNITS AFFORDABLE AT 100,000 PER UNIT, AND TO OFFSET THE LOSS IN INCOME FOR THAT.
YOU HAD TO BUILD YOUR UNITS OR YOUR UNITS THREE FEET HIGHER AND THEREBY GOING BEYOND WHAT'S THE ZONING REQUIREMENT.
>> YEAH. THREE FEET HIGHER AND TO THE SET TO REDUCE THE SETBACKS, ALL OF THE WAIVERS THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED.
>> CAN YOU GUYS EXPLAIN, I THINK WE HAVE SOME NEW PEOPLE HERE TO UNDERSTAND THE BONUS DENSITY LOT, A LITTLE BIT MORE, THAT BY ADDING THOSE UNITS, THEY'RE ABLE COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE CITY HAS ALSO CHOSEN THAT THIS IS A SITE WHERE WE'D LIKE TO SEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AS A HOUSING SITE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THIS WAS A JOINT DECISION WITH THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT AGREEING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> TO ADDRESS THE COMMENT MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE, UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS LAW, A DEVELOPER CAN COME IN AND BUILD WITHOUT THE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
BUT ONCE THEY ADD AFFORDABLE UNITS, THE DENSITY BONUS LAW KICKS IN.
ONCE IT KICKS IN, IF THE DEVELOPER ASKS FOR ANY CONCESSIONS OR WAIVERS BY LAW, WE ARE RESTRICTED ON DENYING THOSE REQUESTS FOR WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS.
IN THIS PROJECT, THE DEVELOPER ASKED FOR A CONCESSION REGARDING PARKING, SO THERE'S A CALCULATION.
FOR INSTANCE, FOR A STUDIO, YOU ONLY ARE REQUIRED TO ONE SPACE.
IF YOU HAVE A ONE BEDROOM, ONE SPACE.
IF YOU HAVE A TWO BEDROOM OR THREE BEDROOM IS 1.5 SPACES.
IF YOU HAVE A FOUR BEDROOM, IT'S 2.5 SPACES.
SO THAT'S THE CALCULATION THAT GETS TO 65 SPACES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT OUR CODE SAYS.
OUR CODE WOULD REQUIRE 100 SPACES, PERIOD. NO MORE.
IF THE DEVELOPER DECIDED, WE'RE NOT GOING TO WE'RE NOT GOING TO INCLUDE ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO BUILD WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO JUST PROVIDE 100.
WE COULDN'T EVEN REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE 168 PARKING SPACES.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES DEVELOPERS WILL DO THAT ON THEIR OWN, BUT IT, OBVIOUSLY, HAS TO PENCIL OUT FOR THE DEVELOPER.
BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE'RE UNDER THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE DENSITY BONUS LAW, WE COULD ONLY REQUIRE 65 SPACES.
BUT THEY ARE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND FOR WHATEVER REASON, FOR THEIR BOTTOM LINE, FOR THE LIVABILITY OF THE UNITS, THEY'RE INCLUDING TWO SPACES PER UNIT.
THEN I THINK FIVE OR SIX ADDITIONAL GUEST SPACES.
THAT GETS US TO CORRECTLY, COMMISSIONER GADDIS, NOTED THAT IT WAS REALLY 91 SPACES.
WITH RESPECT TO THE PARKING, WE'RE VERY CONSTRAINED IN WHAT WE CAN REQUIRE.
I KNOW DIRECTOR WEINER INDICATED THAT WE CAN CONDITION MORE SPACES.
THAT IS ONLY IF THE DEVELOPER VOLUNTARILY AGREES TO THAT.
[02:05:02]
THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF PROJECTS IN THE PAST WHERE THERE'S A STANDARD THAT HAS TO BE MET, BUT DEVELOPERS WILL BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, THEY WANT TO MAKE THE PROJECT WORK FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY WILL AGREE TO SOMETHING GREATER THAN THAT.WE CAN ONLY CONDITION THAT IF THE DEVELOPER AGREES, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE'RE SO CONSTRAINED WITH STATE LAW.
THE OTHER WAIVERS THAT ARE REQUESTED, THERE'S NO LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF WAIVERS THAT WE CAN GIVE.
IF THEY ASK FOR IT AND THEY HAVE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, THEN REALLY OUR HANDS ARE TIED.
THEY HAVE TO AND I'LL LOOK FOR THE EXACT WORDING, BUT IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CITY NOT PROVIDING THE WAIVER WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM CONSTRUCTING THEIR DEVELOPMENT, THEN THAT'S THE STANDARD THAT A COURT WOULD LOOK AT AND SO WE ARE REALLY CONSTRAINED AS TO WHAT WAIVERS WE GIVE AND HOW MANY WAIVERS WE GIVE.
UNDER THE CONCESSIONS AND INCENTIVES PORTION, DEPENDING ON THE COMPOSITION OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT ARE ENVISIONED IN THE PROJECT, THAT LIMITS HOW MANY CONCESSIONS AND INCENTIVES WE GIVE.
IN THIS PROJECT, I BELIEVE THEY'RE ONLY ENTITLED TO ONE, BUT THEY HAVEN'T FROM THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS, THEY HAVEN'T REALLY REQUESTED A CONCESSION.
THEY'RE JUST REQUESTING WAIVERS, WHICH ARE UNLIMITED AT THIS POINT.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT, MR. SCULLY SAID, THAT IS, THE CITY PUT THIS PROPERTY IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AS AVAILABLE FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING.
AND THIS AGENCY HAS COME FORWARD TO MEET THAT NOT REQUIREMENT, BUT TO MEET THAT STANDARD, TO MEET THAT GOAL.
LET ME JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT, CORRECT?
>> LET'S GO TO MR. CRAIG FOR A MOMENT.
>> I GUESS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUDIENCE, MISS PARK, IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE LAW, WITH VERY FEW OPTIONS WE CAN'T UNLESS WE HAVE SOME EXTREMELY SOLID OBJECTIVE REASON TO SAY THAT SOMETHING CAN'T BE DONE, WE'RE BASICALLY HERE TONIGHT JUST TO LOOK AT A PROJECT THAT'S APPROVED AND APART FROM A COUPLE BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST LIKE A MINISTERIAL ACTION AT THIS POINT.
WE'RE BASICALLY APART FROM MAYBE TELLING THEM WHERE THEY CAN PUT SOME PLANTS OR THE COLOR OF THE BUILDING, WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY MUCH.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, WITH RESPECT TO THE WAIVERS AND THE PARKING, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT THAT WE CAN DO.
I THINK THE DEVELOPER YOU CAN ASK THE DEVELOPER IF THEY AGREE TO DO THAT, THEN THAT COULD BE CONDITIONED.
BUT I DON'T KNOW AND WE HAVE OUTSIDE COUNSEL WHO'S AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA AND SHE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ROOM WE HAVE HERE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] CHANGE TOPICS. GO AHEAD, MR. CONROY.
>> I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE ADDRESSING MY QUESTION, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER CORRECTLY.
I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU SAY IS IN EXCHANGE FOR HAVING THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS, WE'VE ESSENTIALLY CANNOT PUSH BACK ON ANY OF THEIR REQUESTED WAIVERS, WHICH INCLUDES REDUCED SETBACKS.
REDUCED OPEN SPACE AND EXCEEDED HEIGHTS AND PARKING.
>> WELL, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THEY'RE EXCEEDING THE REQUIRED PARKING.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A WAIVER ON PARKING.
THEY'VE IN FACT, GIVEN US MORE PARKING THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED.
BUT THEY ARE BUILDING THE BUILDINGS LARGER AND TALLER AND OFFERING LESS OPEN SPACE THAN OUR ZONING ALLOWS.
AND WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO PUSH BACK ON THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE GIVING US THREE UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE.
AM I UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY?
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
>> YOU ARE CORRECT, BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE POINT.
THE THE SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR PARKING UNDER OUR CODE WOULD BE 100.
[02:10:04]
BECAUSE THE DENSITY BONUS LAW KICKS IN, THE MAXIMUM THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE IS 65 AND IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE PROVIDING 91.I THINK THERE WAS JUST A LITTLE MISSTATEMENT THERE, SO I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'RE OFFERING MORE PARKING THAN THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE THE ZONE WOULD REQUIRE NO.
>> THAT THE DENSITY BONUS LAW REQUIRES.
>> YEAH. THE ONLY WAY THAT THE CITY CAN DENY A PROJECT IS IF THERE'S AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT THEY ARE NOT MEETING.
UNDER THE SB330 AND UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THAT IS THE ONLY WAY.
THERE HAS TO BE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, AND I THINK MR. SCULLY AND THE SENIOR PLANNER ALLUDED TO THE RESIDENT OBJECTIVE RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS THAT WERE ADOPTED BY THIS COUNCIL AND I MEAN, THIS COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL, IF THERE'S A DEVIATION FROM ONE OF THOSE STANDARDS, AND IT'S SIGNIFICANT, AND IT IMPACTS SAFETY OR WELFARE, AND YOU COULD MAKE THIS COMMISSION COULD MAKE THAT FINDING.
THEN IN THAT INSTANCE, THE COMMISSION HAS THE DISCRETION TO DENY.
BUT IT HAS TO BE IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR THIS COMMISSION TO DENY A PROJECT LIKE THIS THAT IS OFFERING AFFORDABLE UNITS AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> THE CITY'S HANDS ARE TIED AS FAR AS WAIVERS.
YOU SAID, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT ALL WAIVERS THAT ARE REQUESTED?
>> CORRECT. I MEAN, THE DEVELOPER HAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY NEED THOSE WAIVERS, BUT I THINK THAT I'M ASSUMING THAT STAFF HAS BEEN PROVIDED THE INFORMATION THAT JUSTIFIES THE WAIVERS, AND THAT'S WHY THE RECOMMENDATION IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THAT, MISS PARK, PRIMARILY ADDRESS THE DENSITY BONUS LAW.
THERE'S ALSO SP330, WHICH IS LIMITING THE DECISION MAKING ABILITY AND REQUIRING THAT BE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ONLY.
>> JUST SO THE PUBLIC IS AWARE, LET ME BRING UP THAT IN A NUTSHELL.
WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRESUMABLY FOR SOME DECISION ON OUR PART, BUT OUR HANDS ARE TIED IN TERMS OF WHAT DECISION WE DO BECAUSE, I MEAN, THE LAW FOR THIS, TO ENCOURAGE, INCENTIVIZE ADDITIONAL HOUSING, THE STATE HAS IMPOSED LAWS THAT ESSENTIALLY OUR DECISION IS NO DECISION, THAT IS WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY I MEAN, WE CAN SAY NO, BUT THEN IT'S JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS AND EVENTUALLY GET DONE, WHICH IS CERTAINLY AN OPTION, AND WE COULD SAY NO, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERNS.
WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING NOT CONFORMING TO OUR OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, AND IT CAUSES A SAFETY ISSUE, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN BRING UP TO REJECT THE PROJECT.
>> AS FAR AS THE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD DENY A WAIVER OR AN INCENTIVE OR A CONCESSION IS IF YOU FIND THAT DOING SO WOULD RESULT IN A SPECIFIC ADVERSE IMPACT UPON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
THAT'S THE STANDARD FOR THE DENSITY BONUS LAW.
UNDER THE LAW AND THESE ARE BOTH STATE MANDATES.
THE STATE IS IMPOSING THESE RULES ON LOCAL AGENCIES, YES.
>> UNDER THAT LAW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THAT GOES AGAINST AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT THE CITY HAS IN PLACE.
>> JUST FOR PUBLIC AWARENESS, THESE ARE A SERIES OF LAWS AND THESE LAWS, MORE AND MORE OF THESE RESTRICTIVE LAWS ARE BEING PASSED IN SACRAMENTO.
OUR LATE MAYOR BILL BRAND STARTED A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE TO CHANGE THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION,
[02:15:02]
SO THAT THE STATE COULD NOT OVERRIDE PUBLIC LAND USE DECISIONS.THAT IS A BIG CHANGE TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
ONLY A FEW LIKE THE COASTAL ACT AND PROPOSITION 13.
THAT LEVEL OF IT SO HAPPENS THAT COUNCIL NEHRENHEIM MAYORAL CANDIDATE IS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THAT PACK, AND I AM AS WELL.
JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE THAT THIS IS GOING TO KEEP HAPPENING.
WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE CONTINUOUSLY SEEING THESE PROJECTS ROLL IN THAT HAVE THESE DENSITY BONUSES, AND ESSENTIALLY, WE CAN'T STOP IT WITHOUT CHANGING THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
>> CAN I PIGGYBACK ON THAT? JUST ONE LITTLE STATEMENT.
IT'S JUST A SHORT. I PROMISE YOU.
WE WANT AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WE DISCUSSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE ARE REALLY EXCITED TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT'S GOING TO BE WONDERFUL THAT THREE FAMILIES CAN MOVE IN THERE.
BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DENSITY, IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND HOW DENSE REDONDO IS.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW AS A CITY, WE ARE ONE OF THE DENSEST CITIES.
WE'RE LIKE IN THE TOP 10% IN THE STATE.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS FOR YEARS, OUR HANDS ARE TIED.
WE CAN ASK THE BUILDER TO DO SOME THINGS, WHICH I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ASK IF YOU'LL GIVE ME ONE MORE SECOND, AND IT IS A CHANGE IN TOPIC.
BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSED AT DETAIL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE REALLY IMPORTANT TO AS.
ONE WAS THAT EACH UNIT LOOK ALIKE.
THE OTHER THING THAT IS THAT THEY BE SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT SO NO ONE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE.
IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THOSE THREE UNITS BE SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT AND THAT THE MATERIALS BE THE SAME SO THAT IF THE STANDARD IS A CERTAIN TILE, THAT TILE GOES INTO THOSE THREE UNITS?
>> THE MATERIALS IN OUR AFFORDABLE UNITS, AND WE'VE DONE PLENTY OF THESE PROJECTS IN OTHER CITIES THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, THEY ARE ALL COMPARABLE TO THE MARKET RATE UNITS.
IN TERMS OF YOUR OTHER REMARK REGARDING DISPERSION, I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT BACK THAT THESE STILL DO HAVE MARKET RATE UNITS [OVERLAPPING]
>> I KNOW, BUT THE OTHER SIX BUILDINGS, I'M SAYING, BECAUSE AS IT TURNS OUT, THEY'RE ALL IN THE ONE OFF OF, I THINK THAT'S EMERALD.
IT'S A CONCERN OF THE COMMISSION.
WE SPENT MANY NIGHTS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING, AND WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO PUSH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS CITY.
THOSE WERE TWO CONCERNS OF OURS, THAT THOSE UNITS NOT STICK OUT AND THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME DETAIL OF TILE FLOORING, ETC.
THAT'S JUST SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMISSIONER OR IT WAS WHEN WE WERE GOING INTO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
I'M JUST HOPING YOU COULD THINK ABOUT THAT TONIGHT AND THAT WE COULD ADD THAT, MAYBE.
>> I DID NOTICE BEFORE I ASKED MY QUESTION THAT YOU SAID THAT THE MATERIALS IN THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD BE COMPARABLE TO THE REGULAR ONES.
THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, ARE THEY? THEY'RE JUST COMPARABLE.
>> COMPARABLE USUALLY MEANS THIS [OVERLAPPING]
>> DOESN'T MEAN COMPARABLE USUALLY MEANS COMPARABLE.
THE EXACTLY THE SAME MATERIAL.
>> YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE MORE EXACT WHEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE LIKE THIS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS.
[LAUGHTER] DOES ANY OF YOUR GROUP HAPPEN TO HAVE KIDS WHO GO TO REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL?
>> THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION, BUT THAT'S THE LEAD UP TO THE QUESTION AND THAT'S A NO.
REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL, IS REALLY A BIG CAMPUS AND A LARGE POPULATION OF STUDENTS.
IT IS ALSO NOT ONLY ACADEMICALLY EXCELLENT, IT'S A HUGE SPORTS SCHOOL.
WE HAVE SOME OF THE BEST SPORTS TEAMS IN THE STATE.
WHEN THERE ARE SPORTS EVENTS THERE, THERE'S NO PARKING IN ALL OF SOUTH REDONDO.
IMAGINE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PLANT 43 UNITS IN A PLACE THAT HAD NO RESIDENTIAL PREVIOUSLY, AND IT'S ON ONE OF THE, THREE, FOUR NIGHTS A WEEK THAT REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL IS HAVING A BASKETBALL GAME, A FOOTBALL GAME,
[02:20:01]
A TRACK MEET, OR BASEBALL GAME, WHATEVER, THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY VISITORS ON THOSE NIGHTS, BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE TO PARK.IF THEY'VE GOT A THIRD CAR OR A FOURTH CAR, IT'S NOT GOING ON THE STREET BECAUSE THERE'S NO STREET PARKING ON THOSE DAYS.
THIS PROJECT BEING NEXT TO THAT HIGH SCHOOL AND THAT HIGH SCHOOL BEING EXACTLY WHAT IT IS FOR THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT PROJECT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HATE IT.
BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HATE YOU, THEY'RE GOING TO HATE US.
IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE A PROJECT THAT FITS INTO THE COMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE SMALL ENOUGH TO HAVE ONSITE PARKING FOR EVERYBODY AND THEIR VISITORS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY PARKING ANYWHERE ELSE, ESPECIALLY IN THE EVENINGS WHEN THERE'S SPORTS GOING ON AT THE HIGH SCHOOL.
THE STREETS TO THE NORTH END OF THIS AREA ARE ALL PERMANENT PARKING FOR ONE REASON.
THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO PARK BECAUSE THERE'S A SPORTING EVENT GOING ON.
IMAGINE WHAT YOUR PROJECT IS GOING TO DO TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN ASK YOURSELF, WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? ARE WE HERE TO IMPROVE THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, OR ARE WE JUST MAKING A BUCK? THANK YOU.
LET ME ASK AN ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION.
THERE MAY BE MORE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE APPLICANT OR FOR STAFF.
BUT WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVE WAITED NOW FOR TWO HOURS.
CAN WE OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC, BUT THEN NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. YOU CAN TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN RESUME WITH YOUR DISCUSSION.
>> I WANT TO THANK THE AUDIENCE FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
I HOPE YOU FOUND THE CONVERSATION VALUABLE AND WORTH HEARING.
BUT I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT.
I'LL TAKE THE CARDS HERE FIRST.
YOU CAN BRING IT UP HERE TO, GENTLEMAN HERE.
IN THE ORDER, IT WAS RECEIVED.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> UNLESS YOU REALLY [OVERLAPPING]
>> UNLESS IT'S PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> ANYHOW, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.
>> CHAIR, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
COULD YOU HAVE THE SPEAKERS STATE THEIR NAME WHEN THEY COME UP TO THE MIC?
>> MY APOLOGIES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.
AGAIN, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I THOUGHT I'D COME AND SPEAK HERE TONIGHT.
