Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/09/03
CITY CLERK "The miracle is this - the more we share, the more we have." - Leonard Nimoy AGENDA REGULAR MEETING IHERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - Council Chambers, City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Regular Session - 7:10 p.m. Closed Session - Immediately following Regular Session MAYOR CITY CLERK Michael Keegan Elaine Doerfling MAYOR PRO TEM • CITY TREASURER Art Yoon John M. Workman COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY MANAGER Sam Y. Edgerton Stephen R. Burrell J. R. Reviczky CITY ATTORNEY Peter Tucker Michael Jenkins All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Fire Department, Public Library, Office of the City Clerk, and the Chamber of Commerce. During the meeting, a packet is also available in the Council Chambers foyer. City Council agendas and staff reports are available for your review on the City's web site located at www.hermosabch.org CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda as a business item. i • • 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public wishing to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction, or to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar, may do so at this time. Comments on public hearing items are heard only during the public hearing. Comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker. Members of the audience may also speak: 1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar; 2) during Public Hearings; and, 3) during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the written communications listed below. No action will be taken on matters raised in written communications. The Council may take action to schedule issues raised in oral and written communications for a future agenda. Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. NONE 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following more routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member removes an item from the Consent Calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item 4, with public comment permitted at that time. (a) Recommendation to receive and file memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling regarding the minutes of the regular meeting of the City Council held on November 25, 2003. (b) Recommendation to ratify check register and to approve cancellation of certain checks as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) Recommendation to receive and file Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving final map #26773 for a 3 -unit condo at 510, 512 & 514 Ardmore Avenue. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated November 26, 2003. (e) Recommendation to adopt resolution approving final map #26971 for a 2 -unit condo at 736 Monterey Blvd. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated November 26, 2003. 2 • • (f) Recommendation to accept donations of S1,000 from Anthony and Jean Lombardo to be used for the Dewey Weber Memorial Statue project; $100 from Kathy Dunbabin to be used for maintenance on Veteran's Memorial; $50 from Lowell and Gloria Stirratt to be used for Fire Department training; $1,000 from Hawthorne Savings to be used for Tree Lighting ceremony; and, $250 from Richard Hankus on behalf of the Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Foundation to be used for Tree Lighting ceremony. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated December 3, 2003. (g) Recommendation to accept the work by CJ Construction, Inc. for CIP Project No. 02-147 — Construction of Curb-Cut/Handicap Access Ramps as complete; authorize the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion; authorize staff to release retention payment of CJ Construction, Inc. upon receipt of unconditional release from all subcontractors and suppliers; and, authorize staff to release CJ Construction, Inc. from the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Materials Bond. