VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC: This is the time for members of the public to address the Commission on any items within the Commission’s jurisdiction not on this agenda and items on this agenda as to which additional public comment will not be taken (Announcements, Public Works Director Report, Consent Calendar Items not pulled for separate consideration, and Future Agenda Items).
I would like to request a review of the 400 sf threshold which requires civil engineering plans for residential additions.
I am requesting some additional clarification and possible exemptions from the 400 sf civil engineering requirement based on specific circumstances.
These circumstances will likely apply to other projects in the city.
I am an architect actively working on projects in Hermosa Beach.
Some of my projects are smaller in nature, as dictated by the project's budget.
Not everyone in Hermosa Beach has funds to build a huge project.
A current project I'm working on has an addition of 1,492 sf.
Based only on the square footage, the owners are required to provide civil engineering.
The civil engineering requirement has had 3 immediate effects: 1) a delay of the project [about 2 months for engineering] 2) an added expense of $6,000 for the engineering and 3) the potential construction budget impact of the potentially required civil work.
On the surface, this appears to be what the threshold dictates, 400 sf triggers civil engineering, with no latitude and no exceptions, however I don't feel this should be the intention of the requirement, which is why I'm asking for some clarification.
This particular project has some nuances which require explanation:
In this particular project, 755 sf of existing, non-conforming, legally constructed, ground floor living space is being removed.
This area consists of a previous addition which was legally built on the property lines, touching adjacent neighbor's homes.
The owners will be demolishing the non-conforming area completely, eliminating the condition.
This will provide more backyard space.
The owners intend to rebuild 539 sf of ground floor space, which will conform to setbacks.
This is a net reduction of 216 sf on the ground floor.
In other words, NO ADDITION.
755 sf - 539 sf = <-216 sf>
If the threshold of 400 sf is the requirement for civil engineering, there should be an amendment or revision to allow for the consideration of a net reduction of the ground floor space.
I am reducing the lot coverage in this particular case.
It is my opinion that the 400 sf threshold for civil engineering should be focused only on the ground floor space.
Ground level site drainage is the only reason civil engineering should be required.
The need for civil engineering is voided when there is a reduction in lot coverage.
There is currently no exception for this.
That is one of the considerations I would like the Commission to consider.
When I presented this to the public works counter, they informed me that there was nothing they could do and said I would need to take this up with the commission, hence this letter.
They also mentioned that, though site drainage may not be required, there may be civil work required to the street which the owner of the house would be responsible for.
I have had this requirement come up in the past, and the owner of that project was required to repair the street, provide a curb and gutter, and driveway approach.
However, this particular project which I am discussing, has a fairly new sidewalk, curb and gutter, and an adequate driveway approach.
The other part of this specific project is to add a second floor over a portion of the house, totaling 890 sf.
I would like to also suggest that any project which consists of only a second floor addition be exempt from the civil engineering requirement, provided a conforming sidewalk, curb and gutter is in place.
This determination would be made by the public works department on a case by case basis.
After speaking with them, they have no discretion to make this type of determination.
Again, this could be handled with a fee into a fund, provided the existing conditions conform, instead of a blanket requirement of required civil engineering.
I am blessed in my career to work with growing families who just "need space".
I grew up in Hermosa and I hold our small city fondly in my heart.
Modification of this rule allows improvements without putting undo burden on the type of families which make Hermosa great.
To summarize in closing, I would like the Commission to 1) clarify that the 400 sf threshold requirement for civil engineering shall consider the removal of ground floor lot coverage by giving "credit" for area that is removed; 2) clarify that the threshold only applies to ground floor additions; 3) Potentially raising that threshold- subject to specific project review by the competent engineers in the public works department; 4) Possibly allow homeowners to bypass the civil engineering requirement altogether, if the public works department determines that there is no justification, for civil drawings and that the existing sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway are in conformance- regardless of size- and, possibly, developing a low "exemption fee" to go into a pool to fund accessibility at the nearest curb ramp corner or something to that effect.
New item:
I would like to request a review of the 400 sf threshold which requires civil engineering plans for residential additions.
I am requesting some additional clarification and possible exemptions from the 400 sf civil engineering requirement based on specific circumstances.
These circumstances will likely apply to other projects in the city.
I am an architect actively working on projects in Hermosa Beach.
Some of my projects are smaller in nature, as dictated by the project's budget.
Not everyone in Hermosa Beach has funds to build a huge project.
A current project I'm working on has an addition of 1,492 sf.
Based only on the square footage, the owners are required to provide civil engineering.
The civil engineering requirement has had 3 immediate effects: 1) a delay of the project [about 2 months for engineering] 2) an added expense of $6,000 for the engineering and 3) the potential construction budget impact of the potentially required civil work.
On the surface, this appears to be what the threshold dictates, 400 sf triggers civil engineering, with no latitude and no exceptions, however I don't feel this should be the intention of the requirement, which is why I'm asking for some clarification.
This particular project has some nuances which require explanation:
In this particular project, 755 sf of existing, non-conforming, legally constructed, ground floor living space is being removed.
This area consists of a previous addition which was legally built on the property lines, touching adjacent neighbor's homes.
The owners will be demolishing the non-conforming area completely, eliminating the condition.
This will provide more backyard space.
The owners intend to rebuild 539 sf of ground floor space, which will conform to setbacks.
This is a net reduction of 216 sf on the ground floor.
In other words, NO ADDITION.
755 sf - 539 sf = <-216 sf>
If the threshold of 400 sf is the requirement for civil engineering, there should be an amendment or revision to allow for the consideration of a net reduction of the ground floor space.
I am reducing the lot coverage in this particular case.
It is my opinion that the 400 sf threshold for civil engineering should be focused only on the ground floor space.
Ground level site drainage is the only reason civil engineering should be required.
The need for civil engineering is voided when there is a reduction in lot coverage.
There is currently no exception for this.
That is one of the considerations I would like the Commission to consider.
When I presented this to the public works counter, they informed me that there was nothing they could do and said I would need to take this up with the commission, hence this letter.
They also mentioned that, though site drainage may not be required, there may be civil work required to the street which the owner of the house would be responsible for.
I have had this requirement come up in the past, and the owner of that project was required to repair the street, provide a curb and gutter, and driveway approach.
However, this particular project which I am discussing, has a fairly new sidewalk, curb and gutter, and an adequate driveway approach.
The other part of this specific project is to add a second floor over a portion of the house, totaling 890 sf.
I would like to also suggest that any project which consists of only a second floor addition be exempt from the civil engineering requirement, provided a conforming sidewalk, curb and gutter is in place.
This determination would be made by the public works department on a case by case basis.
After speaking with them, they have no discretion to make this type of determination.
Again, this could be handled with a fee into a fund, provided the existing conditions conform, instead of a blanket requirement of required civil engineering.
I am blessed in my career to work with growing families who just "need space".
I grew up in Hermosa and I hold our small city fondly in my heart.
Modification of this rule allows improvements without putting undo burden on the type of families which make Hermosa great.
To summarize in closing, I would like the Commission to 1) clarify that the 400 sf threshold requirement for civil engineering shall consider the removal of ground floor lot coverage by giving "credit" for area that is removed; 2) clarify that the threshold only applies to ground floor additions; 3) Potentially raising that threshold- subject to specific project review by the competent engineers in the public works department; 4) Possibly allow homeowners to bypass the civil engineering requirement altogether, if the public works department determines that there is no justification, for civil drawings and that the existing sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway are in conformance- regardless of size- and, possibly, developing a low "exemption fee" to go into a pool to fund accessibility at the nearest curb ramp corner or something to that effect.
Thank you.
-Jeff Browning