I'M A PARISHIONER AT ST. JAMES, AND I'VE OBVIOUSLY GOT SOME OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS TRANSACTION GOING THROUGH.
BUT YEARS AGO, MY FIRM WAS ASKED TO COME TO REDONDO BEACH BY AARON JONES TO HELP OUT WITH THE NEED FOR HOUSING.
I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I OWN A FIRM HERE IN REDONDO BEACH THAT IS AN ARCHITECTURAL AND CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND ANY SOLUTIONS.
WE MET MULTIPLE TIMES WITH A LOT OF ARCHITECTS AND A LOT OF DEVELOPERS.
WE JUST COULD NOT COME UP WITH ANY HOUSING.
WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND HEARD THE NUMBER OF 43 UNITS, AND I TOOK A LOOK AT IT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED AS FAR AS THAT WHICH GOES FOR HOUSING.
IT'S ALSO GOT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PART TO IT AS WELL.
[02:25:01]
BUT THE 40 UNITS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE NOT, WE NEED THOSE.WE DO NOT HAVE THE HOUSING IN HERE AND I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 38 YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN ON THAT SIDE WHERE THE NEED HAS BEEN VERY APPARENT.
THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT THAT THIS PROJECT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF.
AS FAR AS A PARISHIONER, WE'RE EXCITED WITH THE IDEA THAT WE CAN HAVE OUR COMMUNITY OF THE CHURCH, WHICH IS GROWING AT ST. JAMES, THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP THAT SITE ACROSS THE STREET, WHERE WE'RE AT.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR FAIR EDUCATIONAL COMMENTS TONIGHT, AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. VINCE BARBARY.
>> THANK YOU. I'M VINCE BARBARY.
THANK YOU, PLANNING COMMISSION. I HAVE LIVED IN REDONDO BEACH SINCE ABOUT 2003.
MY KIDS ARE BORN HERE, ALTHOUGH THERE'S NO HOSPITAL HERE, SO THEY'RE BORN IN TORRANCE.
BUT IF YOU ASK THEM WHERE THEY'RE BORN, THEY'RE FROM REDONDO.
MY SON RUNS TRACK. HE'S A SENIOR IN HIGH SCHOOL, REDONDO UNION. GO SEAHAWKS.
THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE WAS MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER, IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, WAS GIVEN AN AWARD FOR WINNING AN AYSO THING UP IN STATE.
THEY TOOK REGION 34 ALL THE WAY.
I'M SAYING, HEY, LET'S GO WITH THIS, AND PART OF IT IS I'M A ST. JAMES PARISHIONER.
I'VE BEEN ST. JAMES FOR THE ENTIRE TIME FOR 22 YEARS NOW.
WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS FIRST OFFERED, WE'RE GOING TO SELL THE UPPER PROPERTY AND WE'RE GOING TO BUY THIS OTHER PROPERTY, AND WE NEEDED MONEY TO DO IT.
WE HAVE TO SELL THE UPPER PROPERTY.
I WAS FOR IT BECAUSE THE IDEA OF HAVING THE CAMPUS WHERE WE HAVE ONE SPOT WHERE THE CHURCH AND OUR PARISH CENTER CAN BE TOGETHER IN THE SAME SPOT JUST MADE SENSE, AND THAT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO.
IN 2019, I THINK WAS WHEN THAT FIRST HAPPENED.
THEN THIS THING COVID HIT, AND PEOPLE WEARING MASKS WAS CRAZY.
IF YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT, I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT IT LATER.
BUT I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MY KID.
I HAVE A SENIOR, AND SO HE'S GOING TO GO TO COLLEGE NEXT YEAR HOPEFULLY, POTENTIALLY UCLA.
IN FOUR YEARS, SHE'LL GRADUATED, HOPEFULLY, AND THEN HE'LL GET A JOB IN SOMETHING.
IF HE WANTS TO COME BACK AND LIVE IN REDONDO BEACH, THE OPTIONS ARE VERY LIMITED.
NOW HE CAN LIVE IN THE GARAGE AND MOM CAN YELL AT HIM, OR HE CAN GO AND TRY TO BUY A HOME.
I'M A DOCTOR OF ENGINEERING, MY WIFE IS A PROFESSOR A UCLA, SO WE DO OKAY, AND WE OWN A HOME.
BUT FOR PEOPLE COMING TO REDONDO OR YOUNG PEOPLE, YOUNG FAMILIES, THEY CAN'T AFFORD A HOME.
IF YOU TOLD THESE DEVELOPERS, AGAIN, I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, BUT IF YOU TOLD THEM, YOU CAN HAVE 20 HOMES THERE AND NOT 43, THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE $2.8 MILLION HOMES, AND THAT'S WHAT GETS BUILT IN REDONDO.
IN MY EXPERIENCE IN REDONDO, EVERY HOME IS YOU TAKE A 50S HOME, THEY DEMO IT, THEY BUILD 2.5, $2.8 MILLION MCMANSIONS, AND THEN IF YOU'RE AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON MARRIED TO A LAWYER, YOU CAN MAYBE AFFORD IT.
BUT IF YOU'RE A PERSON WITH A REGULAR JOB, YOU'RE AN AVERAGE GUY, AND YOU DIDN'T BUY A HOME IN THE '90S OR THE EARLY 2000S, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A BUNCH OF NOTHING.
TO ME, YES, THERE'S GOING TO BE EXTRA PARKING, MAYBE SOME EXTRA TRAFFIC AT CERTAIN TIMES.
BUT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.
I LOOK AT THIS AS ONE OF THE, DO YOU PUT THE SHOPPING CART BACK MOMENTS? WHEN YOU GO GROCERY SHOPPING, YOU TAKE YOUR CART AND YOU UNLOAD YOUR GROCERIES.
DO YOU LEAVE THE CART THERE AND JUST DRIVE OFF AND ASK SOMEONE ELSE DEALS WITH IT OR DO YOU PUT THE CART BACK? TO ME, WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR THIS PROJECT TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE WOULDN'T BE TO AFFORD HOMES, BUILD BUY HOMES AND REDONDO? I'M ALL FOR IT. THANK YOU.
I'VE BEEN A RESIDENCE, BASICALLY ALL MY LIFE, BUT I GREW UP IN HOLLYWOOD RIVIERA, SO TORRANCE, BUT I'VE BEEN HERE FOR PROBABLY I DON'T KNOW, 25 YEARS NOW.
>> DID YOU SAY YOU'RE LEVON FISK?
>> RIGHT NEXT TO [INAUDIBLE] ACTUALLY WAS HERE IN FRONT OF FULL COUNCIL JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.
BUT TONIGHT I WAS HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO MAKE THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THE REASON WHY, A LOT OF NEGATIVE TALK TONIGHT HAS BEEN ABOUT THE PROJECT BEING A LITTLE BIT TOO BIG, BUT ONE OF THE POSITIVE THINGS IS THAT THIS IS REALLY PROGRESS,
[02:30:01]
AND WE NEED MORE HOUSING LIKE YOU JUST SAID.WE NEED TO HOUSE OUR FELLOW CITIZENS, AT A REASONABLE RATE, AS WAS JUST SAID.
SOMETHING MAYBE FORGOTTEN IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK IT WAS CLEAR WHEN HE PUT IT ON THE TIMELINE REALLY HAS TAKEN YEARS IN PLANNING TO GET TO THIS STAGE, AND PEOPLE ARE ABOUT TO RISK A LOT OF CAPITAL.
I THINK WE ADDED UP, WE SAY, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SO MUCH MONEY, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT EXACTLY.
IT'S GOING TO BE YEARS UNTIL THEY SELL THESE UNITS AND THEY MAY NOT MAKE MONEY AT ALL.
MAYBE THERE'S CUSHION RIGHT NOW, BUT MAYBE THERE'S NO CUSHION IN THREE OR FOUR YEARS WHEN THIS COMES ONLINE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GETS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
$100,000 FOR A UNIT IS PRETTY INCREDIBLE. IT'S AMAZING.
IT'S A GIFT HORSE, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IN THE MOUTH HERE.
IT SEEMS ODD TO ME. THIS IS A WONDERFUL PROJECT, AND I SAY WE PUSH IT FORWARD. THANKS.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
WE'RE PROUD TO HAVE CALLED REDONDO BEACH OUR HOME FOR THE LAST 35 YEARS.
WE LIVE ON THE OTHER END OF VINCENT STREET NEAR PROSPECT, SO WE KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE GAMES ON OUR STREET ON THURSDAY, FRIDAY, SATURDAY, AND SUNDAY.
IT'S FOR THE KIDS ACROSS THE STREET.
AS LONGTIME RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS, WE CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY THAT REDONDO BEACH IS AN EXCEPTIONAL PLACE TO LIVE, AND TO GIVE YOUNG FAMILIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND TO BE SCHOOLED AND BE SAFE IN A DESIRABLE COMMUNITY, I THINK IS AWESOME.
WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO EXPRESS THAT WE SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
THIS APPROVAL WOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR NEW ATTAINABLE HOUSING.
IT WILL REVITALIZE AN UNDERUTILIZED SITE, AND IT WILL ENABLE THE CONSOLIDATION OF ST. JAMES CHURCH TO THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET.
BUT ULTIMATELY, THIS PROJECT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE GROWTH AND PROSPERITY OF OUR CITY, GENERATING ADDITIONAL TAX REVENUE TO MAINTAIN OUR COMMUNITY'S HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE.
WE URGE YOU TO JOIN US IN APPROVING THIS PROJECT.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I'M THE PASTOR OF THESE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE THAT JUST SPOKE, AND I'VE BEEN HERE FOR SEVEN MONTHS.
ST. JAMES IS A LANDMARK OF THIS BEAUTIFUL TOWN OF REDONDO BEACH, AND STARTED OUT WITH HUMBLE BEGINNINGS IN 1891.
THE SMALL LITTLE CHAPEL ON THE PROPERTY THAT WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT ALL NIGHT LONG FOR 50 FAMILIES.
THE COMMUNITY KEPT GROWING TO FACILITATE THE PARISH THAT WE SEE BEHIND US JUST BEYOND MCDONALD'S HERE.
CURRENTLY, WE MINISTER TO OVER 3,000 FAMILIES, AND WE'D LIKE TO PROVIDE A PARISH CENTER ADEQUATE FOR THAT SIDE OF A COMMUNITY, AND APPROVAL OF THIS WOULD HELP FACILITATE IN MAKING THAT A REALITY.
I PRAY THAT YOU WILL APPROVE THIS, AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. GOD BLESS.
I'M A RESIDENT OF REDONDO BEACH.
I ACTUALLY LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS.
MY FIANCEE AND I HAVE LIVED IN REDONDO BEACH FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS NOW.
HER FAMILY IS LOCAL TO THE AREA.
[02:35:02]
BUT I FELL IN LOVE WITH IT EVER SINCE I MOVED HERE.IT'S BEEN FANTASTIC, AND WE WANT TO STAY HERE.
BUT WITH THE HOUSING SUPPLY RIGHT NOW, WE CAN'T.
TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, I'M SOMEONE WHO HAS A LAW DEGREE AND WE STILL CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY A HOUSE IN REDONDO BEACH BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING BEING EXPENSIVE.
I'VE HEARD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WITH THE COMMISSION BEING WORRIED ABOUT THE DEVELOPER RAISING PRICES AT THE EXPENSE OF CITIZENS OF REDONDO.
BUT WHAT THEY'RE PROVIDING IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS OF REDONDO TO BUILD A LIFE HERE, THAT EVEN IF THEY MAKE A PROFIT IN THE SHORT-TERM, THE VALUE OF THOSE UNITS STAYS WITH THOSE FAMILIES IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND THAT MONEY STAYS IN THIS COMMUNITY.
THIS WOULD PROVIDE NEW JOBS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUNG FAMILIES LIVING IN THE AREA WHO WANT TO STAY HERE.
IT'S WALKING DISTANCE TO THE ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, AND HIGH SCHOOLS.
IT WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY, AND IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT, FOR ME, PERSONALLY, WOULD ALLOW US TO STAY HERE, AS SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO. THANK YOU, MA'AM.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ALEX FINEMAN.
I'M A REDONDO BEACH RESIDENT AND HOMEOWNER.
I'M HERE TONIGHT IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON BCH.
THE NEED FOR HOUSING IN REDONDO BEACH HAS REACHED A CRITICAL POINT.
THE RECENT FIRES IN ELKO COUNTY DISPLACED THOUSANDS OF HOUSEHOLDS, AND REDONDO BEACH'S RENTAL AND HOME PRICES WERE ALREADY AT HISTORIC HIGHS, AND NOW THESE DISPLACED HOUSEHOLDS ARE LOOKING FOR HOMES IN SURROUNDING AREAS, AND THAT INCLUDES REDONDO BEACH.
THIS URGENCY CAN'T BE OVERSTATED.
EVEN PRIOR TO THE FIRES, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD OFFER VITAL BENEFITS TO OUR CITY.
IT SUPPORTS OUR LOCAL SCHOOLS.
MY CHILD ATTENDS BARREL HEIGHTS BECAUSE SHE WAS ASSIGNED THERE DUE TO THE SPACE AVAILABLE.
THIS PROJECT COULD BRING STUDENTS THERE AS THEIR APPROPRIATE HOME SCHOOL.
MEANWHILE, REDONDO UNION'S ENROLLMENT HAS DROPPED BY ABOUT 140 STUDENTS IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS, AND THESE NEW HOUSEHOLDS WILL HELP COMBAT THAT DECLINING ENROLLMENT IN OUR REDONDO BEACH SCHOOLS, ENSURING THAT THEY CONTINUE TO GET ATTENDANCE BASED FUNDING.
REDONDO UNION AND PARISH ARE BOTH A SHORT WALK AWAY, SO NO SCHOOL PICK UP TRAFFIC CONCERNS THERE.
THE NEW HOUSEHOLDS HERE WILL ALSO SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE, INCLUDING ON THE PIER AND THE INTERNATIONAL BOARDWALK.
THESE ARE TWO COMMERCIAL CENTERS THAT REDONDO BEACH HAS LONG TRIED TO FOCUS ON, AND THESE NEW HOMEOWNERS WILL ADDITIONALLY BOOST REDONDO BEACH'S TAX REVENUE WITH PROPERTY TAXES BASED ON PRESENT DAY ASSESSMENTS RATHER THAN HOMES THAT WERE PURCHASED 30 YEARS AGO.
I'VE HEARD CONCERNS FROM COMMENTERS ONLINE AND FROM THIS COMMISSION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THIS PROJECT, AND I AGREE REDONDO BEACH NEEDS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, BUT I ENCOURAGE THIS CITY AND COMMISSION TO ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPECIFICALLY RATHER THAN USING THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS A FIG LEAF TO CONCEAL OPPOSITION TO NEW HOUSING GENERALLY.
WE ARE GETTING THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS HERE. LET'S TAKE THAT WIN.
I ENCOURAGE THIS COMMISSION TO SUPPORT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT ANY NEW HOUSING IS CRITICAL TO BEGIN ADDRESSING THE CITY'S HOUSING NEEDS.
REDONDO BEACH HAS A LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET ITS RENTAL GOALS, AND A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP WITH THE REGIONAL HOUSING CRISIS.
THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A RESPONSIBLE STEP TOWARDS ADDRESSING OUR HOUSING NEEDS, AND I URGE THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT. THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> MY NAME IS HELEN DE GRASS, AND I HAVE BEEN A REDONDO BEACH RESIDENT MY ENTIRE LIFE.
MY FATHER WAS BORN HERE, AND WE ALL WENT TO ST. JAMES CATHOLIC SCHOOL. SORRY ABOUT MY VOICE.
I FEEL THIS IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY, BUT THE SEGUE GUIDELINES SAY THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT OF APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS RELATING TO TRAFFIC, NOISE, AIR QUALITY, AND WATER QUALITY.
IN RESEARCHING CITY VENTURES, I FOUND THAT THEY HAD MULTIPLE LAWSUITS IN LAJOIA,
[02:40:01]
PALMDALE, IRVINE, GOVINDA, ANTELOPE VALLEY, COVINA, AND IN SANTA ROSA, SPECIFIC TO WATER POLLUTION AND HARMFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT WERE PROVEN TO VIOLATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.I'M NOT SURE IF ANYONE HERE HAS GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION TO THAT.
AS TO MY OPPOSITION, WHY THREE STORIES? THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE BEHIND THAT PROJECT WILL HAVE THEIR VIEWS OBSTRUCTED.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION, SPECIFICALLY TO THE PRE-SCHOOL THERE, THERE'S A LARGE PARKING LOT THERE WITH PLENTY OF PLACES FOR THE PARENTS TO PARK, WHICH I THINK COULD HAVE SKEWED THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
PARKING IS, OF COURSE, A HUGE ISSUE.
BUT FIVE VISITING PARKING SPACES FOR 43 UNITS IS WOEFULLY INADEQUATE IN MY OPINION.
AS APPLIES TO OPEN SPACES, I THINK IT'S ALSO VERY INADEQUATE.
I THINK CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE HOMEOWNERS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS CHANGES THE AMBIANCE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THOSE ARE OLD HOMES.
PEOPLE HAVE BUILT THEM UP AND RECONSTRUCTED THEM.
I JUST THINK THAT CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO US AS FAR AS THIS IS CONCERNED.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DENY ALL THE EXEMPTIONS AND FIGHT ON, AND JUST SAY NO TO THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. JEFFREY GOLDMAN.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIRPERSON LAMB AND COMMISSIONERS.
I APPRECIATE BEING ABLE TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS JEFF GOLDMAN, AND MY WIFE, JENNIFER AND I OWN 413 EMERALD STREET, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE FRITZ HOUSE.
IT'S A DESIGNATED HISTORIC HOME IN REDONDO, AND I'M ALSO SPEAKING TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS WHO OWN 415 EMERALD, ALSO KNOWN AS THE MOTT HOUSE, AND 417 EMERALD, KNOWN AS THE JOHNSON HOUSE.
THESE ARE THREE QUEEN ANNE VICTORIAN HOMES, WHICH, ACCORDING TO REDONDO'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN ENACTED IN 1998, ARE AMONG THE FEW REMAINING EXAMPLES IN THE CITY.
THEY ARE THREATENED BY THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU MAY BE CONSTRAINED BY STATE LAW IN REJECTING THIS DEVELOPMENT OUTRIGHT, YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM MAKING ACCOMMODATIONS TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF IT, AND YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT PROHIBITED FROM ENSURING THE CONTINUED PROTECTION OF HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, WHICH IS TAKEN DIRECTLY OUT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN AND DOING SO IN A PROACTIVE MANNER.
LET ME JUST SET THE STAGE FOR THIS, AND I THINK PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO DIRECT YOU TO HOPEFULLY, YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND OUR OBJECTION.