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated December 2, 2003. (h) Recommendation to receive and file list of regular and ongoing City Board and Commission appointive terms that will expire during the 2004 calendar year. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated December 3, 2003. (i) Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 3, 2003. 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES NONE 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION * Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. a. TEXT AMENDMENT 03-13 — REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 17.40 TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED MIXED-USE PROJECTS IN THE C-1 COMMERCIAL ZONE. (Continued from meeting of October 14, 2003). Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated December 2, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: Waive full reading and introduce ordinance. 3 • • h_ RF,VTFW ANTI RF((INSTIIFR AT1flN f)F TAF. PI ,ANNTNf COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO CONVERT A BREW -PUB RESTAURANT (ON -SALE BEER AND WINE AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT) TO A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT) AT 73 PIER AVENUE (MEDITERRANEO RESTAURANT). Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated December 1, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution sustaining Planning Commission decision to approve. c. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, A ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL SPA -7 TO R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NINE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 725 FIFTH STREET. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated December 1, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution sustaining Planning Commission decision to deny. 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a. REPORT ON STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION PROGRAM. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated November 19, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER a. LETTER OF MARGARET DONNELLAN TODD, COUNTY LIBRARIAN, REGARDING SETTING A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE MARCH 2004 BALLOT. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated December 4, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. 4 • • 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a. VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLANNING COMMISSION - UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2004. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated December 3, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council direct the City Clerk to advertise the Planning Commission vacancy with a newspaper publication and normal posting procedures, inviting applications from persons interested in being appointed to fill the unexpired term ending June 30, 2004. b. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS — DECEMBER 2003. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated December 3, 2003. RECOMMENDATION: Update appointment list of committee delegates and alternates to reflect the recent change of Council members and adopt a resolution required to change the delegate for the Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority. 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL Requests from Council members for possible future agenda items: Recommended Action: 1) Vote by Council whether to discuss this item; 2) refer to staff for a report back on a future agenda; or, 3) resolution of matter by Council action tonight. NONE ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: 1. MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on November 12, 2003. 