BUT MY NOW FORMER TENANT, TINA MIRFARSI, SUBMITTED A STATEMENT, AND SHE LAID OUT WHAT HER LIFE WAS LIKE IN THE FIVE YEARS SHE LIVED THERE. SHE NEVER KNEW.
SHE NEVER KNEW WHEN SHE CAME HOME, WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A PARKING SPOT ON THE STREET, AND SOME NIGHT SHE'D COME HOME WITH FOUR GROCERY BAGS IN A BRIEFCASE AND HAVE TO TRAVERSE TWO BLOCKS TO GET TO HER HOUSE.
THESE THREE HOUSES, THEY WERE BUILT AT A TIME WHEN, I GUESS, THEY THOUGHT AUTOMOBILES WERE A PASSING FAD, AND SO THEY DIDN'T COME WITH GARAGES OR EVEN DRIVEWAYS.
THEY'RE UNIQUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT RESPECT.
EVERYONE ELSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CHAIRPERSON LAMB, YOU MENTIONED THAT PEOPLE TEND TO USE THEIR GARAGES FOR STORAGE OR FOR SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY TEENAGERS, FOR HANGOUT ROOMS, THINGS LIKE THAT, ANYTHING BUT CARS.
EVERYONE ELSE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THE ABILITY TO CLEAR OUT THEIR GARAGE AND USE IT TO PARK.
THESE THREE HOMES ARE AT THE MERCY OF STREET PARKING.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR, LOOKING AT THE MAPS WE'VE SEEN TONIGHT, THAT THE OBVIOUS PLACE FOR THE OVERFLOW PARKING THAT WILL CLEARLY BE GENERATED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A 400 BLOCK OF EMERALD.
THE PEOPLE THERE AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON THESE SPOTS LIKE DOGS ON A PORK SHOP.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE USING THESE SPOTS, AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO LIVE THERE, AND YOU WANT FOR US TO RENT THESE HOUSES OUT IF WE'RE RENTING THEM OUT.
[02:45:02]
WHILE I CAN'T SIT HERE AND SUGGEST THAT ON THAT BASIS ALONE THAT YOU REJECT THE PROPOSAL BECAUSE STATE LAW IS WHAT IT IS, WHAT I WOULD ASK, AND I DON'T THINK THE DEVELOPER OPPOSES THIS, SO CERTAINLY AS A SIDE OF GOOD FAITH, I WOULD HOPE A DEVELOPER COULD EVEN TONIGHT, TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, AS A CONDITION OF THIS APPROVING THIS, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT.WE'VE JUST MOTIONED YOU TO EXTEND YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. WHAT I WOULD ASK IS THAT, AND I THINK IT WAS YOU COMMISSIONER CRAIG, YOU ASKED, YOU WEREN'T ENTIRELY UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT WAS WE PROPOSED.
IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 4 OF OUR OBJECTION, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING SIMPLY THAT PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMITS, WHICH ARE USED ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY, AND CERTAINLY, AND I KNOW HERMOSA USES THEM A LOT, BE ISSUED FOR THESE THREE PROPERTIES.
THE SIMPLEST WAY TO DO IT WOULD BE SIX SPOTS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTIES, AND THERE'D BE A SMALL FEE, I ASSUME, WHICH WE'D BE HAPPY TO PAY, AND THAT SPOT WOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE WHO RESIDE IN THESE THREE HOUSES.
WITHOUT THAT, I THINK THESE HOUSES WILL BECOME IMPOSSIBLE TO SELL, IMPOSSIBLE TO RENT.
NO ONE ELSE, AS I SAID IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOBODY ELSE REALLY HAS ANY RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE ALL OF THEM HAVE THE OPTION OF CLEARING OUT THEIR GARAGES AND PARKING IN THEIR DESIGNATED SPOT.
THESE HOUSES, BECAUSE OF WHEN THEY WERE BUILT, DON'T HAVE ANY ABILITY TO PARK ANYWHERE BUT ON THE STREET.
I THINK THAT MR. CHEN WOULD PROBABLY TELL YOU TONIGHT THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO HIM, HE DOESN'T OPPOSE THIS.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COULD OPPOSE IT OR WOULD OPPOSE IT OR WOULD HAVE ANY REASON TO.
I WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU DO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AS A CONDITION OF DOING SO, YOU SIMPLY GIVE US THE ABILITY TO MAKE THESE HISTORIC HOMES VIABLE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE STAFF ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCEDURE?
>> I'M NO PROFESSIONAL WHEN IT COMES TO HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS, AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE I WOULD GO, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME MR. CHEN SAID HE SPOKE TO, I THINK, MR. SCULLY MAYBE AT SOME POINT, AND THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS, BUT THEY WERE VERY VAGUE.
OVER THE YEARS, I'VE ACTUALLY BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP EVEN BEFORE THIS DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED, I BROUGHT THIS UP FROM TIME TO TIME, AND THEN GOTTEN ANSWERS LIKE, IT'S A LOT OF TROUBLE.
WE DON'T WANT TO REALLY DEAL WITH IT.
IN TERMS OF WHO I WOULD GO TO, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WOULD KNOW OR THAT IF YOU IMPOSED A CONDITION, THEN THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY IN THE CITY WHO IS IN CHARGE OF DESIGNATING SPOTS FOR PERMIT PARKING FOR RESIDENTS, I COULD WORK WITH THEM AND WE COULD WORK IT ALL OUT, BUT I KNOW I HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE TWO HOMEOWNERS IN THE TWO ADJACENT GARAGES HOUSES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE'LL POSSIBLY DISCUSS IT LATER.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS ANOTHER AGENDA. CHRIS BURT.
>> YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM ME, SO I SUPPOSE THERE'S NOT REALLY MUCH ELSE TO SAY.
I GUESS, I WILL SAY JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE PARKING THAT WAS JUST BROUGHT UP.
IF THE CITY IN ITS DISCRETION DECIDES THAT IT WANTS TO ESTABLISH SOME PREFERENTIAL PARKING FOR THOSE UNITS, IT MAY, BUT IMPOSING IT AS A CONDITION OF THIS PROJECT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE.
THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE CITY PROCESS. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. ETHAN COLE.
I HAD SOME NOTES PREPARED, BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION WE HEARD TONIGHT.
I'VE FOUND SOME PLACES WHERE IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO BRING UP SOME POINTS, I GUESS.
IT'S PROBABLY CLOSEST TO WHAT WE'LL BE LOOKING AT, PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM.
IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT ONE-THIRD, I GUESS, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT.
IT'S A PRETTY COOL THING THAT'S HAPPENING OVER THERE.
THERE'S A COMMUNITY THAT'S BEING BUILT.
WE HAVE GARAGES THAT OPEN ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.
IT'S COOL BECAUSE WE HAVE MULTIPLE YOUNG FAMILIES.
I HAVE A FIVE-YEAR-OLD AND A TWO-YEAR-OLD, WHICH IS WHY AFTER THIS, YOU'LL SEE ME RUN AWAY BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY EXTENDED A BABYSITTER TWICE, AND SO I NEED TO GET HOME TO THEM.
BUT THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER FAMILY WITH A THREE-YEAR-OLD BOY.
THERE'S NO ONE WITH A FIVE-YEAR-OLD GIRL AND A ONE-YEAR-OLD KID.
[02:50:03]
THERE'S ONE WITH A TWO-YEAR-OLD AND JUST A NEWBORN.WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS, AND WE PLAY IN THE ALLEYWAY, AND THE KIDS RIDE SCOOTERS WITH EACH OTHER AND THEY PLAY AROUND.
ONE THING THAT I THINK DIDN'T REALLY COME UP TONIGHT IS A SENSE OF COMMUNITY THAT WILL BE BUILT IN THIS ECOSYSTEM WE'RE CREATING.
YES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DENSE HOUSING, BUT WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT COMMUNITY, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GARAGES, BUT WE'RE THINKING SO MUCH ABOUT THE CARS THAT ARE COMING IN AND OUT AND LESS ABOUT THE CHILDREN LAUGHING AND PLAYING TOGETHER.
I CAN JUST SPEAK FROM MY ANECDOTAL LIFE.
I'M NOT A TRAFFIC EXPERT, BUT I TAKE MY LITTLE GIRL TO PRESCHOOL EVERY DAY.
I LEAVE AT AROUND 8:30, AND I'VE NEVER RUN INTO ONE OF MY 18 NEIGHBORS OR ANY OF THEIR CARS.
MAYBE THAT'S JUST A FUNCTION OF WHERE WE ARE TODAY, SOCIETY, WHERE PEOPLE ARE WORKING FROM HOME OR NOT WORKING FROM HOME, OR MAYBE POSSIBLY BECAUSE WE ALSO LIVE IN THE SOUTH BAY WHERE A LOT OF FOLKS WORK FOR NORTHROP.
I KNOW MY NEIGHBOR LEAVES AT 6:00 AM.
HE DROPS HIS GIRL OFF AT SCHOOL REALLY EARLY.
WE DROP OUR KID OFF AROUND 9:00.
YOU'RE ALLOWED TO PICK HIM AT 6:00 PM.
WE RARELY RUN INTO EACH OTHER.
ONE THING THAT I'VE SEEN HERE IS THAT, YES, YOU COULD FEEL YOUR HANDS ARE TIED, BUT ANOTHER WAY OF POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT IS THINKING ABOUT GROWING REDONDO AND THE CITY WE ALL LOVE AND BUILDING THIS COMMUNITY THAT CAN START GROWING WITHIN THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'LL BE CREATING.
I'M PRO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
>> CAN I GET THIS? BRIANNA EGAN.
>> HI. GOOD EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSION.
I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT, BORN AND RAISED IN REDONDO BEACH.
I'M A GRADUATE OF REDONDO UNION HIGH SCHOOL.
I'M A FULL-TIME MEDICAL STUDENT AND AN ACTIVE VOLUNTEER IN OUR COMMUNITY.
I CO-LEAD SOUTH BAY FORWARD, WHICH IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT'S FOCUSED ON MOVING THE SOUTH BAY FORWARD ON HOUSING, TRANSIT, AND ACTIVE MOBILITY.
WE PROVIDED A LETTER FOR SUPPORT ON THIS PROJECT, AND I WANT TO SPEAK ON A FEW OF OUR POINTS.
FIRST, THIS PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING OUTLINED IN THE CITY'S 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT.
IN EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING THE THREE VERY LOW INCOME UNITS, THE DEVELOPER IS ASKING FOR MODEST WAIVERS TO HEIGHT, SETBACKS, AND PARKING STANDARDS.
AT 43 UNITS, THIS PROJECT IS STILL BELOW THE 52 UNITS THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS.
EVEN WITH THE PARKING WAIVER, THERE'S STILL MORE THAN TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT.
THE PROJECT FITS WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S SUPPORTED BY ST. JAMES CATHOLIC CHURCH.
CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING AND TRAFFIC CAN BE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED WITH PARKING PERMITS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ONGOING WORK BY RBUSD AND THE CITY OF REDONDO TO ADDRESS SCHOOL PARKING AND PICK UP DROP OFF.
THE TRAFFIC STUDY SHOWED THIS PROJECT WILL NOT GENERATE NEW VMT.
IN FACT, THE LOCATION IS HIGHLY WALKABLE, BIKEABLE, AND TRANSIT SERVED.
AS WE KNOW, IT'S ONE BLOCK FROM REDONDO UNION AND CITY HALL.
IT'S TWO BLOCKS FROM THE PIER AND A SHOPPING CENTER.
THE WALK SCORE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 87 AND THE BIKE SCORE IS 74.
THE AREA IS SERVED BY METRO 232 AND BCT 102 AND 109.
YOUNGER HOMEOWNERS ARE LOOKING FOR WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THEY PREFER TO LIVE CAR LIGHT.
FINALLY, I DO WANT TO PROVIDE A PERSONAL NOTE TO REITERATE YOUR OBLIGATION TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT.
AS A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF REDONDO BEACH, I'VE BEEN DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED WITH HOW OUR CITY CLAIMS TO BE DIVERSE AND WELCOMING IN WORD, BUT IN ACTION SHUTS OUT OPPORTUNITY AND AFFORDABILITY.
THIS COMMISSION HAS REPEATEDLY DENIED AND DOWNSIZED HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE NAME OF SLOW GROWTH, BUT WHAT THIS LEADS TO IS A CITY OF NO GROWTH, OF AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND UNCHANGING NEIGHBORHOODS, OF PRIVATE WEALTH ACCUMULATION AND RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE.
THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION, INCLUDES A COMMITMENT TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING.
ON PAGE 122 OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT ON THE ISSUE OF SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION, IT DESCRIBES THAT THE CITY WILL PARTNER WITH DEVELOPERS, "TO PURSUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CITYWIDE WITH THE GOAL OF ACHIEVING 100 LOWER INCOME AND 100 MODERATE INCOME UNITS OVER EIGHT YEARS, AND IT WILL TARGET CENSUS TRACKS IMPACTED BY HIGH DISPLACEMENT RISK AND COST BURDEN." THIS GOAL DESCRIBES EXACTLY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS PROJECT.
I ASK THAT YOU DO APPROVE THIS PROJECT,
[02:55:01]
AND IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO ADDRESS OUR LOCAL HOUSING CRISIS.THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. BETH BLYTHER AND FRANK GIBBS.
I'M BETH BLYTHER, AND THIS IS FRANK GIBBS.
WE LIVE ON THE CORNER OF EL REDONDO AND FRANCISCO.
WE'RE HERE TO ADDRESS THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THESE THREE ITEMS, PARKING, TRAFFIC, AND THE EXISTING LOW DENSITY ZONING.
FOR PARKING, THE PROJECT WILL ADD OVER 80 CARS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AT LEAST 30 OF THEM WILL BE LOOKING FOR STREET PARKING.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE SLIDES, THERE ARE NO SPACES AVAILABLE CURRENTLY.
THESE NUMBERS IN THE PRESENTATION ARE NOT MADE UP.
THEY ARE FROM STUDIES AND PUBLICATIONS THAT YOU CAN FIND IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHY AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.
THE CITY SAYS THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PARKING, BUT HAVE NOT OFFERED UP ONE STUDY SHOWING THIS TO BE TRUE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. REGARDING TRAFFIC.
THE 24 UNITS CLOSEST TO PCH ONLY HAVE ONE WAY TO GET OUT OF THE COMPLEX, A DRIVEWAY ONTO VINCENT STREET.
SINCE THE DRIVEWAY IS SO CLOSE TO PCH, CARS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO TURN LEFT.
THEY WILL ALL GO RIGHT ON VINCENT DIRECTLY INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. NEXT SLIDE.
HERE ARE SOME STATS FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDY FUNDED BY THE PROPERTY DEVELOPER.
OUT OF THE 276 TRIPS, 77 WILL BE CARS LEAVING THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TURN RIGHT INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, EVEN IF THEIR INTENT IS TO GO TO PCH.
THIS DOESN'T EVEN COUNT THE OTHER 199 TRIPS INTO OR AWAY FROM THE SITE.
THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS INADEQUATE.
IT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF THE MANDATORY RIGHT TURN, WHICH FUNNELS TRAFFIC INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. NEXT, PLEASE.
NOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE LOW DENSITY ZONES.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS MADE UP OF TWO DISJOINTED PROPERTIES.
ONE IS ON PCH AND IS ZONED FOR THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THE OTHER IS NEXT TO A GROUP OF EXISTING HOMES AND IS ZONED FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
LOW INCOME UNITS ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PLAN.
THE PROPOSED THREE LOW INCOME UNITS ARE INSIGNIFICANT WHEN IT COMES TO THE STATE MANDATE.
THIS IS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CITY.
WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR THE INCLUSION OF THE LOW INCOME UNITS? THE REASON IS SO THE PROPERTY DEVELOPER CAN GET THE BENEFITS OF WHAT'S CALLED THE DENSITY BONUS.
THEY INCLUDED THE VERY MINIMUM NUMBER OF LOW INCOME TO QUALIFY. NEXT, PLEASE.
THE DENSITY BONUS ALLOWS FOR BIGGER, TALLER BUILDINGS IN ZONES WHERE THEY WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED RIGHT NEXT TO EXISTING HOMES, PUTTING MORE UNITS AND MORE PEOPLE PER SQUARE FOOT.
THERE'S NUMEROUS OTHER ADVANTAGES, LIKE REDUCING PARKING SPACES AND SETBACKS, THAT THEY'LL BE ALLOWED. NEXT, PLEASE.
THE LOW INCOME UNITS ARE ON THE LOW DENSITY PARCELS SIMPLY TO MEET THE PORTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN SHOWN ON THE SLIDE.
THIS ALLOWS THE PARCELS TO BE COMBINED.
>> THIS ALLOWS THE PARCELS TO BE COMBINED, WHICH IS THE ZONING DEVIATIONS FOR ALL THE PARCELS.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE ARE THE OBJECTIVES FROM THE GENERAL PLAN REGARDING R-3 LOW DENSITY ZONES, WHICH HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE CITY.
>> IN CONCLUSION, WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE? THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS WILL SUFFER WITH EVEN MORE PARKING CHALLENGES, INCREASED TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ISSUES, AND TALLER, MORE CROWDED BUILDINGS.
THE DEVELOPER MAXIMIZES PROFITS BY BYPASSING A GREAT NUMBER OF ZONING CODES.
IF A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS DESIRED, DO IT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING RULES.
[03:00:01]
DON'T ENGINEER IT TO BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY.THANK YOU, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
[APPLAUSE] IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK YOU?
>> WE HAVE TWO E-ATTENDEES THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
>> LET'S GO TO THE E-ATTENDEES AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THE AUDIENCE.
>> GOOD EVENING. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME?
I AM CIVIL ENGINEER ON LANCER, AND BEEN WORKING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR OVER 40 YEARS.
ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBOR, I'D LIKE TO RAISE A FEW CONCERNS.
FIRST CONCERN IS ABOUT SEPARATION OF POWER.
IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSION IS POWERLESS.
THE STAFF IS MAKING DECISION TO OFFER AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DOES THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS TO BE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, OR DOES THE CITY NEED TO JUMP ON THE WAGON? WE HEAR DEVELOPER IS OFFERING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
DOES IT HAVE TO BE IN THIS AREA? ANYBODY HAS POWER TO SAY IN WHICH AREA THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS TO BE? THAT'S NUMBER 1.
NUMBER 2, THERE'S A FEW TECHNICAL ISSUES.
I CONTACT THE STAFF AND I COULD NOT BECAUSE OF THE SHORTAGE OF TIME, OR I DON'T KNOW WHY, I COULDN'T GET ALL TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON THE PROJECT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE TENTATIVE MAP HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING.
IT WAS STATED IN PRESENTATION BY PLANNER THAT THERE'S THREE PARCELS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE PARCELS GOING TO BE COMBINED INTO ONE PARCEL, OR ONE PARCEL, THE TRAPEZOIDAL PARCEL ACROSS THE CENTRAL CORD WOULD STILL REMAIN AS A SEPARATE PARCEL.