2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54956.8 a. Property: Two contiguous parcel fronting 2"d and 3'd Streets, APN 4188-028-070 & 073 Negotiating Parties: Stephen Burrell and Crosswind Capital, Inc. Under Negotiation: Price & Terms of Payment 5 b. Property: 51 Pier Avenue Nvrr anti tinParti' Ct,nliPn Purr -11 =,.1,1 TPrry.1\TP\\/ton Under Negotiation: Price & Tenns of Payment 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation. Existing Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Name of Case: Macpherson v. City of Hermosa Beach Case Number: BC172546 4,. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54957.6 City Negotiator: Stephen Burrell Employee Organizations: Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: City Clerk DATE: December 3, 2003 SUBJECT: City Council Minutes of November 25, 2003 The minutes of the City Council's Regular meeting of November 25, 2003 will not be available at the December 9, 2003 meeting. The minutes will instead be presented for approval at the next regular meeting of January 13, 2004. Thank you. )-� 4--)1 Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk vchlist Check Register Page: 1 11/20/2003 5:28:51PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34950 11/20/2003 08955 AAE INC. 12985 SURVEYING & ENGINEERING S 13642 122-8108-4201 5,400.00 Total : 5,400.00 4951 11/20/2003 05817 ACCELA INC. PA35789 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 14170 001-4201-4201 642.86 PA35797 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 14170 001-4201-4201 6,000.00 Total : 6,642.86 34952 11/20/2003 11927 AFSS 2201-14862 Registration/S. Diaz 001-2201-4317 25.00 Total : 25.00 34953 11/20/2003 11359 ALKADIS, CHRISTOPHER 852 Per Diem/11/24-11/26 001-2101-4317 150.00 Total : 150.00 34954 11/20/2003 06827 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 315 CROSSING GUARD SERVICES 7 14392 001-2102-4201 3,291.24 424 CROSSING GUARD SERVICES 7 14392 001-2102-4201 3,357.13 Total : 6,648.37 41134955 11/20/2003 12250 AMADEUS' UPHOLSTERY 2201-14771 REPAIR AMBULANCE SEATS 14771 715-2201-4311 150.00 Total : 150.00 34956 11/20/2003 00152 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 386-3549612 Mat & Shop Towel Services/Oct 03 001-3104-4309 73.29 586-3538933 Shop Towel Service/Oct 03 715-4206-4309 39.57 586-3538934 Mat & Shop Towels/Oct 03 001-3104-4309 68.92 586-3538935 Mat & Shop Towel Services/Oct 03 001-2201-4309 50.89 2b vchlist Check Register Page: 2 11/20/2003 5:28:51PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34956 11/20/2003 00152 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 586-3538937 586-3549611 586-3549613 586-3549614 586-3549615 34957 11/20/2003 03535 AUTOMATED FILING SYSTEMS, INC. 0065127 -IN 34958 11/20/2003 06409 BLUE DIAMOND MATERIALS 18511 34959 11/20/2003 11518 BOTHE, DENISE 10/21/03 4134960 11/20/2003 08482 BOUND TREE MEDICAL,LLC 826315 34961 11/20/2003 11138 CALIFORNIA'CONFERENCE OF 2201-14838 34962 11/20/2003 07611 CARMEN'S UNIFORM 35938 Mats Cleaned/Oct 03 001-4204-4309 56.70 Shop Towel Service/Oct 03 715-4206-4309 39.57 Mat & Shop Towels/Oct 03 001-2201-4309 43.21 Mats Cleaned/Oct 03 001-2101-4309 53.17 Mats Cleaned/Oct 03 001-4204-4309 58.81 Total : 484.13 YEAR 2004 RECORDS FOLDERS 14594 001-2101-4305 14761 Ashalt Purchase/Oct 03 001-3104-4309 , Total: Total : Minutes & Transcriptions/10/21/03 001-4101-4201 Medical Supplies/Oct 03 001-2201-4309 Total : Total : Membership Renewal/Crawford 001-2201-4315 FLASHLIGHTS 001-2101-4314 Total : 628.36 628.36 123.25 123.25 384.00 384.00 656.97 656.97 55.00 55.00 328.97 Total : 328.97 Page: 2 1 vchlist Check Register Page: 3 11/20/2003 5:28:51 PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34963 11/20/2003 05935 CLEAN STREET 38181 DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING 14467 109-3301-4201 7,178.33 14467 001-6101-4201 2,655.01 38400 CITY WIDE STREET SWEEPING 14466 001-3104-4201 15,029.42 38401 DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING III 14467 109-3301-4201 7,609.03 14467 001-6101-4201 2,814.31 38402 DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING 14467 109-3301-4201 430.70 14467 001-6101-4201 159.30 38415 DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING 14467 109-3301-4201 430.70 14467 001-6101-4201 159.30 Total : 36,466.10 . 