THE REASON I'M RAISING THIS QUESTION BECAUSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THREE UNITS ARE PROPOSING ACROSS THE STREET, ACROSS THE CENTRAL IN THAT TRAPEZOIDAL PARCEL WHERE SEVEN UNITS ARE OFFERED.
ONE OF THE COMMISSIONER RAISED RIGHT QUESTION, ALL VARIANCES APPLY TO THE LARGER PARCELS AS FAR AS THE SETBACK, AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT JUST BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS ACROSS THE STREET.
I THINK IF LARGER PARCELS GETTING ALL BENEFITS, PROPORTIONATELY, THE AFFORDABLE UNITS SHOULD BE OFFERED ON THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S JUST REALLY LIKE SEGREGATION.
IT'S JUST CREATING GHETTO OUT OF THE SEVEN UNITS, AND THE LARGER PARCEL IS GETTING ALL BENEFITS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO SECOND CONCERN OF THE CITY ALONG THE COAST OFFER THE BENEFITS THE STORY POLE.
[03:05:02]
THE HIGH HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD AFFECT NEIGHBORHOOD.THERE IS NO PRESENTATION ABOUT WATER QUALITY.
THE WATER QUALITY, HOW THE WATER GOING TO BE TREATED.
ANOTHER CONCERN, THE DEPTH OF THE DRIVEWAY EXIT TO THE VINCENT.
IT'S 300 FOOT DRIVEWAY, WHICH-.
>> I'M SORRY, SIR, YOUR TIME IS UP.
>> WE HAVE ONE MORE E-ATTENDEE BY THE NAME OF HOLLY.
I ACTUALLY LIVE IN NORTH REDONDO, I'VE BEEN HERE FOR OVER 40 YEARS, AND I'M GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION THAT I ASKED AT THE LAST TIME I WENT TO ONE OF THESE MEETINGS.
DO THOSE TWO CAR GARAGES REALLY HOLD TWO CARS? I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE DIMENSIONS OF THEM ARE.
I WENT ON GOOGLE LAST TIME AND SAID, TWO CAR GARAGE SHOULD BE MINIMUM 20 FEET BY 20 FEET BECAUSE I'VE HEARD SO MANY PEOPLE SAY THEY HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE, BUT THEY CAN'T GET TWO CARS IN IT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE TWO CAR GARAGES REALLY CAN GET TWO CARS.
I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU SAY THE HOA IS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT YOU PUT YOUR CARS IN THERE, AND THAT'S GOOD.
I'D LIKE THEM TO ASK THAT QUESTION, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT THESE GUYS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT THE EXACT OPPOSITE SITUATION UP HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, I DID NOTICE THAT YOUR UNITS THAT YOU WERE DESIGNING ACTUALLY WERE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING.
I THINK THEY WERE 1,500 TO 2,000 SQUARE FEET, IS THAT CORRECT? BECAUSE UP HERE, SOMEBODY TOOK PROPERTY THAT WAS AN OLD HOUSE, SPLIT IT INTO TWO AND PUT UP TO 3,000 SQUARE FOOT UNITS THAT WERE MINING MCMANSIONS.
ONE OF THEM TOOK 190 DAYS TO SELL.
IT WAS THAT BAD, THAT WHITE ELEPHANT AND THAT INAPPROPRIATE.
I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THESE DEVELOPERS HAVEN'T DONE IT. THANK YOU. BYE.
>> YEAH, EACH ONE IS NINE BY 18.
>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE TODAY, THERE WAS A LOT OF TALKING HERE ABOUT PARKING, ETC.
I LIVE IN NORTH GERTRUDA IN DE SAC RIGHT BEHIND POKEY.
WHEN THERE'S FESTIVAL DOWN HERE, OUR STREET, THERE'S CARS EVERYWHERE.
WE'RE JUST HAPPY 'CAUSE REDONDO IS JUST SUCH A HAPPY PLACE TO BE.
BUT I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT COMMUNITY.
I'M BRAZILIAN. I MOVED HERE 15 YEARS AGO.
I'M ALSO AMERICAN, SO TODAY, I PROUDLY SAID THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE HERE.
MY SON WAS 10-YEARS-OLD WHEN WE MOVED HERE.
HE ATTENDED BERYL, THEN PARIS, THEN REDONDO HIGH, AND THEN HE WENT TO STANFORD.
AT STANFORD, HE WAS KNOWN AS THE KID FROM REDONDO, THE BRAZILIAN FROM REDONDO BECAUSE HE PLAYED VOLLEYBALL HERE.
THEN HE PLAYED VOLLEYBALL AT STANFORD.
I PLAYED VOLLEYBALL PROFESSIONALLY FOR BRAZIL AND IN FOUR OLYMPIC GAMES, AND I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD LEAVE BRAZIL BECAUSE BRAZIL IS MY HOME.
THE REASON I CAN SAY THIS IS BECAUSE WHEN WE MOVED HERE, MY SON DIDN'T SPEAK ONE WORD IN ENGLISH.
NOW HE'S A STANFORD GRAD IN ECON AND HE SPEAKS ENGLISH LIKE A NATIVE AN AMERICAN.
THIS IS SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE COMMUNITY HERE.
WE WERE EMBRACED HERE IN A WAY THAT I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SAY, THIS IS MY HOME, BEING BRAZILIAN.
BUT HE CAN'T COME BACK TO REDONDO.
HE CAN'T BUY A HOUSE HERE ANYMORE.
HE WANTS TO COME BACK, BUT HE CAN COME.
HIS GOOD FRIENDS WERE MADE IN REDONDO.
HE WAS HERE AND HE WAS LOVED HERE, AND I FEEL LIKE SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT IS MY WAY TO GIVE BACK TO THIS WONDERFUL COMMUNITY THAT EMBRACED ME AND MY SON SO DEARLY.
[03:10:01]
THIS IS OUR HOME, AND WE WANT TO HELP OUR FELLOW CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORS.I DON'T REMEMBER HOW NIGHTS I CRIED BECAUSE HE WOULD GO TO PARIS, BERYL WITHOUT SPEAKING ENGLISH, AND EVERYBODY EMBRACED HIM LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO LOVE YOU, GABRIEL.
HE FEELS NOW THAT HE BELONGS HERE, AND I FEEL LIKE SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT IS GIVING BACK TO THIS WONDERFUL COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. MICHAEL SCHNEIDER.
>> HI, COMMISSIONER. I DIDN'T PREPARE ANYTHING BEFOREHAND.
I JUST HAD SOME THINGS THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT BY COMING HERE.
SO I'M AGAINST THE PROJECT, AND I THINK WHAT IS IT LIKE 5 OR 6% AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I THINK THAT'S A JOKE.
IT'S JUST LIKE YOU SHOW SOMETHING BUT MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT, BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.
IT'S A VERY SMALL AMOUNT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO REALLY HELP SIGNIFICANTLY INSIGNIFICANT HELP, BUT A LOT OF DAMAGE BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS ALL THE WAIVERS.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ALL THOSE WAIVERS, AND BECAUSE OF THAT LITTLE THING THAT'S DOING NOTHING, IT'S REQUIRING ALL THOSE WAIVERS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BEING IMPACTED BY IT.
I SHOULD SAY THAT I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT IS BEING AFFECTED BECAUSE RIGHT ON, FROM THE VIEW BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR OVER 30 YEARS, AND WE HAD THIS VIEW AND WE BOUGHT THAT HOME BASED ON THAT VIEW, AND NOW THAT'S BEING TAKEN AWAY, AND EVEN MORE BECAUSE OF THE WAIVERS.
I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S WORTH IT.
I THINK THE POLITICIANS MADE A MISTAKE WITH THIS THING.
IT'S JUST POLITICAL IN THE WORST SENSE.
IT LOOKS GOOD, WE'RE TAKING CARE OF THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T AFFORD IT 3%.
I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF ABUSE WITH THAT 3%.
THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE GETTING INTO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSES FOR WHAT IS IT LIKE 100,000 WHERE THE HOMES HERE ARE LIKE 1.2 MILLION AT LEAST, THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
THEY MIGHT BE RENTING IT OUT SUBLEASING AND NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT AND THEN YOU GOT TO MONITOR SO AND SO SUBLEASING.
AS FAR AS PEOPLE COMING IN, MORE THAN I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, BUT IT'S VERY THIS PLACE IS SO DESIRABLE RIGHT ON THE BEACH, AS IT WAS SAID, AFFORDABLE WHY DO WE NEED TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF THE CITY? THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.
BUT IT WAS DONE FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS A MISTAKE AND IT'S JUST GOING TO BE MORE PROBLEMS FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT WE STATED FOR THOSE THAT WERE AGAINST IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MICHAEL.
NOW. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, WHO HAS NOT YET SPOKEN.
>> HELLO, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS ELAN KVICHKWA. I'M A PHYSICIAN.
I LIVE IN REDONDO PRETTY RECENTLY SINCE 2012.
I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED FROM THIS PROJECT.
FIRST, THAT AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSES JUST THREE, GIVE ME A JOKE.
FIRST. SECOND, THAT DEVELOPERS PUT IN THE PRICES WHICH THEY COULD NOT TAKE FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSES TO ANOTHER HOUSES, MAKE THEM EXPENSIVE.
IT'S NOT BENEFITS FOR COMMUNITY.
IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.
IT'S JUST PEOPLE DEVELOP PROFIT.
REGARDING TRAFFIC, EVEN RIGHT NOW,
[03:15:01]
I LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOOD, I LIVE IN EL REDONDO AVENUE.I AM PHYSICIAN AND SOMETIMES IN THE MORNING WHEN I NEED TO GO TO WORK.
AT EIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, WE HAVE EXTREMELY HIGH TRAFFIC BECAUSE KIDS NEED TO GO TO HIGH SCHOOL.
AT THAT TIME, EVEN THAT RIGHT NOW, THEY DO NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL 100 CARS.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME SOMETIMES TO GET TO MY PATIENTS, TO BE ON TIME AT MY OFFICE.
TO BE ON TIME, I'M WORKING ALSO IN CORRECTION FACILITY, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT SOMETIMES WHEN I'M ON CALL TO GET ON TIME.
EVEN RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT FUTURE WHEN IT WILL BE ADDITIONAL MORE THAN 100 CARS.
BECAUSE WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FAMILIES, WHERE THREE BEDROOMS, DEFINITELY THERE WILL BE PARENTS AND AT LEAST ONE CHILD.
MAYBE TWO CHILDREN WHO ARE TEENAGERS, AND SINCE LAW IN CALIFORNIA ALLOW TEENAGERS TO DRIVE THE CARS, IT'S ADDITIONAL CARS.
WHERE, HOW WE CAN GET FROM THOSE SMALL STREETS, I'M TALKING ABOUT CENTRAL AVENUE.
IT'S ALREADY SOMETIMES DURING THE TRAFFIC TIME, VERY DIFFICULT TO GET ON EMERALD STREET RIGHT NOW.
SOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIRE ADDITIONALLY TO THAT PROJECT.
DO WE HAVE PARKING PERMITS FOR EL REDONDO?
I'M ONE OF THE RESIDENTS THAT'S DIRECTLY AFFECTED.
I'M JUST BEHIND THE SMALL PARKING AREA.
>> THIS IS HER NEIGHBOR, SUSAN.
I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU ONE BECAUSE I COULD SEE THAT YOU WERE REALLY TRYING TO DO SOMETHING FOR US.
BOSWELL, ESPECIALLY, THANK YOU.
FOR TRYING TO ADDRESS THE PARKING AND EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, IN OUR CONCERNS.
WE DO NOT HAVE PERMIT PARKING.
MAYBE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THAT DIRECTION NOW.
WE CHOSE TO LET THE KIDS AND THE PARENTS FROM THE SCHOOL PARK ON OUR STREET.
WE DID NOT WE WITHHELD WHEN EVERYBODY WAS GETTING PERMITS.
IT'S DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO WORK WITH THIS PROJECT BEHIND ME.
ONE, I'M LOSING MY VIEW, WHICH OKAY, LIFE HAPPENS.
I DON'T LIKE IT, BUT I HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT.
TWO, MY PROPERTY VALUE JUST WENT DOWN TREMENDOUSLY.
IF I CHOOSE TO SIT ON MY BALCONY NOW, I'M GOING TO BE HAVING A GARAGE IN FRONT OF ME OR A WINDOW IN FRONT OF ME.
MY DAD IS TURNING IN HIS GRAVE RIGHT NOW HE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE AND BUILT THIS HOUSE. AND WHAT? LIFE CHANGES. LIFE MOVES ON.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND MAYBE I NEED TO REMOVE OUT OF REDONDO BEACH.
I'VE LIVED HERE MY WHOLE LIFE 66 YEARS.
>> I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING.
[OVERLAPPING] WE'RE THINKING OF MOVING OUR OWN HOME. [OVERLAPPING]
OUR PROPERTY VALUES DROPPED, EVERYTHING.
>> YES. THANK YOU FOR ALL TRYING.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE.
>> I'VE HEARD PEOPLE COME UP HERE AND SAY THAT IT'S VERY VITAL THESE LOW INCOME HOUSING.
WE NEED THESE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IF YOU READ THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S REPORT, IT CALLS THESE THREE UNITS INSIGNIFICANT.
WE NEED PER THE SIX CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT.
[03:20:01]
OUR MANDATE FROM THE STATE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS LIKE 1,900 UNITS.THIS PROJECT WOULD PROVIDE LIKE 0.02% OF THAT 1,900.
THE REPORT GOES ON TO SAY THAT THERE'S AMPLE INVENTORY TO MEET THAT 1,900.
PEOPLE THAT STAND UP HERE AND SAY, WE NEED THESE THREE UNITS, SOMEHOW THEY'RE IGNORING THE OTHER 1,900 THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUILT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ARGUMENT AT ALL.
THEN SECONDLY, I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. CRAIG THAT SAID, THIS IS A DONE DEAL, AND THIS IS ALL WINDOW DRESSING.
FROM WHAT I'VE READ, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE FROM THE STATE, BUT IT'S THE CITY WHO DECIDES WHERE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOES.
THE STATE DOESN'T COME IN AND SAY, YOU HAVE TO PUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS AS TO MY UNDERSTANDING.
THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY DETERMINES WHERE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOES.
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AS FAR AS I KNOW, IS NOT IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY.
WHILE IT SAYS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ALLOWED THERE, IT DOESN'T SAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS TO BE THERE.
THEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE DECISION OF THE CITY WHETHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOES THERE.
BUT I'VE HEARD OTHER PEOPLE SAY HERE THAT WE HAVE NO CHOICE THAT WE'RE BACKED INTO A CORNER, THAT THIS HAS TO HAPPEN, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE.
>> IF WE COULD HAVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY HERE JUST REITERATE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THIS PROPERTY.
AND HOW THE HOUSING ELEMENT, IF YOU COULD GO OVER THE THREE UNITS AS PART OF THAT 1900 COUNT, IS THAT CORRECT?
LET ME GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS THAT.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SITES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S RECENTLY ADOPTED AND CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT THAT PROVIDE THE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE LOW INCOME HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY ARE AREAS OF THE CITY THAT HAD ZONING DESIGNATIONS THAT ARE OF A HIGH ENOUGH DENSITY TO QUALIFY AS POTENTIAL HOUSING SITES FOR THE CITY, AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES.
IF YOU ADDED UP ALL THE SITES AT THE DENSITIES THAT ARE ALLOCATED PER THE RECENT UPDATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THEY WOULD TOTAL A CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY LITTLE OVER 1,900 UNITS, WHICH WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WERE ISSUED TO THE CITY IN THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
SO WE HAVE AN ISSUED NUMBER FROM THE STATE THAT CAME FROM THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT, SCAG, SAID YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CAPACITY FOR, I THINK IT WAS 1,934 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
WE HAVE DESIGNATED SITES THAT PROVIDE THE CAPACITY FOR THAT, AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES.
SO THIS IS A LOCATION PER OUR GENERAL PLAN, PER OUR HOUSING ELEMENT THAT IS ACCOMMODATING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE DIDN'T APPROVE THE PROJECT?
>> WELL, WE HAVE TO MAKE A FINDING, AND IT'S IN OUR RESOLUTION TONIGHT.
FOR APPROVING THE PROJECT, WE HAVE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT WE HAVE WITH THE HOUSING ELEMENT SAYS 12 UNITS IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THIS, BUT WE'RE ONLY PROVIDING THREE WITH THIS PROJECT.
SO WE HAD TO MAKE A FINDING THAT WE'RE NOT PROVIDING NINE OF THE IDENTIFIED AFFORDABLE UNITS.
DO WE STILL HAVE CAPACITY IN THE OTHER IDENTIFIED SITES TO COVER US? IF WE DID NOT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK TO REZONE PROPERTIES AND FIND ADDITIONAL HOUSING SITES THAT WOULD HAVE TO GET CERTIFIED BY THE STATE.
>> THANK YOU. THAT WAS HELPFUL.
>> YOU WERE EXPECTING THERE TO BE 12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE SITE.
[03:25:01]
WERE THEY ABLE TO GO WITH THREE BECAUSE THEY WENT WITH? IS IT VERY LOW AS OPPOSED TO JUST LOW INCOME? THAT ALLOWED THEM TO PUT LESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT TO GET THE BONUS THAT THEY WANTED TO JACK THIS THING UP TO MAXIMIZE THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.>> THE 12 PER THE SITE IS NOT A MANDATE.
IT'S AN ESTIMATE, AND THEY WERE ALLOCATED THROUGHOUT [OVERLAPPING] THE CITY.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY. YOU EXPECTED THERE TO BE 12, BUT IT'S NOT TURNING OUT THAT WAY.
>> WELL, WE PROVIDED A CAPACITY OF 12 VERY LOW OR LOWER INCOME HOUSING UNITS TO BE AT THIS LOCATION.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE HOPING FOR BUT YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT?
>> THEY WENT WITH THE LOWEST OF THE LOW INCOME CATEGORIES BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES THEM TO HAVE THE FEWEST NUMBER OF LOW INCOME HOMES IN THE PROPERTY.
>> WELL, NOT EXACTLY. OUR HOUSING ELEMENT ACTUALLY DOES CALL FOR 12 OR IDENTIFIES THIS SITE FOR 12 VERY LOW UNITS.
WE'RE NOT AS OUR DIRECTOR WEINER POINTS OUT.
WE'RE NOT MANDATED TO REQUIRE IT.
SO THERE IS A PROGRAM IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT REQUIRES THE CITY TO EVALUATE AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE WHERE THE CITY MAY BE ABLE TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THE FUTURE ON A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE THAT NEED TO BE AFFORDABLE.