34964 11/20/2003 00154 DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL CARE & Oct 2003 Shelter Services/Oct 03 110-3302-4251 73.37 Total : 73.37 34965 11/20/2003 00267 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 165325 Hwy Maint/9/03 105-2601-4251 442.72 Total : 442.72 034966 11/20/2003 00147 DEVELOPMENT, THE 137234 Film Developing/Sept 03 001-2201-4305 58.73 139764 Film Processing/Nov 03 001-2201-4305 64.48 Total : 123.21 1 34967 11/20/2003 12446 DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY 00300807 Safety Materials for Yard Crews 001-4204-4321 393.55 Total : 393.55 34968 11/20/2003 04394 DIVERSIFIED PHOTO SUPPLY 386550 Film Processing/Sept 03 001-2101-4305 65.82 Page: 3 vchlist Check Register Page: 4 11/20/2003 5:28:51 PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34968 11/20/2003 04394 DIVERSIFIED PHOTO SUPPLY 34969 11/20/2003 10909 34970 11/20/2003 06938 • 34971 11/20/2003 12445 34972 11/20/2003 09426 34973 11/20/2003 00122 34974 11/20/2003 11034 34975 11/20/2003 01294 DIVERSIFIED RISK INSURANCE DOBBINS, WILLIS DOUBLE TREE HOTEL DUCKETT, J.L. DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES, EKLUND'S BLAST OFF EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES INC. (Continued) Total : 4601-03539 Tulip Insurance/10/18/03 001-3897 1202-14794 2003 Assessment Rebate 105-3105 852 Lodging/Alkadis 001-2101-4317 2101-14871 Reimbursement for Inkjet Cartrid 001-2101-4305 18671 PARTS FOR COLLECTION CART 14684 110-3302-4309 3656 DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK STEA 14576 109-3301-4201 1700-099B Janitorial Services/Jail/10/03 001-4204-4201 Janitorial Services/Police Dept/10/C 001-4204-4201 Janitorial Services/City Hall/10/03 001-4204-4201 Janitorial Services/Base 3/Oct 03 001-4204-4201 Janitorial Services/Clark Bldg/Oct 0 001-4204-4201 Total : Total : Total : Total : 1700-103A 1703-102 1704-099 1705-099 Total : Total : 65.82 285.91 285.91 24.61 24.61 291.24 291.24 173.18 173.18 170.80 170.80 2,650.00 2,650.00 750.00 1,200.00 1,245.00 290.00 365.00 Page: 4 vchlist Check Register Page: 5 11/20/2003 5:28:51PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34975 11/20/2003 01294 EXECUTIVE -SUITE SERVICES INC. (Continued) 1706-101 Janitorial Services/Community Crt/ 001-4204-4201 3,910.00 1707-099 Janitorial Services/City Yard/Oct 0 001-4204-4201 325.00 • 1861-039 Janitorial Services/Bowling Green/1 001-4204-4201 195.00 1884-026 Janitorial Services/So. Park/Oct 03 001-4204-4201 55.00 Total : 8,335.00 34976 11/20/2003 11118 GALLS INCORPORATE 567230170 Replacement Mat/Animal Control 110-3302-4309 62.60 Total : 62.60 34977 11/20/2003 00669 GASB 1202-14872 Subscription Renewal/Dec 03 -Dec 001-1202-4317 120.00 Total : 120.00 34978 11/20/2003 11732 GERBER, ALLEN S. 1202-14835 2003 Assessment Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 11/20/2003 10239 GERVAIS, JENNIFER 4601-03541 Theater Technician/Nov 12-15/200 4.34979 001-4601-4201 178.25 Total : 178.25 34980 11/20/2003 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. 2075 Plan Checks/10/03 001-4201-4201 750.00 1 Total : 750.00 34981 11/20/2003 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, INC. 11/17/03 Worker's Comp Claims/11/14/03 705-1217-4324 11,933.66 Nov 13,2003 Worker's Comp Claims/11/07/03 705-1217-4324 3,685.39 Total : 15,619.05 Page: 5 5 vchlist Check Register Page: 6 11/20/2003 5:28:51PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code: boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34982 11/20/2003 00322 HERMOSA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 03 Emerq Vet Services/9/03 110-3302-4201 35.00 Total : 35.00 34983 11/20/2003 03131 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSOC 0019017 ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX AGRE 14468 001-1202-4201 1,250.00 001907 SALES TAX SERVICES/FY 03/04 411, 14861 001-1202-4201 910.50 Total : 2,160.50 34984 11/20/2003 09130 HRBOKA, DENNIS 4601-03544 Instructor Payment/# 7778 001-4601-4221 833.00 Total : 833.00 34985 11/20/2003 05356 HUNTER -KENNEDY & ASSOC. 036386 ADMINISTRATION OF RECYCLI 14185 150-3102-4201 1,722.44 Total : 1,722.44 34986 11/20/2003 08761 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS INC. 2152947-00 Antenna & Cable For Irrigation Sys 001-6101-4309 310.76 Total : 310.76 34987 11/20/2003 11861 IMPERIAL RADIATOR, INC. 199913 REPLACE HEATER IN HB6 14826 715-2101-4311 649.76 Total : 649.76 034988 11/20/2003 02458 INGLEWOOD WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 194226-00 Electrical Supplies 109-3301-4309 138.97 001-2021 2.62 001-2022 -2.62 Total : 138.97 34989 11/20/2003 11786 KANSAKU, OFFICER SCOTT 34990 11/20/2003 00850 L.N. CURTIS 2101-14860 1042575-00 Lunches/Post Class/11/17-21/03 001-2101-4312 Safety Boots/Lickhalter 001-2201-4187 Total : 40.00 40.00 237.33 Page: 6 vchlist Check Register Page: 7 11/20/2003 5:28:51PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34990 11/20/2003 00850 L.N. CURTIS (Continued) Total : 237.33 34991 11/20/2003 11065 LAOLAGI, ROSE 4601-03542 Instructor Payment/# 8185 001-4601-4221 1,323.00 4601-03543 Instructor Payment/# 8134 001-4601-4221 819.00 • Total : 2,142.00 34992 11/20/2003 07236 LITTLE CO. OF MARY HOSPITAL Q012354380 Prisoner Medical/6/03 001-2101-4201 35.00 Q012704445 Prisoner Medical/9/20/03 001-2101-4201 35.00 Q012836473 Prisoner Medical/10/30/03 001-2101-4201 35.00 Q012857489 Prisoner Medical/10/25/03 001-2101-4201 35.00 Q012867689 Prisoner Medical/11/01/03 001-2101-4201 35.00 Q012882921 Prisoner Medical/10/22/03 001-2101-4201 35.00 Q012907435 Prisoner Medical/11/08/03 001-2101-4201 35.00 Q012907559 Prisoner Medical/10/28/03 001-2101-4201 572.00 • Total : 817.00 34993 11/20/2003 10496 MBS, A MINOLTA KONICA MINOLTA 201760447 Copier Usage/Oct 03 001-4601-4201 263.93 1 001-1208-4201 85.55 001-2201-4201 0.05 110-3302-4201 0.47 201776299 Staples For Copier/Nov 03 001-4202-4305 65.59 Total : 415.59 34994 11/20/2003 01911 MEDICAL INSTITUTE 563806317 First Aid/Lindsey/Nov 03 001-1203-4320 271.00 Page: 7 1 vchlist Check Register Page: 8 11/20/2003 5:28:51PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34994 11/20/2003 01911 MEDICAL INSTITUTE (Continued) Total : 271.00 34995 11/20/2003 11824 NBCE, INC 20430 11TH PLACE DESIGN & ENGINEE 13031 109-8140-4201 1,790.00 Total : 1,790.00 34996 11/20/2003 11626 ND FIRE.PROTECTION,INC 17048 Emergency Fire Pump Repairs • 109-3304-4201 450.00 Total : 450.00 34997 11/20/2003 11676 NEXTEL 551834312023 Cell Phone Billing/Oct 03 001-4601-4304 161.99 Total : 161.99 34998 11/20/2003 09854 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 269424317 Cell Phone Billing/Oct 03 001-2101-4304 1,027.03 959881412023 Cell Phone Billing/Oct 03• 001-4202-4304 1,008.37 Total : 2,035.40 34999 11/20/2003 06955 NIEMANN, WILLIAM 1202-14816 2003 Assessment Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 35000 11/20/2003 00093 OLYMPIC AUTO CENTER 11191 Auto Body Repairs/HB4 715-2101-4311 1,002.09 • Total : 1,002.09 35001 11/20/2003 12147 ONG, PAUL 9999-03545 Umpiring Fees/8/13-10/29/03 ; 001-4601-4201 760.00 Total : 760.00 35002 11/20/2003 03417 ORIENTAL TRADING CO. 540713559-01 Program Supplies/Nov 03 001-4601-4308 233.40 Total : 233.40 35003 11/20/2003 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY 9152 IT SYSTEM SUPPORT/2003-2004 14725 715-1206-4201 2,137.50 Page: 8 vchlist Check Register Page: 9 11/20/2003 5:28:51PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35003 11/20/2003 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY (Continued) Total : 2,137.50 35004 11/20/2003 07673 RAMIREZ, JAIME 853 Per Diem/11/24-11/26 001-2101-4317 150.00 Total : 150.00 .5005 11/20/2003 09869 ROADMARKER CO, THE 3532 25 TYPE II A -FRAME BARRICADE 14693 001-3104-4309 925.39 Total : 925.39 35006 11/20/2003 03946 SHEPHERD MACHINERY COMPANY PC810211352 35007 11/20/2003 09656 SHRED IT CALIFORNIA 3198792 35008 11/20/2003 11831 SIR SPEEDY 9685 35009 11/20/2003 00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. 