THE CITY HAS NOT ADOPTED SUCH AN ORDINANCE YET, AND IN FACT, STATE HCD IS VIEWING THOSE ORDINANCES A LITTLE LESS FAVORABLY BECAUSE IF THE NUMBER IS SET TOO HIGH, IT COULD ALSO BE A BARRIER TO CONSTRUCTING HOUSING PERIOD.
BUT I DO WANT TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT ON THIS PROJECT.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT OF IT IS REALLY A STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW.
THAT'S THE MORE MINOR FACTOR HERE.
THE MORE SIGNIFICANT ONE IS SB 330 AND THE STIPULATIONS OF THAT AND HOW IT LIMITS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO REVIEW AND EVEN DENY THE PROJECT.
IN TERMS OF THE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THEY'RE OBTAINING ONE UNIT BEYOND WHAT THE DENSITY ALLOWS IN THE ZONING FOR THESE SITES.
IT'S NOT A LARGE BONUS IN UNITS.
THERE'S ACTUALLY A FAIRLY SMALL GAP BETWEEN THE PARKING SPACES.
THEY'RE REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE AT 100 AND WHAT THEY'RE PROVIDING AT 91, AND THERE'S SOME MINOR DEVIATIONS ON THE HEIGHTS AND THE SETBACKS.
IN FACT, THE DEVELOPER COULD COME IN.
THE WAIVERS ARE FAIRLY UNLIMITED.
WHERE THEY COULD PROPOSE SOMETHING, IT'S FIVE STORIES OR SIX STORIES.
MAYBE AT SOME POINT WE COULD MAKE A FINDING IT WAS A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE IF THE BUILDING BECAME TOO TALL.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE DENSITY BONUS.
I KNOW THAT'S WHERE THE DISCUSSIONS WENT.
I REALLY SEE THAT AS BEING SECONDARY TO SB 330 TO THE FACT IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THAT OUT OF THE EQUATION, THEY COULD STILL DO 42 UNITS HERE.
THE CITY WOULD BE LIMITED IN OUR ABILITY TO REDUCE THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT TO DENY IT UNLESS IT CAN MAKE THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY FINDINGS OR THAT IT DOES NOT MEET OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.
I JUST WANT TO BRING THE FOCUS BACK TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE STATE LAW.
IT'S MORE IN PLAY ON THIS PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR WEINER.
>> IF I CAN CONDENSE THIS DOWN TO WHAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT IS THAT WE CAN'T SAY NO UNLESS WE HEAR SOMETHING THAT IF THIS PROJECT'S BUILT, WE CAN PROVE SOMEONE'S GOING TO DIE.
ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M GETTING FROM ALL OF THIS.
OUR HANDS ARE TIED TO SAY, YES.
BECAUSE I HEARD NOTHING THAT THEY SEEM LIKE NICE GUYS.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KILL ANYBODY.
BUT I'M GETTING THE HINTS HERE THAT WE CAN TWEAK THIS TO MAKE IT BETTER FOR REDUNDA BEACH.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST YEAR.
WHAT AM I MISSING THAT WE CAN DO HERE THAT WOULD MAKE THIS BETTER? BECAUSE I AGREE, THE ATTORNEY.
I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT WE CAN'T MAKE THEM DO PERMITS.
>> SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO REFER THAT. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I ANTICIPATED IT COMING BACK TO THAT AT THE END OF THE DELIBERATION BECAUSE I RAISED THAT WHEN I FIRST INTRODUCED THIS PROJECT.
[03:30:01]
WE DO HAVE DIANA VERRAT WHO'S ON WITH US VIRTUALLY.SHE WORKS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SHE SPECIALIZES IN HOUSING.
PERHAPS DIANA, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO CHIME IN, YOU COULD SHED SOME LIGHT ON WHAT THE COMMISSION IS ABLE TO DO IN TERMS OF CONDITIONING THIS PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR WEINER. I THINK AT THIS POINT, THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE COMMISSION THINKS IS A REASONABLE CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE PROJECT.
AT THIS POINT, AS DIRECTOR WEINER HAS DESCRIBED, GIVEN THAT THE APPLICATION AND PROPOSED PROJECT ESSENTIALLY COMPLIES WITH ACCORDING TO STAFF, THE APPLICABLE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.
WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE DENSITY BONUS LAW REQUEST.
THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSION ARE A BIT TIED WITH RESPECT TO DISAPPROVING THE PROJECT.
YOU STILL NEED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF APPROVAL, HOWEVER, IN ORDER [NOISE] TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.
[NOISE] SO IN THESE INSTANCES, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO GET TO THE FINDINGS OF APPROVAL AND WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU THINK ARE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE PROJECT.
SO I CAN'T SUBSTANTIVELY TELL YOU WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT THAT'S THE SCOPE OF THE LEGAL PARAMETERS THERE.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO RESPOND HERE.
IT APPEARS THAT THE MAJOR COMPLAINT IS THE PARKING.
BUT WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE THAT PARKING IN THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.
IT'S ADDING STRESS TO THE COMMUNITY AND WE DON'T WANT TO ADD STRESS.
AGAIN, YET WE ARE BARRED FROM MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THIS PROJECT.
I WOULD ASK DIRECTOR WEINER OR OUR CITY ATTORNEY.
WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS THAT THE CITY CAN DO TO RELIEVE THE STRESS AND THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PARKING ON THE ADJACENT STREETS?
>> I HEARD THE PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM REFERENCED EARLIER.
I THINK SHAN SCOLLI HAS SOME BACKGROUND ON THAT, WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR THAT.
OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDITIONAL PARKING ON SITE AND I DON'T KNOW.
MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT.
BUT BEYOND THAT, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THE SOLUTIONS ARE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
I WILL SAY THAT LONG TERM, IF WE SEE THAT THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE A RE OCCURRING ISSUE, THE CITY MAY WANT TO LOOK AT INCREASING THE PARKING STANDARDS IF WE ANTICIPATE THE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO COME IN AND THEY'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR DENSITY BONUS AND GET A REDUCTION.
WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THAT IN TERMS OF LIKE A LONG TERM CODE AMENDMENT, WHICH OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THAT TAKES SOME TIME AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO DO SO.
SEAN, CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND ON THE PROCESS FOR THE PARKING PERMIT?
>> THE PARKING PERMIT PROCEDURE IS HANDLED AND DIRECTED BY OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF MEETINGS THAT ARE HELD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY ALSO THEN GO BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION TO DETERMINE ALL THE ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP AND WHAT SOME OF THE, SIDE EFFECTS, OTHER IMPACTS THAT COULD BE FROM THAT.
THAT IS ALL HANDLED OUTSIDE OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, BUT THIS HAS COME UP FOR PROJECTS WHERE WE'VE HAD CONFLICTS, IF YOU WILL, WITH PARKING, WHERE THERE'S COMMERCIAL, SPILLOVER PARKING AND YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE STREET.
THAT WAS, I THINK ONE OF THE SPEAKERS TONIGHT SPOKE TO A RECENT PREFERENTIAL PARKING PERMIT PARKING ON GERTRUDA THAT ULTIMATELY WILL GO TO THE COUNCIL TO BE CONFIRMED WHAT THE RESULT IS FROM THE COMMISSION MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
>> WHAT'S THE PROCEDURE THEN FOR THESE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE?
>> THEY WOULD START WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
WE COULD CERTAINLY CONNECT YOU TO THE APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS IN PUBLIC WORKS TO INITIATE THAT PROCESS.
[03:35:02]
I THINK THERE'S PETITIONS AND SURVEYS THAT ARE PUT OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ETC.THEY COULD COME TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THEN COULD GO TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
>> THE COMMISSION THINKS THAT'S A POTENTIALLY GOOD SOLUTION FOR NOW FOR THESE HOUSING PROJECTS BECAUSE I DO ANTICIPATE WE'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THEM.
YOU MAY WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT WE TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT WHEN THESE BY RIGHT HOUSING PROJECTS COME THROUGH THAT WE PROVIDE SOME MORE LATITUDE FOR PERMIT PARKING WITHIN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, JUST UNDERSTANDING THE TYPE OF IMPACTS THEY CAN HAVE.
>> RIGHT. I'M SO SORRY WE CAN'T NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN UP TO SPEAK.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THOSE OF THE PROPONENTS FROM ST. JAMES.
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS THAT THIS PROJECT IS CAUSING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.
PERHAPS YOU COULD WORK WITH THEM TO GET THE PERMITS.
I HOPE YOU WALK AWAY FROM THIS MEETING TONIGHT REALIZING THAT YOU, TOO, HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD BE OF LESSER STRESS THAN WHAT THIS PROJECT IS CAUSING.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF IDEAS TO MAKE THIS PROJECT BETTER.
I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF A DESCRIPTION ON STORM WATER CAPTURING.
CAN ONE OF YOU GUYS ADDRESS THAT? STORM WATER CAPTURING ON THE PROPERTY.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK YOU HAVE TO SQUARE AND TELL YOUR NAME.
>> DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> RYAN BITTNER WITH CNV CONSULTING, A CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.
>> AS A PART OF THE PACKAGE, WE PREPARED A PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY AS WELL AS A PRELIMINARY LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
BOTH OF THOSE REPORTS ARE A PART OF THE ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE FOR REVIEW.
IT'S A STANDARD PROCEDURE IN LA COUNTY. WHEN IT RAINS?
>> WE DO AN EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP FOR HYDROLOGY TO MEASURE WHERE THOSE FLOWS GO AND WE DO A PROPOSED CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY STUDY TO MEASURE WHERE THOSE FLOWS GO AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.
THOSE REPORTS, THOSE CALCULATIONS, ETC, ARE ALL PART OF WHAT COMES AS A PART OF THE DESIGN.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO ASK?
>> I DO. I REALLY DON'T WANT THE WATER GOING INTO THE GUTTER.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE WATER TO BE PERCOLATED WITHIN THE PROPERTY TRYING TO HELP WITH THAT.
IS IT GOING INTO THE GUTTER? BECAUSE THAT'S A CHANGE WE COULD MAKE THAT WOULD HELP THIS PROJECT BE A LITTLE BETTER.
>> WE WERE REQUIRED AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT TO MAKE A DIRECT CONNECTION TO THE LA COUNTY PUBLIC STORM DRAIN, WHICH IS IN VINCENT.
WE ARE CAPTURING THE WATER ON-SITE WITH A SERIES OF CATCH BASINS.
THOSE FLOWS ENTER A PIPE, AND THEN THEY ENTER A WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FACILITY.
THERE ARE TWO DRY WELLS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING ON SITE WHICH INFILTRATE THE WATER.
FIRST, WE TREAT IT, THEN WE'RE PERCOLATING THOSE FLOWS INTO THE GROUND AS REQUIRED OF A CERTAIN SPECIFIC CAPTURE VOLUME.
>> GOOD. NONE IS GOING INTO THE OCEAN?
>> THEN EVENTUALLY, WHATEVER EXCEEDS THE CAPACITY OF THE 25-YEAR EVENT IS PIPED OUT TO THE LA COUNTY STORM DRAIN.
IT'S CLEAN WATER AT THAT POINT.
IT DOES EVENTUALLY ENTER THE PUBLIC STORM DRAIN FACILITY, BUT THIS IS ALL DONE UNDERGROUND.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. NEXT THING, WE HAVE PLANTING THAT'S BEING CALLED NATIVE DROUGHT.
I NEED TO HAVE CALIFORNIA ADDED TO THAT, SO CALIFORNIA NATIVE DROUGHT TOLERANT.
CAN WE GET THAT ADDED? DO WE HAVE A LANDSCAPER OUT THERE?
[03:40:04]
>> I HAVE OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT STEPPING UP HERE.
>> THANK YOU. YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE GOING TO SPEAK? YOU CAN SWEAR.
>> DO YOU PROMISE TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> HI. MY NAME'S JOSE CAZARES, AND I'M WITH THE C2 COLLABORATIVE, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FIRM.
OUR PLANT PALETTE HAS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SPECIES.
A BIG PERCENTAGE OF THEM ARE CALIFORNIA NATIVE.
ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IS OUR PROXIMITY TO THE COAST SO WE GET SALT AIR.
THERE'S A LOT OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANTS THAT ARE ON ALL LISTS AND WEBSITES THAT ARE DEEMED SUITABLE FOR LOW-WATER USE.
WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WORK WITH OUR SPECIFIC SITES.
WE'VE DEVELOPED A PLANTING PALETTE THAT WILL PERFORM WELL LONG TERM AND HELPS REDUCE OUR WATER.
>> A LOT OF THOSE MIGHT BE NATIVE TO JAPAN OR AUSTRALIA, AND WE REALLY WANT A CALIFORNIA NATIVE.
WE'RE WORKING ON THAT, IT'S JUST NOT THERE YET.
OTHERWISE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN HERE.
THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THAT IT BE CALIFORNIA NATIVE DROUGHT TOLERANCE.
>> I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO ON OUR END IS ADOPT THOSE CLEARLY IN OUR PACKAGE.
>> LET'S SEE. IS IT OKAY SHEILA? CAN I KEEP GOING?
>> I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNDERSTANDING, WHAT IS THIS PASSIVE RECREATION AREA? COMMON AREA, PAGE 14.
>> THE COMMON PASSIVE AREA, THAT TYPICALLY, WILL BE A SMALL LAWN SPACE THAT'S USED.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF YOUNG FAMILIES AND KIDS.
IT PROVIDES THAT AMENITY ON THE SITE FOR POTENTIAL BUYERS.
>> BENCHES, IT'S A 20 BY 20 FOOT.
WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? WHAT'S THE LANDSCAPE?
>> WE'D HAVE TURF, SHADE TREES, SOME BENCHES.
IT'S PASSIVE, SO IT'S NOT A DEDICATED USE, SO IT CAN BE USED, HOWEVER THE RESIDENTS DEEM ACCEPTABLE, BUT TYPICALLY WE HAVE OUR BENCHES AND SHADE TREES AND TRY AND MAKE IT A NICE COMFORTABLE BACKYARD SO TO FEEL.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING YOU PUT IN.
YOU PUT IN BENCHES IN THESE PASSIVE AREAS.
>> YES, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE SMALL TRAPEZOIDAL AREA, WE'RE PROPOSING A BIG OAK TREE THERE WITH SOME BENCHES UNDERNEATH THAT AND A DOG RUN.
WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE AMENITIES FOR THE RESIDENTS THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
>> ONE LAST THING AND THIS IS A BIG ASK.
WHEN WE WERE WORKING WITH AFFORDABLE UNITS, LEARNING ALL ABOUT IT.
WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT, THERE'S JUST NO NICE WAY TO SAY THIS, SOMETIMES THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THOSE UNITS ARE NOT ABLE TO KEEP THE UNITS UP.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, CAN WE PLEASE MOVE THOSE UNITS? THEY CAN'T BE IN ONE BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT BUILDING DOES END UP.
I KNOW THERE'S A COVENANT AND THERE'S A GROUP THAT'S GOING TO MAYBE CONTROL THAT, BUT THE STIGMA OF BEING IN ONE OF THOSE PLACES, ETC.
IF THOSE THREE UNITS WERE MOVED WITHIN THE SIX, ONE WAS THERE, TWO OF THE OTHERS WERE WITHIN ONE OF THE SIX BLOCKS, THAT WOULD REALLY ALSO, I THINK, MAKE IT FAR BETTER.
AS A COMMISSION, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON SPEAKING ABOUT IT ON DIFFERENT NIGHTS.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, COMMISSIONER HAZELTINE.
I WILL POINT OUT AGAIN THAT THEY ARE IN TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS ON THE BACK PARCEL, AND THERE ARE MARKET-RATE UNITS ATTACHED TO THOSE AS WELL.
THAT'S THE BUILDING DESIGN THAT WE'VE SETTLED ON TO CHANGE THAT AT THIS POINT.
>> CAN I ASK YOU WHY YOU PUT THEM ALL IN THE ONE AREA, WHAT'S NOW A PARKING LOT?
>> WITH A SMALLER PARCEL AT THIS POINT, AND THEN I CAN HAVE OUR ARCHITECT SPEAK TO THAT.
[03:45:16]
>> I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT PATRICK WAS TALKING ABOUT, THAT I THINK IT'S ALREADY PART OF MIXED IN WITH THE MARKET RATE UNITS.
I ALSO WANTED TO TOUCH IN AND JUST CLARIFY THAT.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE QUALITY OF THE MATERIALS ON THE EXTERIOR, THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME.
THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY LESSER QUALITY OF BRICK OR STONE VENEER OR LAPSITTING.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE OUTSIDE IF YOU LOOK AT AN AFFORDABLE UNIT, IT'S GOING TO LOOK IDENTICAL TO THE ADJACENT MARKET RATE UNITS.
>> THE INSIDE. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET TO TALK ABOUT THE SPEC LEVEL.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT GETS DISCUSSED LATER ON.
>> THAT IS DISCUSSED LATER, BUT THEN AS WE ALSO BROUGHT UP EARLIER WITH COMMISSIONER BOSWELL, THE INTERIOR SPECS ARE IDENTICAL AND THE SAME.
>> SPACES ARE CLEARLY NOT THE SAME.
>> A NEIGHBOR ISN'T GOING TO COME IN AND GO, OH, MY GOSH, YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE PEP ONES?
>> NO. WHAT PATRICK IS TALKING ABOUT IS JUST LIKE I MENTIONED ABOUT THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS, THE MATERIALS ON THE INSIDE ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME.
YOU'RE GOING TO GET SIMILAR TILE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO WRITE THAT AS A CONDITION.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A SUGGESTION AND THIS ACTUALLY GOES TO CHAIR LAMB'S QUESTION THAT WAS DIRECTED EARLIER REGARDING PARKING.
SINCE THE DEVELOPER ALREADY INDICATED EARLIER ON THAT THEY MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT THAT THE CARS FOR EACH UNIT ARE PARKED IN THE GARAGES AS PART OF THESE CCNRS.
SO LONG AS THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE CCNRS, WE MIGHT WANT TO ASK THE DEVELOPER IF IT'S NOT A PROBLEM TO INCLUDE IT AS A CONDITION IN THE ENTITLEMENT RESOLUTION.
IN ADDITION, IF THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE THE SAME MATERIALS FOR THE OUTSIDE AND THE INSIDE FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, WE MIGHT JUST WANT TO MEMORIALIZE THAT AS A CONDITION SINCE THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY.
AS LONG AS THE DEVELOPER IS FINE WITH THAT.
I THINK I'VE RUN OUT OF IDEAS. GO AHEAD.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TREES. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.
THAT IS, AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A TERM CALLED CLIMATE CHANGE AND THAT OUR ENVIRONMENT IS WARMING.
WHEN THE PLAN TALKS ABOUT ADDITIONAL TREES, 26-INCH BOX TREES, WHAT'S THE ACTUAL FINAL HEIGHT OF THE TREE AND THE CANOPY? BECAUSE WE BELIEVE, I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT HERE THAT TREES PROVIDE A RANGE OF POSITIVE RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW ARE THESE TREES GOING TO AMELIORATE THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT?
>> WHAT WE TRY AND DO WITH ALL OF OUR PROJECTS AND SPECIFIC TO THIS ONE, IS WE START WITH THE PALETTE.
THE TREES THAT ARE GOING TO DO WELL HERE, TREES ARE USED AS STREET TREES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, DOWN OUR STREET.
WE DEVELOP A PALETTE THAT WE INCLUDE AS PART OF OUR PACKAGE.
THEN WE START TO AS WE DESIGN OUR OUTDOOR SPACES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMON OPEN SPACE.
UNDERSTANDING THAT IF WE HAVE A BENCH THERE, WE HAVE A LAWN, WE'RE GOING TO WANT SOME SHADE, TREES.
WE ALSO USE TREES FOR SCREENING A LOT OF THE TIME AROUND OUR PERIMETERS, WHERE WE HAVE THE PROPER SPACE FOR THE TREES.
WE'RE PUTTING IN TREES THAT ARE GOING TO GROW EITHER VERTICALLY OR THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE BIGGER CANOPIES.
IN AREAS WHERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE
[03:50:02]
NEGATIVELY IMPACTING EITHER THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE OR THE NEIGHBORS, WE CAN GET IN SOME OF THOSE LARGER TREE CANOPIES BECAUSE THERE ARE, LIKE AN OAK TREE, BEAUTIFUL TREE, VERY SLOW GROWING.WHEN WE GET TO THE PERMITTING SIDE OF THINGS, THAT'S WHEN WE SPECIFY THE EXACT SIZE THAT WE WANT FOR THAT AREA.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE ALREADY DICTATING WE WANT GENERALLY LIKE THESE THREE SPECIES FOR THAT SPECIFIC TREE.
WHAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO WITH THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN THAT MANY CITIES HAVE INCORPORATED IS TO FROM THE GET-GO, SAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ON OUR SIDE, WE HAVE 24 TREES.
WE HAVE SOME ALONG THE STREET, AND THEN IN THE INTERIOR SPACES IN THE COMMON OPEN SPACES, WE'RE PROVIDING THOSE SHADES OPPORTUNITIES.
WE'RE ALREADY THINKING ABOUT TREES THAT ARE GOING TO GROW WELL IN THOSE CONDITIONS.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT AN OAK IN THE CENTER SPACE WHERE WE HAVE THE MORE NARROW PASSAGES BUT THE BUILDINGS ARE AT BUT WE CAN GET SMALLER PATIO TREES THAT MAYBE DON'T GET 30-FOOT SIZE.
MAYBE THEY GET 20 FEET, 15 FEET, AND THEY CAN APPROPRIATELY GROW THERE.
ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING ANYTHING ON OUR PLANT PALETTE THAT HAS AGGRESSIVE ROOTS THAT ARE GOING TO CAUSE ISSUES WITH HEATING PAVEMENT ON THE CITY SIDEWALK THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE ISSUES FOR OUR CLIENT AND THE UNITS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTING.
>> FINDING THE SWEET SPOT IS A CHALLENGE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?
IT'S IT'S AN ART. THAT'S WHAT KEEPS ME MOTIVATED TO KEEP DOING WHAT I DO.
IT'S FINDING THOSE OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE CAN REALLY PUT IN SOME OF THOSE LARGER SPECIMENS AND THEN BE SMART ABOUT HOW WE USE SOME OF THE SMALLER TREES TO GET INTO THOSE IN-BETWEEN SPACES.
>> A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGULATIONS REGARDING SHADE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE DO IN COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS.
>> YEAH. OTHER THAN THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY SHADE REQUIREMENTS OR PROVISIONS OR STANDARDS.
>> SECOND IS WHAT COULD WE DO IN TERMS OF CONDITIONING AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T PREVENT YOU FROM BUILDING THIS PROJECT.
WHAT CONDITIONS COULD WE PROPOSE HERE THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT WE GET ADEQUATE SHADE?
>> WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF CANOPY COVERAGE AND MAYBE WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE AND HOW THAT FITS IN WITH THE PLAN.
>> I THINK FROM THE COMMUNITY STANDPOINT, WE WANT THIS PROJECT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COOLING OF THE CLIMATE.
YOU HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF CONCERNS, BUT SHADE AND COOLING THE COMMUNITY MIGHT NOT BE ONE OF YOUR PRIORITIES.
WE WANT TO COMMUNICATE TO YOU THAT THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR US.
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS JUST TO SUGGEST OR TO BE AWARE OF IS WE HAVE SOLAR PANELS ON THE ROOF SO WE'VE GOT TO BE MINDFUL OF POTENTIAL SHADING IMPACTS ON THAT.
ALSO, INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR HAVING CANOPY OVER THE BUILDING SO REALLY WE HAVE SOME BUILT IN LIMITS.
BUT FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, CERTAINLY HIS EXPERTISE WITH THE CITIES SITTING DOWN WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO MANAGES THE CITY'S TREE LIST.
WE COULD CERTAINLY COME UP WITH, AND WE'RE HEARING EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
MAYBE THERE'S A SHADE CONSIDERATION WE COULD ADD TO THE LANDSCAPING CONDITION.
IT'S NOTED AND THEN WE'RE MINDFUL OF THAT AS WE GET INTO THE BUILDING PLAN CHECK STAGE.
[03:55:06]
>> CRAFT A STATEMENT TO CONDITION THAT THERE'D BE A DISCUSSION.
>> PROVIDED THE DEVELOPER AGREES TO THIS AS WELL, YOU CAN SAY THAT ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS INCLUDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE REDONDO BEACH WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING A SHADE CANOPY WILL BE DISCUSSED AND IF FEASIBLE WILL BE INCLUDED.
THE DEVELOPER REALLY HAS TO BE OKAY WITH THAT.
>> WE'VE BEEN WORKING PRETTY CLOSELY WITH STAFF ALREADY REGARDING THE LANDSCAPE.
THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT.
JOSE SAID HE'S WILLING TO WORK WITH YOUR CITY STAFF TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
>> I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO SEAN AND THE PLANNER TO COME UP WITH THE CORRECT VERBIAGE.
BUT IF THE DEVELOPER'S NOT OPPOSED TO THAT IDEA, YOU CAN INCLUDE THAT IDEA IN THE CONDITIONS.
I JUST WANT TO GET ON THE RECORD THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS OKAY WITH ADDING A CONDITION REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING IS REQUIRED TO BE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AND DROUGHT TOLERANT, AND THEN ALSO THE PARKING.
REQUIRING THE RESIDENTS TO PARK IN THEIR GARAGES, WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE CCNRS.
>> I THINK THAT THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE CAPTURING ALL THE STORMWATER, I BELIEVE.
>> I THINK THAT WAS. OH, IT WAS BENCHES DISCUSSING THE PASSIVE RECREATIONAL AREA, THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY A COMMON AREA THERE WHERE PEOPLE COULD SIT BENCHES BE INCLUDED.
HE SAID HE DOES THAT AUTOMATICALLY.
>> I'M SURE STAFFS MAKING NOTE OF ALL OF THESE.
>> PROVIDED THE DEVELOPER AGREES TO IT, YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER WILL DISCUSS ISSUES SUCH AS INCLUDING BENCHES, IF FEASIBLE SO THAT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS DISCUSSED, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'LL LAND.
>> WE'RE COMMUNICATING WHAT OUR PRIORITIES ARE WHICH YOU MAY NOT KNOW.
IN THAT VEIN AS YOU KNOW, I'VE LOOKED AT YOUR WEBSITE AND I'VE SEEN THE RANGE OF FACADES THAT YOU HAVE THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT THE LOCATION OF THIS PROJECT IS IN AN AREA THAT HAS 20, 30, 60 HISTORICAL HOMES, BUT YOU CHOSE A MODERN FACADE.
I'M WONDERING, IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING, MAYBE THIS GOES TO THE ARCHITECT, RIGHT?
>> THIS WOULD BE THE ARCHITECT.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN THOSE HISTORICAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL AND IT WOULD BE NOT ONLY TO THE CITY'S ADVANTAGE, BUT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE AS A SELLING POINT TO BE INTEGRATED INTO THAT HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
IS THAT WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY?
>> WE HAVE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF OTHER DESIGNS.
HOWEVER, WE DO FEEL THAT THIS DESIGN FITS IN BETTER WITH THE AESTHETIC OF THE CITY.
THE SEA COAST MODERN AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WITH THE SIDING AND THE VENEERS AND ALSO THE COLORS.
>> I CERTAINLY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.
>> SEASIDE. IT'S CHARACTERIZED BY LAP SIDING AND VENEER WHICH ARE VERY TRADITIONAL BUILDING MATERIALS.
THE MODERN ASPECT OF THE DESIGN IS REALLY JUST THE ABSTRACTED PITCHED ELEMENT.
[04:00:04]
BUT BEYOND THAT, THE EXTERIOR CLADDING MATERIALS THAT WERE CHOSEN ARE VERY MUCH TRADITIONAL, INCLUDING THE COLOR SCHEME.>> THE COLOR SCHEME THOUGH, AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATCH WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
>> YEAH. I THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO RE-TWEAK THE COLOR SCHEME.
>> I WOULD ASK THAT YOU LOOK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT?
>> IF IT WERE INTEGRATED INTO THAT HISTORICAL CONTEXT, CAN WE CONDITION THAT THAT IT WILL BE DISCUSSED? WE CAN'T MAKE YOU DO IT, BUT CAN WE CONDITION IT TO BE DISCUSSED AND ADDRESSED AS POSSIBLE?
>> THAT'S NOT CHANGING THE 43 OR THE THREE OR THAT'S NOT CHANGING ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THOSE LAWS.
>> ARE YOU ASKING ME WHY I'M DOING THIS? [LAUGHTER]
>> WHY ARE YOU ASKING THEM TO JUST DISCUSS IT? IT'S MODERN PLACED WITHIN AN AREA OF REDONDO THAT HAS A LOT OF HISTORICAL HOMES.
FOR ME, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT FITS.
ISN'T THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD MAKE IT FIT THAT?
>> BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE NOT AFFECTING THE 43, WE'RE NOT AFFECTING ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> ARE YOU SAYING IT'S UNDER OUR PURVIEW TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> MAYBE THE MAJORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THINKS IT FITS WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANY OF THE HOMES ON REDONDO, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE HOUSES DOWN ON BROADWAY, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE HOUSES CLOSE TO IT ON VINCENT OR ON CIRCLE OR ON AND ON.
I SEE WE HAVE THE LAWYER, SO ARE WE GOING TO GET AN SP 330 CONVERSATION GOING.
>> I THINK THE CONCEPT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT OF INVESTIGATING WHETHER OR NOT THERE COULD BE SOME DESIGN CHANGES THAT KEEP IN LINE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S IDEA ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF THE AREA IS SOMETHING THAT MAY BE WORKABLE.
BUT THE IDEA TO MANDATE A CHANGE IN DESIGN AT THIS POINT IS SIGNIFICANT IN THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL COSTS AND REDESIGNS AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS WHICH WOULD, I WILL SAY, IN MY OPINION, GO BEYOND THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO HOUSING AND FACILITATING HOUSING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> I THINK SO LONG AS THE DEVELOPER IS OPEN TO HAVING A DISCUSSION AND IS FINE WITH INCLUDING THAT AS A CONDITION NOT OF APPROVAL, BUT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THERE ARE SEVERAL TOPICS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING REQUIRING THE OWNERS OF EACH UNIT TO PARK THEIR CARS IN THEIR ATTACHED GARAGES AND THAT THAT PROVISION WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE CCNRS, THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL INCLUDE THE SAME INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR MATERIALS FOR ALL THE UNITS, INCLUDING THE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THOSE ARE TWO THINGS THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE DEVELOPER THAT THEY DO IN ALL THEIR DEVELOPMENTS.
THEN THERE ARE THREE OTHER AND POSSIBLY FOUR, THREE OTHER AREAS CONSIDERING INCLUDING BENCHES IN THE PUBLIC OR OPEN SPACE AREAS, [NOISE] INCLUDING NATIVE CALIFORNIA, LANDSCAPING AND INCLUDING SHADE LANDSCAPING.
THOSE THREE, I THINK ARE THINGS THAT STAFF CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH
[04:05:02]
THE DEVELOPER REGARDING THE FEASIBILITY OF THESE THREE THINGS AND MAYBE EVEN THE FOURTH ITEM THAT CHAIR LAMB DISCUSSED, WHICH IS INVESTIGATING DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS OF THE DESIGN THAT WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO AND THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE IN THE RESOLUTION.
BUT I NEED TO GET AN AFFIRMATIVE EITHER FROM THEIR ATTORNEY OR FROM THE DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
>> WE ARE WILLING TO INVESTIGATE THE DIFFERENT DESIGN, BUT THEN TO MANDATE THAT AT THIS POINT WOULD BE A BIT FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE.
WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU HAVE A REALLY GOOD DIALOGUE WITH STAFF REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS THAT'S MORE IN LINE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES AS ARTICULATED BY THE COMMISSION TONIGHT.
>> THEN YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS AS WELL?
>> A QUESTION FOR THE CHAIR ON THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL COULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE MATERIALS AND COLOR OF THE BUILDING OR DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND AND IT MAY HELP STAFF TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, WHAT THE COMMISSION'S LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF TRYING TO MAKE THIS A LITTLE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM ARCHITECTURAL PERSPECTIVE?
>> LET ME ASK THE ARCHITECT A QUESTION.
[NOISE] AGAIN, I THINK YOU HAVE A VARIETY OF MODELS THAT YOU'VE DONE THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND YOU'VE GOT THIS MODEL.
I'M NOT TOO SURE HOW FEASIBLE IT IS TO ASK FOR AN ALTERNATE MODEL.
I'M NOT TOO SURE IF THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING, BUT CERTAINLY THE COLOR PALETTE TO CHANGE, AND THIS WOULD BE FOR ALL THE UNITS, NOT JUST THE PCH UNIT, BE FOR ALL THE UNITS, AND TO HAVE A SENSITIVITY TO THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT.
HOWEVER, YOU AS THE ARCHITECT SEE THAT.
NOW, I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT A MODERN INTERPRETATION.
I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT, BUT THAT'S MY PERSONAL THING.
[NOISE] BUT JUST HAVE THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW YOU COULD INTEGRATE, AS IT SAYS IN THE GENERAL PLAN.
NEW DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCES AND I'M SURE YOU'VE COME ACROSS THIS BEFORE. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?
>> GOOD THING YOU GOT ON, SHEILA.
>> I THINK IT IS, BUT IT DEFINITELY LEAVES A LOT TO INTERPRETATION AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF DOESN'T DISAPPOINT IF WE DO ENGAGE.
WERE YOU THINKING MORE MUTED COLORS, MAYBE MORE?
>> WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WHAT DO THOSE HISTORICAL HOMES LOOK LIKE, WHETHER IT'S QUEEN ANNE.
>> SHEILA, JUST SOUTH OF THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR IS AN OLD MISSION THAT MUST BE AT LEAST 100-YEARS-OLD.
WE HAVE A LOT OF THAT IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE WE HAVE OLD SPANISH.
IT'S YOUR NEIGHBOR RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
I THINK IT'S A BAPTIST CHURCH RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
>> SURE. AS WAS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, I THINK RE-TWEAKING THE DESIGN ITSELF, THE BUILDING COMPONENTS, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FEASIBLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
THE COLOR SCHEME, I THINK THAT CAN BE QUICKLY STUDIED.
NOW, I WILL SAY THAT JUST BASED ON THE EXISTING ARCHITECTURE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, IT DOES LEND ITSELF, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHOICE OF THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS TO THE COLOR SCHEME THAT'S ALREADY THERE WHICH IS THE LIGHT, BLUE, GRAYISH, HORIZONTAL SIDING PLUS THE STONE VENEER,
[04:10:02]
ALL OF WHICH ARE ACTUALLY HIGH QUALITY BUILDING MATERIALS, IF I MAY SAY.>> THESE OLD HISTORICAL BUILDINGS ARE ALL WHITE, RIGHT?
>> I KNOW THERE'S SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE DOING THE WHITE.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER?
>> WELL, I THINK WHITE WOULD REFLECT THE SUN A LOT A LITTLE BIT MORE, AND IT WOULD PROBABLY HEAT NEIGHBORING SPACES MORE.
PLUS, I THINK HAVING BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALL WHITE, I SHOULD SAY, IT DOESN'T CREATE A LOT OF VARIATION.
IT'S ALMOST A BORING COMMUNITY FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
I THINK BY SELECTING DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIALS AT HORIZONTAL SITING, AS I MENTIONED, THE VENEER PLUS THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT COLOR SCHEMES, AND WE HAVE TWO COLOR SCHEMES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE PROPOSED ACROSS THE SITE.
SO I THINK THAT CREATE A BETTER COMMUNITY FOR ALL.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BRING YOU YOUR ATTENTION TO THE [INAUDIBLE] MODEL. IT'S ALL WHITE.
JUST ANOTHER POINT HERE IS THAT YOU MAY FIND THAT THE INPUT WE GIVE YOU MAY MAKE YOUR PRODUCT MORE MARKETABLE.
>> AS I MENTIONED, I'M HAPPY TO STUDY THE COLOR SCHEMES.
>> WE WANT YOU TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
>> IT'S $100,000 FOR THE THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
BUT WHAT'S THE ESTIMATED SALES PRICE FOR THE OTHER UNITS?
>> WE HAVE NOT SET SALES PRICES YET.
HOWEVER, I THINK I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER.
WHEN WE DO PUT TOGETHER THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PROJECT, WE LOOK AT RECENT SALES COMPS IN THE AREA.
AT THAT TIME, WHEN THESE BUILDINGS AND UNITS ARE ALL DONE, IT COULD BE A DIFFERENT PRICE POINT.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY RIGHT NOW THAT THIS IS THE PRICE POINT, AND THEN A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER, IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE OR LESS EXPENSIVE.
>> I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO EXPECT THEY'D BE MORE EXPENSIVE IN A FEW YEARS, BUT YOU MUST HAVE A PROFORMA ESTIMATE.
I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A ROUGH ESTIMATE FOR THE OTHER UNITS ON AVERAGE.
>> FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES TO THE 100,000 FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, I'D LIKE TO GET SOME IDEA.
>> FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN IN THE AREA, A LOT OF THE UNITS GO FOR OVER $1.5 MILLION.
>> THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS AND 40 LARGE UNAFFORDABLE ONES, EACH WITH THREE BEDROOMS AND AVERAGING ROUGHLY 2,000 SQUARE FEET.
I HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE SPEAK TONIGHT ABOUT WANTING OPTIONS FOR OUR CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO BUY IN REDONDO BEACH AS YOUNG ADULTS.
IF THE GOAL OF THE STATE, THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS IS TO EXPAND HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FIRST TIME BUYERS IN REDONDO BEACH, YOU GOT TO ASK YOURSELF, WHY ARE ALL THESE UNITS SO LARGE? YOUNG PROFESSIONALS AND NEW FAMILIES WOULD BENEFIT FAR MORE FROM STUDIOS, ONE BEDROOMS, AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS, HELPING THEM QUALIFY FOR LOANS, BUILD CREDIT AND GAIN EQUITY TOWARD UPGRADING TO LARGER HOMES.
AREN'T THESE THE BUYERS WHO NEED THE MOST SUPPORT? THESE OVERSIZED UNITS DO LITTLE TO HELP THEM.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WE AS A BODY, NOT MUCH ANYWAY THAT WE CAN DO REGARDING THIS PROJECT BEFORE US, AND THAT'S TOO BAD.
BUT LET US LEARN FROM THIS PROJECT SO THAT WE MAY BE MORE CONSIDERATE TO FIRST TIME BUYERS IN THE FUTURE.
TO THE DEVELOPERS, MR. CHEN, I SAY YOU CAN STILL ACHIEVE STRONG RETURNS WHILE GENUINELY PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND STAYING WITHIN THE CITY ZONING RESTRICTIONS.
THAT APPROACH WOULDN'T JUST MAKE YOU A HOUSING PROVIDER, IT WOULD MAKE YOU A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THANK YOU.
QUESTION MAYBE TO THE ARCHITECT, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
I BELIEVE ON ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST.
IS THAT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO ADDRESS, OR DO YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR PLANS, THAT RETAINING WALL? I SEE SOMEONE COMING UP.
[04:15:01]
>> I'M GOING TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE] FROM CIVIL ENGINEERING STEP IN.
>> THE RETAINING WALL ON THE EAST, SPECIFICALLY WHICH ONE WERE YOU LOOKING AT? YOU'RE BUILDING SEVEN AND EIGHT?
>> LET'S LOOK AT THEM ALL. THE RETAINING WALLS? HOW MANY ARE THERE?
>> WE HAVE RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE WESTLEY PROPERTY LINE.
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, WE'VE GOT SOME RETAINING WALLS ALONG THE SUBLEY PL.
>> THIS WOULD BE THE RETAINING WALL ABOVE THE PROJECT TO THE EAST OF THE PROJECT.
>> BY THE AFFORDABLE UNITS UP THERE IN THE CORNER. LET ME BACK UP.
WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN THAT'S PART OF THE TENTATIVE MAP PACKAGE, WHICH SHOWS THE RETAINING WALL LOCATIONS AND HEIGHTS.
THEN WE ALSO CUT TYPICAL SECTIONS THROUGH EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE PAGE NUMBER FOR THOSE DISPLAY ON THE SCREEN HERE FOR EVERYBODY.
>> IF WE GO TO SHEET 3 OF THE TENTATIVE TRACK MAP.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. PAGE MARKING, IS THAT [INAUDIBLE] FOR A SECOND?
>> SHE DIDN'T PUT HER NAME ON HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW.
>> WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE TENTATIVE, I HAVE TO PULL THAT UP.
>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. RETAINING WALL.
>> THE QUESTION IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE RETAINING WALLS, ARE THEY ADDRESSING RETAINING WALLS?
ARE THEY PUTTING NEW ONES IN? WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT?
>> BOTH, SO ALONG THE EASTLEY PROPERTY LINE THERE.
THERE'S AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL WHICH WE INTEND TO PROTECT IN PLACE.
THE BUILDINGS JUST EAST OF THE OFF SITE ARE HIGHER THAN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
WE WERE INTENDING TO PROTECT THOSE EXISTING RETAINING WALLS AND THEN BUILD NEW ONES IN FRONT OF THOSE OUTSIDE TO HELP CREATE DIFFERENTIAL.
>> WHEN YOU SAY PROTECT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN?
>> I THINK THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. A COUPLE OF THINGS, I HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTARY FROM THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT, AND I'M A PERSON WHO DEALS WITH FACTS, AND I AM IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT, AND SO I UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THE STUFF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PLANNING COMMISSION IS PROBABLY THE MOST SUPPORTIVE OF BUSINESSES AND I ACTUALLY SAY CONTROL THEIR SLOW GROWTH, AND PROBABLY, I THINK IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND AT LEAST I CAN THINK OF 20 YEARS, PROBABLY.
BUT A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT, WE'RE DUCKING THREE UNITS.
MAYBE 12 PEOPLE WILL BE IMPACTED THAT'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS, AFFORDABLE INCOME PROPERTIES.
NOW, REDONDO HAS A POPULATION OF OVER 71,000 PEOPLE.
WE'RE GOING TO HELP ABOUT 0.00017 OF THEM.
IF WE FIGURE THAT REDONDO HALF THE RESIDENTS DO RENT, SLIGHTLY OVER IT.
NOW WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BENEFIT ABOUT 0.00034 PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION OF REDONDO.
THE UNITS THEMSELVES TO COMMISSIONER CONROY POINT IS, THERE PROBABLY GOING TO BE ABOUT 1.7 MILLION I THINK PER UNIT.
THAT MEANS THIS IS ABOUT A $70 MILLION PROJECT. WHEN ALL SAID AND DONE.
NOW THERE'S COMMENTS MADE BEFORE, IT'S A MONEY MAKING FOR THE CITY AND ALL THIS STUFF.
WELL, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MYTH ABOUT THAT.
NOW PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW CITY FINANCES WORK AND HOW THINGS COST THE CITY.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE TIME SALES PRICE SO WE HAVE WHAT'S CALLED A TRANSFER TAX.
IF THESE ALL SELL, THE CITY MAKES A ONE TIME BONUS OF ABOUT 1,000,004, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHEN THE PROPERTY SELL.
NOW, FOR PROPERTY TAXES THAT'S COLLECTED EVERY YEAR.
THERE'S AN ANNUAL COLLECTION OF ABOUT $1.4 MILLION.
THE CITY GETS ABOUT 17 CENTS PER DOLLAR OF THAT BACK.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $238,000, WHICH IS ABOUT 0.0019 OF THE CITY BUDGET,
[04:20:03]
WHICH IS ABOUT 120 BILLION BUCKS RIGHT NOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT BIG IMPACT.
BUT TO SUPPORT THESE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS, WE HAVE FIRE, POLICE, WATER, UTILITIES, ALL THESE TYPE OF THINGS.
WHEN THE CITY GETS TO A CERTAIN DENSITY, WE START GETTING A LOT MORE DIMINISHED RETURNS.
WHILE WE CERTAINLY WANT TO PROVIDE HOUSING, WE WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, WE WANT TO PROVIDE SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SOME PEOPLE TO COME IN.
BUT THE REALITY IS THREE UNITS IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A DROP IN THE BUCKET.
FOR THESE THREE UNITS TO COME UP, I HATE TO SAY IT'S GOING TO PROBABLY BE LIKE A RECREATION OF THAT NETFLIX SHOW SQUID GAME AS FAR AS WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO GET A UNIT OR NOT.
THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE COST OF THESE UNITS, FOR SOME REASON, PEOPLE ARE THINKING THERE'S JUST MAGIC WAND THAT I CAN WAIVE IT AND SUDDENLY MAKE SOMETHING AFFORDABLE.
WELL, WHEN YOU BUILD A HOUSE, A TWO BY FOUR BY EIGHT, COST A CERTAIN AMOUNT.
WHETHER I BUILD A BIG MANSION $20 MILLION, BIG MANSION WORK, $100,000 AFFORDABLE HOME. COST THE SAME.
THE WES ARE PAID FOR IT BECAUSE YOU'VE RAISED THE PRICES OF THE OTHER UNITS TO COMPENSATE FOR IT.
WITH THESE 40 UNITS, YOU'RE PROBABLY CHARGING FOR EACH OF THE UNITS, IT'S AN ADDITIONAL ABOUT 35,000 PER UNIT OF THE 40 REMAINING.
IN ESSENCE, EACH OF THE UNITS AND THERE ARE NOW HAVE BEEN RAISED OF ABOUT $105,000 TO PAY FOR THESE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE USING THE SAME MATERIALS OR SIMILAR MATERIALS.
IT GETS TO THE POINT WHERE WE CANNOT PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNLESS IT'S SUBSIDIZED IN SOME WAY.
THIS IS HOW THIS IS SUBSIDIZED.
YOU'RE JUST RAISING THE PRICING OF THE OTHER UNITS, $105,000.
FINALLY, TO ADDRESS ONE COMMENT, WHICH IT JUST STICKS UP BECAUSE WE'RE ALL VOLUNTEERS HERE.
WE CARE ABOUT THE CITY. WE'RE UP HERE, SPENDING OUR TIME.
WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR ALMOST FIVE HOURS TONIGHT.
FOR PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SAY THAT WE'RE MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR THESE THINGS TO BE BUILT OR WE'RE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE.
WE CARE ABOUT THE CITY, AND WE PUT OUR TIME AND EFFORT IN AND TO IMPLY THAT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING AS UNTOED TOWARD DISCRIMINATORY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
IT'S REALLY OFFENSIVE. WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN WITH THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US.
I THINK WE'VE ADDED SOME COMPONENTS TO THIS THAT COULD HELP IT OUT WITH THE PARKING, I THINK HAVING A CCR MINUTE MAKES SOME SENSE.
THERE'S VERY MANY CONDOS THAT I'VE WORKED WITH.
THEY HAVE THAT AS A REQUIREMENT.
YOU CAN'T PARK YOUR CARS OUTSIDE, AND THAT COULD HELP THE NEIGHBORS IN THE COMMUNITY QUITE A BIT.
ANYWAY, THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE POINTS I WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK ABOUT, JUST TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THIS ISN'T REAL ROCKET SCIENCE. IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WELL, SHALL WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> I WISH I COULD SAY YES TO THAT, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY SPOKEN. CHAIR LAMB?
>> BEFORE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS ENTERTAINED, IF YOU COULD JUST ASK THE DEVELOPER IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY WANT TO ADD.
>> YOU MAY WANT TO ASK YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THE SAME QUESTION.
>> I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY MORE TO ADD.
I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DESIGNED A VERY GOOD PRODUCT OVER HERE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND CITY STAFF.
THEY'VE BEEN TREMENDOUSLY HELPFUL IN TRYING TO GUIDE US TO A PROJECT THAT SUITS US AS A COMPANY AND THEN YOU GUYS AS A CITY.
I APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU'VE TAKEN TONIGHT TO LOOK AT THIS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR.
>> WE COULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> JUST WAIT. BECAUSE I'M ALREADY ON A RULE.
>> OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I HEAR PEOPLE COMING UP DURING THESE DEVELOPMENT SAYING, MY KIDS CAN NEVER AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.
IT'S NOT TRUE. COME TO MY STREET.
EVERYBODY HAS KIDS, AND THEY OWN THOSE HOMES. THOSE ARE NOT RENTERS.
THERE'S PLENTY OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY WHO ARE LIVING HERE AND RAISING THEIR FAMILY, COMING HERE, GETTING MARRIED, HAVING KIDS, THEY GO THROUGH THEIR WHOLE SITE AND THE KIDS GO OFF TO COLLEGE, AND, THEY WANT TO COME BACK.
WHAT ARE THE CHANCES YOU'RE GOING TO GET ONE OF THOSE THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS? ZERO. THE OTHER THING IS IS THAT'S NOT HOW YOU BUY YOUR FIRST HOUSE.
YOU DON'T GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'D LOVE TO LIVE IN,
[04:25:01]
YOU GET A STARTER HOUSE SOMEWHERE, AND YOU WORK YOUR WAY UP.THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE OF MY GENERATION DID.
STOP THINKING YOU CAN CUT CORNERS AND JUST JUMP INTO A $2 MILLION HOUSE RIGHT OUT OF COLLEGE.
IT AIN'T HAPPENING IN ANY COMMUNITY.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT HAPPENING HERE.
THE PARKING IS WHAT KILLS THIS THING FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I HEAR ALL THESE PEOPLE GETTING UP AND SAYING, OH, IT'S THE COMMUNITY.
THIS PROJECT KILLS THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT JAMS SOMETHING THAT'S WAY TOO BIG FOR THIS LOT INTO A COMMUNITY THAT'S ALREADY VERY HIGH DENSITY.
IF YOU WANT THIS PROJECT TO BE GOOD FOR REDONDO, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE QUITE AS GOOD FOR YOU AS YOU WANT IT TO BE.
YOU NEED TO DEAL WITH THIS PARKING SITUATION.
YOU TAKE TWO OR THREE UNITS OUT OF THIS PROJECT TO CREATE MORE ONSITE PARKING, YOU SOLVE THE ISSUE THAT IS GOING TO DEMONIZE YOU WITH THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY CAN NO LONGER FIND PARKING ON THE STREET.
THE THREE AFFORDABLE UNITS, LIKE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING, IT'S A DROP IN THE BUCKET.
IT'S INSIGNIFICANT, AND THE FACT THAT IT ISN'T 12TH MEANS WE'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE TO GET OTHER PROPERTIES TO ADD MORE BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T CARRY YOUR WEIGHT.
IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, THEN WE GOT TO CHANGE ZONING.
YOU SEE THE DOMINO EFFECT OF WHAT YOUR PROJECT IS DOING TO THIS CITY.
IT'S KICKING THIS CAN OVER TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO PICK UP THE SLACK FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS YOU CHOSE NOT TO PUT ON THIS PROPERTY.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD CITIZEN IN THIS COMMUNITY, YOU NEED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO ACCOMMODATE ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BUY THESE CONDOS.
YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE.
THE WAY YOU'VE DESIGNED THIS THING, IT DOESN'T EVEN FIT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO, ACCORDING TO THE WAY REDONDO HAS SET UP HOW PROJECTS WORK.
YOUR SETBACKS ARE ALL VIOLATED.
YOU'RE BLOCKING PEOPLE'S VIEWS THAT HAVE LIVED IN THEIR HOMES FOREVER.
YOU NEED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF IT TO ADDRESS THE PARKING AND PERHAPS THE HEIGHT OF IT AS WELL, AND PUT IN A RIGHT SIZE OF THIS PROJECT FOR THAT CORNER IN THIS COMMUNITY.
>> MATTER OF FACT, WHY NOT HAVE FOUR OR FIVE AFFORDABLE UNITS? ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY THAT'S MY SUGGESTION FOR YOU TO MAKE THIS WORK.
>> ONE MORE THING. OR ST. JAMES COULD OFFER THEIR PARKING LOT, SET UP A PERMIT SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT DEVELOPMENT OR MAYBE THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PARK IN THE ST. JAMES PARKING LOT WHEN IT'S NOT BEING USED FOR CHURCH SERVICES.
THESE CHURCHES IN THAT AREA HAVE HUGE PARKING LOTS BECAUSE THEY WANT PEOPLE TO COME TO THE CHURCH.
THEY DON'T USE THEM MOST OF THE TIME.
WHY ARE THESE CHURCHES NOT STEPPING FORWARD AND SAYING, WE WANT TO HELP THE COMMUNITY.
ST. JAMES WILL HAVE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIVE HERE? THREE HUNDRED PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW.
HUNDREDS ANYWAY, POTENTIAL NEW PARISHIONERS.
WHAT DOES THAT TRANSLATE INTO AS FAR AS YOUR BOTTOM LINE, QUITE A LOT.
SO WHY NOT STEP FORWARD AND SAY, "HEY, WE GOT A PARKING LOT, WE HARDLY EVER USE IT." MATTER OF FACT THERE'S A CHURCH NEXT TO YOU.
WHY DON'T WE TALK TO ALL THESE CHURCHES AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT USING THIS UNUSED PARKING SPACE TO MAKE THIS COMMUNITY ABLE TO ABSORB MORE HOUSING UNITS AND HELP THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ADJUST TO WHAT'S BEING INFLICTED ON US BY SACRAMENTO? NOW, I'M DONE.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOSWELL.
ANYONE ELSE ON THE COMMISSION WANT TO SPEAK? I HEAR NONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. I REALIZE ONCE IT'S CLOSED, I CAN'T ASK [INAUDIBLE].
>> WHAT IF WE SAY NO? WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK. WHAT HAPPENS?
>> WELL, THE PROJECT IS APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEN ULTIMATELY, IF IT'S DENIED AT THAT LEVEL AND YOU COULD APPROVE IT AND IT COULD GET APPEALED AND DENIED THEN IT WOULD BE DETERMINED IN COURT, I WOULD IMAGINE IF THE APPLICANT DECIDES TO SUE MAYBE CHERYL COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
>> BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT POINT,
[04:30:02]
IF THE COMMISSION IS INCLINED TO DENY THIS PROJECT, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THE FINDINGS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE.IF YOU'RE GOING DOWN THAT ROAD AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE REASONS FOR DENYING THE PROJECT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ARTICULATE THAT AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO THE RESOLUTION.
PROBABLY THE MOST PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THAT WOULD BE FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING, PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF AS TO WHAT GROUNDS THE COMMISSION IS DENYING THE PROJECT.
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO ARTICULATE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT ARE NOT BEING MET BECAUSE THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THAT CAN NOT BE ADDRESSED.
THEN WE WOULD STAFF WOULD COME BACK AND PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL AND THEN AT THAT POINT, I'M ASSUMING THE APPLICANT WOULD APPEAL IT, IT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU WOULD HAVE A HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEIR DECISION IS FINAL.
THEN DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT DECISION IS PARTIES MAY FILE SUIT.
>> THE RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THOSE STANDARDS CAUSES FIRST HARM TO INDIVIDUALS.
IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE, THE OTHER TWO, THERE ARE TWO OTHER THINGS.
>> YEAH, THEY'RE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO HEALTH AND SAFETY, THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED AND THAT HAS TO BE BASED ON SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE STANDARDS.
THAT'S HOW A PROJECT CAN BE DENIED PURSUANT TO SB330 FOR THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THOSE SAME FINDINGS, BASICALLY.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME STANDARD.
THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF STANDARDS YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE.
>> WHAT HAPPENS IF WE SAY NO THEN WHAT HAPPENS? IT JUST GETS APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION, TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT'S THE ONLY THING.
>> I'M GOING TO WAIT FOR THE CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. EXACTLY THE SAME RESPONSE THAT I GAVE TO COMMISSIONER GADDIS.
IF YOU WERE ABLE TO MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS FOR DENIAL AND YOU DENY THE PROJECT.
>> WE WOULD ASK THAT THE COMMISSION CONTINUE THE HEARING SO THAT STAFF CAN COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION THAT ENCOMPASSES THIS COMMISSION'S FINDINGS OF DENIAL.
THEN IT WOULD BE DENIED AND THEN IT WOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER IF THEY WANTED TO APPEAL IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND SO FORTH.
>> THEN THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOING THAT? DOES THAT PUT THE CITY IN ANY KIND OF LEGAL TROUBLE?
>> I'D LIKE TO INTERJECT HERE.
EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU.
SO FAR WE HAVE NO FINDINGS THAT ANYTHING HERE IS A THREAT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY.
>> JUST THE FACT THAT IT'S MAKING ME SICK IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
>> DOES IT QUALIFY? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I COULD SAVE YOU THE TROUBLE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> ALL I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IS WHAT HAPPENS.
[04:35:02]
OKAY. WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD HERE.WE DON'T HAVE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS TO DENY THIS PROJECT.
I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE'D BE IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT SITUATION IF WE WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND WE'RE NOT.
THE PROJECT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MET.
DENYING IT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY GROUNDS TO DENY THE PROJECT.
WELL, I KNOW BUT COMMISSIONER BOSWELL WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.
>> YEAH, THEY COULD COME BACK AND THEY COULD MAKE SOME CHANGES.
>> THE FINAL QUESTION IS, IF WE DENY THIS, DOES IT PUT THE CITY IN LEGAL TROUBLE?
>> WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES.
>> THERE WILL BE NO REASON. IT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THEY WOULD PASS IT.
THERE WOULD BE NO REASON, THEY'VE MET THE REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT THE ATTORNEY ON THE LINE SAID WAS, CAN YOU GUYS COME UP WITH SOME WAYS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE PROJECT BETTER? MAKE THE PROJECT BETTER.
THINK OF SOMETHING THAT YOU MIGHT ADD THAT THESE GUYS CAN AGREE WITH.
>> THEY DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ANYTHING.
>> IT'S NOT IN A LOCATION WHERE WE CAN FIGHT THIS AND THEY HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENT.
AS FAR AS DESIGN GOES, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO NICELY SAY THIS.
THAT SHIP SAILED A YEAR AGO MAYBE WHEN THEY WERE WORKING ON IT IN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THEY COULD HAVE SAID THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO ASK THAT THIS PLACE CONFORM.
I GET WHAT THESE GUYS ARE SAYING.
THEY'RE SAYING THE ARCHITECTS HAVE ALREADY DRAWN IT UP.
YOU'RE ASKING ME TO PUT A BEACH CRAFTSMAN-STYLE HOUSE HERE.
WE CAN'T ASK THAT, THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED A YEAR AGO BEFORE IT GOT HERE.
>> I'M NOT ASKING THAT EITHER.
>> BUT MAYBE NEXT TIME BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE EMBARRASS ABOUT IT WE'RE GOING TO SAY, DOES THIS FIT? YOU KNOW MAYBE IT DOESN'T BUT WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE.
WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION?
>> WELL, THEN WHY DID YOU ASK IT?
>> I ONLY WANTED AN ANSWER TO ONE QUESTION, I STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT.
DOES THIS DECISION PUT THE CITY IN ANY KIND OF LEGAL CROSS-HAIRS?
>> DOES IT? DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE US JUST BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED IT?
>> THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SUE US BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO PASS IT.
>> SO WHY COULDN'T I GET AN ANSWER TO THAT FIVE MINUTES AGO?
>> YOU WERE JUST GETTING STARTED.
>> I COULD COME UP WITH MORE STUFF IF YOU WANT.
>> BUT DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN IDEA, SORRY SHEILA, TO MAKE IT A BETTER PROJECT.
>> I GAVE A BUNCH OF THEM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY OF THEM.
>> BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
>> WE PUT IT IN THE CONDITIONS, A LOT OF THINGS.
>> WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION?
>> I HAVE A MOTION IF IT'S TIME TO APPROVE THE PROJECT WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE ADDED.
>> WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE ADDED?
>> YES, WE CAN PULL THAT UP HERE.
WE'VE GOT, EXCUSE ME, STRIKE THROUGH TRACK CHANGES.
>> SO WE CAN WALK THROUGH THOSE.
>> CAN WE ADD THIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD ADDRESS THE MORE PERMANENT PARKING.
THIS PROJECT BROUGHT UP THAT THIS IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE, AT LEAST THROW THAT INTO THE MOTION.
I GUESS IT WOULDN'T BE THE MOTION FOR THAT.
>> IT WOULDN'T BE THIS MOTION.
>> AT THE END OF THE MEETING, IF YOU WANTED TO DIRECT STAFF TO ASK, CITY COUNCIL, IF THEY CAN LOOK AT PARKING ISSUES IN THE CITY.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
[04:40:02]
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INTERJECT HERE.
PLANNING MANAGER [INAUDIBLE] OR DIRECTOR WEINER.
LAST YEAR, WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD MAKE A REQUEST OF STAFF.
IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WE CANNOT.
HOW DO WE DO THIS TODAY MAKING THIS REQUEST?
>> YOU WANT TO MAKE A REQUEST FOR STAFF TO WORK ON A PLANNING DOCUMENT OR WHAT TYPE OF REQUEST DID YOU HAVE A MIND?
>> PARKING, ANTICIPATING FUTURE PROJECTS LIKE THIS WE ALL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE CITY MANDATES SOMETHINGS.
>> I MIGHT HAVE AN IDEA FOR THE COMMISSION BUT I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THIS FIRST AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AFTER THIS ITEM IS CONCLUDED.
>> PLEASE CONTINUE, COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] TIME.
>> WELL, WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS THE CONDITIONS.
>> YES. GREAT. HERE'S THE CHANGES THAT WE THINK ARE ADDRESSING THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND AMENDMENTS THAT ADDRESS ALL THE TOPS THAT CAME UP.
WE'LL SEE COMMISSION, EXCUSE ME, CONDITION 30.
THE ISSUE WITH MATERIALS FOR ALL THE UNITS WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING WILL BE IDENTICAL ON THE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR.
>> WHY THE SAME BUILDING? WHY NOT THE PROJECT? WHY?
>> BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT STYLES, SO WE DON'T WANT TO REQUIRE ALL THE DIFFERENT STYLE BUILDINGS TO HAVE THE SAME.
>> DO YOU WANT TO SAY EACH BUILDING?
>> I THOUGHT THE BUILDINGS HAD ALL THE SAME STYLE, BUT PERHAPS SOME DIFFERENT COLORS OR ROOF HEIGHTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> THEY DON'T LOOK INDEPENDENT.
>> ITS SOME INDIVIDUALS IN SOME OTHERS STYLE.
>> ALL UNITS ARE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT, I DON'T KNOW.
>> OKAY. I DON'T REMEMBER THE PURPOSE OF THIS.
>> THE APPLICANT 31, THE APPLICANT WILL DISCUSS AND INVESTIGATE WITH STAFF.
WHERE FEASIBLE OPTIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND I THINK IT'S FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
>> LET'S SEE, PROBABLY BE COMPATIBLE.
>> THIRTY TWO, THE APPLICANT SHALL REQUIRE IN THE CCNRS FOR THE PROJECT THAT THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT PARK THEIR VEHICLES WITHIN THE GARAGES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE UNITS.
>> I THINK YOU SHOULD WRITE, THE APPLICANT SHALL INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT.
>> MAY I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO, I'M SORRY.
>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE THAT?
>> IF THEY ARE ON THE STREET, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO, CONFISCATE THEIR CARS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> SORRY, WE CAN'T TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.
[OVERLAPPING] I WISH WE COULD TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT WE CANNOT. PLEASE PROCEED.
WHERE FEASIBLE, THE APPLICANT SHALL IMPLEMENT PASSIVE RECREATIONAL AMENITIES SUCH AS BENCHES AND WALKWAYS THROUGHOUT THE OPEN SPACE AREAS OF THE PROJECT SITE.
>> THEN THE BENCHES AND THE NATIVE CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPING.
WHERE'S THAT ONE? WE ADDED THAT.
YES, TO CONDITION 25, WE INSERTED DROUGHT-TOLERANT AND CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SPECIES.
>> THIS IS FOR THE LANDSCAPING PLANS.
THEN WHERE FEASIBLE, THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH WITH STAFF TO MAXIMIZE CANOPY COVERAGE AND SHADING PROVIDED BY THE PLANTS.
>> THE BENCHES IS IN THE OTHER ONE.
>> PLANTS AND TREES ON THAT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DO WANT TO SAY, REGARDING THE CCNR, IS THE APPLICANT PROVIDES A COPY OF THAT TO THE CITY.
[04:45:02]
IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY, SO WE WOULD ENSURE THAT CONDITION IS IN THERE.IT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE THE ASSOCIATION THAT WOULD ENFORCE IT.
I THINK THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE BECAUSE IN REALITY, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO MANAGE OR ENFORCE THIS ON A REGULAR BASIS, BUT WE WILL ENSURE THAT IT'S IN THE CCNRS.
>> THE ONLY REAL MITIGATION TO THE PARKING ISSUE LANDS PARTIALLY WITH THE RESIDENTS AND PARTIALLY WITH THE CITY.
IT WILL NEED TO BE THE RESIDENTS WHO COME TO THE CITY TO REQUEST A PERMIT PROGRAM FOR THEIR AREA, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. WE WERE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL, MAYBE ONCE WE CLOSE THIS ITEM BUT I THINK THE COMMISSION COULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THESE PARKING PERMITS SURROUNDING THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS THAT WE'RE RECEIVING.
>> DIRECTOR MEYER, I SEE HOW THE CCNRS COULD RESTRICT THE OWNERS FROM PARKING AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND THEY WOULD NEED TO BE IN THEIR GARAGE BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT A CCNR CAN KEEP AN INDIVIDUAL FROM PARKING ON A PUBLIC STREET.
>> NO. CAN YOU BRING BACK THAT CONDITION? IS THAT WHAT IT STATED?
>> NO, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC STREET.
>> BUT WE'D HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I THINK THE WAY THAT'S WORDED, IT PROBABLY SHOULD STATE THAT THE GARAGE SHALL ONLY BE USED FOR PARKING BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO.
WE COULD ADD A CONDITION THERE THAT GOES BEYOND THE CCNRS, AND I GUESS THAT COULD GIVE THE CITY SOME ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY IF IT EVER REALLY BECOMES AN ISSUE AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO BRING AT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT'S ATTENTION.
BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO MONITOR AND TYPICALLY, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE HOA, IS THEY'RE AN EXTENSION.
>> THESE HOMEOWNERS ARE GOING TO BE PAYING TAXES, A PART OF WHICH GOES TOWARDS THE UPKEEP OF THESE STREETS.
I IMAGINE THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO PARK ON THE STREETS.
>> IT DOESN'T SAY THEY CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET.
>> IT CAN'T SAY THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M WITH YOU ON THAT. I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHERE PARKING PERMITS COME IN TOO.
THEY COULDN'T GET PARKING PERMITS.
>> OH, THEY COULDN'T GET PARKING PERMITS.
>> BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE THESE THREE-BEDROOM UNITS, WHERE YOU HAVE THREE CARS.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKING A PARKING SPOT.
>> A COUPLE OF MOTORCYCLES AND A JET SKI.
>> WHERE DO THE JET SKIS GO? [OVERLAPPING]
>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE CONDITIONS?
>> LET ME JUST ASK, ARE WE FINISHED WITH THESE CONDITIONS?
>> IF WE BELIEVE WE'VE COVERED ALL THE ITEMS, YES.
>> ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE CONDITIONS?
>> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONDITIONS?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION, SO WE NEED A SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.
>> RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> [OVERLAPPING] I HAVE A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT.
>> WE WANT TO DO A ROLL CALL. ROLL CALL, SHEILA?
>> SO WE HAVE TO, YEAH. THAT'S AN AYE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] COMMISSIONER CONROY.
>> [LAUGHTER] MINE IS AN AYE ALSO.
WE HAVEN'T DENIED ANY PROJECTS, JUST FOR FYI.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT RUMOR KEEPS GETTING SPREAD.
THINGS DON'T COME IN FRONT OF US.
I THINK WE MAKE THEM BETTER, BUT WE DON'T MAKE THEM.
WE DON'T TELL THEM THEY CAN'T BUILD THEM.
>> SORRY TO KEEP YOU UP SO LATE.
I WANT TO SEE A SMILE FROM PATRICK.
[04:50:05]
>> THAT'S TRUE. [LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND]
>> OH MY GOD. WE'VE BEEN HERE SO LONG.
>> HERE WE ARE. [BACKGROUND] ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS AGENDAS.
NONE. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION PRIOR TO ACTION?
>> NONE. IS THERE A MOTION? NO. COMMISSION MEMBER ITEMS AND FUTURE COMMISSION AGENDA TOPICS?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
>> I THINK WHAT THE COMMISSION CAN DO IS MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE EITHER STAFF BRING UP DURING STRATEGIC PLAN, THE COMMISSION'S REQUEST TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL LOOK AT PARKING AND TRAFFIC AND HOW TO REALLY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES IN THE CITY.
MAYBE IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS NEED TO BE CONCENTRATED MORE, LOOK AT THE PERMIT PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
I'M NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH THEM BUT I KNOW THAT IT'S A PRETTY INTENSIVE PROCESS TO GET THOSE PERMITS, SO YOU COULD DO IT THAT WAY.
>> CAN WE SAY SOMETHING TO THE EXTENT? SAY UP TO SITE 330, BUT ANY PROJECT THAT WILL TRIGGER WAIVERS OF REDUCED PARKING SHOULD BE ONES THAT THE COUNCIL COME UP WITH A PLAN ON HOW TO ADDRESS THAT WITH SOME MITIGATION.
>> MAKE THAT A PRIORITY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MAKE THAT A KICK, SOMETHING THAT TRIGGERS.
>> MAYBE IN THE AREAS SURROUNDING THE PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT.
>> ANYTIME THAT WAIVER OF PARKING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES THAT.
IF WE COULD SUGGEST THAT YOU GO TO COUNCIL WITH THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORD THAT MOTION.
>> I SEE PLANNING MANAGER SCULLY WRITING.
>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DO.
YOU CAN DIRECT STAFF TO GO TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND BRING UP THE ISSUES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE AROUND THIS PARKING.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT, TALK TO THE CITY MANAGER SO THAT UNDER THE CITY COUNCIL ITEMS AGENDA, THERE'S ITEMS FROM THE CITY MANAGER.
SOMETIMES THE CITY MANAGER CAN REPORT OUT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THINGS THAT HAPPENED AT CERTAIN COMMISSION MEETINGS AND SO FORTH.
YOU CAN GET IT TO THE COUNCIL THAT WAY, YOU YOURSELVES CAN COME TO THE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND EXPRESS WHAT THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN GRAPPLING WITH AND HOW YOU GUYS ADDRESS THESE REALLY TOUGH ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY AND THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THOSE.
THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS TO DO THAT.
THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF MY SUGGESTIONS, MARK MIGHT HAVE MORE.
>> A FEW MONTHS AGO, THE COMMISSION HAD RAISED THAT THEY WANTED TO WORK ON THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AGAIN, TO REVISIT THAT.
WHAT I'VE LEARNED WITH THIS PROJECT AND SOME OF THE AREA DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE APPROACHED US RECENTLY, THEY HAVE SHOWN A WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH THE CITY.
I THINK WE COULD HAVE SOME STANDARDS IN THERE IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAYBE THEY GET SOME TYPE OF INCENTIVE TO DO THAT, TO WORK WITH US ON THAT.
MAYBE IT'S A REDUCTION IN BUILDING PERMIT FEES OR SOMETHING IF THEY WILL GO THE EXTRA MILE ON WORKING WITH US EVEN THOUGH THEY NORMALLY DON'T HAVE TO.
I THINK WHEN WE GET THESE PROJECTS, THEN IT'S A REAL LEARNING EXPERIENCE.
IT'S A TEST CASE FOR THESE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, AND I THINK THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR IMPROVEMENT AND GETTING PROJECTS THAT ARE MORE IN THE MOLD OF WHAT WE WANT TO SEE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WERE SAYING THEY CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TONIGHT.
WE COULD PUT AN ITEM ON THE NEXT AGENDA WHERE WE JUST DISCUSS SOME OF THESE ITEMS, AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE MORE OF A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE CAN PROPOSE A FEW, RAISE THEM IN A STAFF REPORT AND JUST HAVE A SPECIAL DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC.
[04:55:02]
>> JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT THE DIRECTOR SAID, YOU COULD DO THAT.
YOU COULD ADD AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION FOR THIS COMMISSION AND THEN MAYBE HAVE STAFF DRAFT UP EVEN A RESOLUTION BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE MEMORIALIZING IT.
YOU'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING THAT TO THE COUNCIL AND LETTING THEM KNOW, LOOK, THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE COMING UP WITH, WITH ALL THESE PROJECTS.
WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME RECONCILING THEM BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF STATE LAW, AND WHAT YOU AS A BODY, STAFF, AND COUNCIL AND CITIES IN GENERAL ARE HAVING TO DEAL WITH, AND IN ORDER TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES, WE'D LIKE THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WORKING ON THESE AREAS.
>> QUESTION, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT NEXT TIME WE DEVELOP A RESOLUTION.
WHERE THEN DOES THE RESOLUTION GO AFTER WE MAKE IT? DOES IT GO TO THE COUNCIL? HOW DO WE GET THIS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL? YOU SAID EARLIER, ONE WAY TO DO THAT, AND I KNOW BRANDY HAD A CHALLENGE WITH THIS, DO WE WRITE A LETTER TO THE CITY MANAGER? HOW DO WE MOVE THIS FORWARD?
>> WELL, IF YOU WERE TO WRITE A LETTER, IF YOU WERE TO DO A RESOLUTION, WHATEVER FORM THAT TAKES, I THINK AT THE STRATEGIC PLAN, AT THE COUNCIL MEETING WHEN THE CITY MANAGER IS HAVING A REPORT OUT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND IT GETS ON THE AGENDA.
THEN I THINK THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT.
YOU CAN COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND SAY LAST COMMISSION MEETING, WE PASSED THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE WE WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF ALL THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS THAT YOU CAN ALERT THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE FACING.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT PASSING A RESOLUTION HAS THE GREATEST POWER AS OPPOSED TO A LETTER? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK A LETTER OR STAFF CAN SUMMARIZE THE COMMENTS MADE IN YOUR MOTION.
COINCIDENTALLY, I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS TOPIC LAST WEEK BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMISSION THAT WANTS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON SOMETHING, AND WE WERE DISCUSSING AND DOING A STAFF REPORT THAT WOULD EXPLAIN IT AND ACTUALLY PUTTING IT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA.
LET ME RECONNECT WITH THE CITY MANAGER ON THAT.
I KNOW FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN PARTICULAR, IT'S ONE OF YOUR CHARGES TO GIVE THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADVISORY ON LAND USE MATTERS.
I DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN IT GETS TO COUNCIL, IT HAS SOME ATTENTION, AND WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT IN TERMS OF THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THE OTHER PLANNING PROJECTS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS, ANYBODY? IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> I MAKE THE MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.