2009896911 • 2009897315 2018367458 2019479824 2022740542 2086293669 2090765850 HYDRAULIC OIL COOLER 14821 715-3102-4201 639.18 Total : 639.18 Destruction Service/11/10/03 001-2101-4201 90.00 Total : 90.00 Coipies/CIP 02-185 Spec Books/10 001-4202-4201 90.17 Total : 90.17 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 211.13 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 9,478.06 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 30.24 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 8.67 Electric Billing/Oct 03 001-6101-4303 13.43 Electric Billing/Oct 03 001-4204-4303 142.96 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 130.33 Page: 9 vchlist Check Register Page: 10 11/20/2003 5:28:51 PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35009 11/20/2003 00159 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. (Continued) 2190241604 2194245965 2201284825 2201285475 2209846179 2209846369 2214007684 2219648003 2222670663 2236878021 35010 11/20/2003 00146 35011 11/20/2003 09099 35012 11/20/2003 11209 35013 11/20/2003 08207 SPARKLETTS 6217949 STEWART JACKSON SPRINKLERS 36426 UC REGENTS 03110106 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 03100333 Electric Billing/Oct 03 001-6101-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 109-3304-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 001-4204-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 109-3304-4303 Electric Billing/Oct 03 001-3104-4303 Dispenser Rental/Oct 03 001-2201-4309 Total : Total : BACKFLOW DEVICES TESTING 14587 001-6101-4201 14402 CONTINUING EDUCATION 001-2201-4201 Total : Total : Underground Service Alert/Nov 03 160-3102-4201 248.99 13.33 2,117.15 17.55 26.36 233.77 25.31 28.14 60.30 99.11 12,884.83 3.75 3.75 138.00 138.00 1,653.75 1,653.75 90.00 Page: 10 Io vchlist Check Register Page: 11 11/20/2003 5:28:51 PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35013 11/20/2003 08207 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (Continued) Total : 90.00 35014 11/20/2003 04768 UPTIME COMPUTER SERVICE 05015 11/20/2003 11035 US LANDSCAPES, INC. 17834 Printer Maint/June 03 715-1206-4201 95.00 Total : 95.00 1516 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 14519 109-3301-4201 14519 105-2601-4201 15225 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 14519 001-6101-4201 14519 105-2601-4201 14519 109-3301-4201 35016 11/20/2003 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 310 181-0680 • 310 318-0200 406-2421 Total : Foghorn/Nov 03 001-4204-4321 Phone Billing/Nov 03 001-1101-4304 001-1201-4304 001-1132-4304 001-1141-4304 001-1202-4304 001-1203-4304 715-1206-4304 001-1208-4304 001-2101-4304 001-2201-4304 110-1204-4304 110-3302-4304 001-4101-4304 001-4201-4304 001-4202-4304 001-4601-4304 Phone Outside Police Dept/Nov 03 001-2101-4304 900.00 2,500.00 16,665.67 675.00 250.00 20,990.67 42.90 6.95 31.26 3.47 27.78 67.72 43.41 45.15 3.47 524.43 222.28 34.73 93.77 31.26 50.36 350.78 199.71 44.20 Page: 11 vchlist Check Register Page: 12 11/20/2003 5:28:51 PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35016 11/20/2003 00015 VERIZON CALIFORNIA 35017 11/20/2003 12215 VERIZON CORPORATION .5018 11/20/2003 12002 VJ MEMORIALS 35019 11/20/2003 01206 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 70 Vouchers for bank code : 70 Vouchers in this report S boa (Continued) 406-2462 Phone Outside Fire Dept/Nov 03 001-2201-4304 Total : CZ3400000049 TELEPHONE EXTENSIONS/TRA 13397 001-2101-4304 15978 Clean & Repair Gary Moss Memori 001-2101-4309 0061485 No Parking Signs/Nov 03 001-3104-4309 Total : Total : Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 5.68 1,829.31 226.00 226.00 307.02 307.02 545.15 545.15 146,953.49 146,953.49 Page: 12 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 11/20/2003 10:38:22AM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 34949 11/20/2003 00243 HERMOSA BEACH PAYROLL ACCOUNT 11152003 Payroll/11-1 to 11-15-03 001-1103 • 1 Vouchers for bank code : boa 1 Vouchers in this report • 105-1103 109-1103 110-1103 117-1103 122-1103 145-1103 151-1103 152-1103 156-1103 160-1103 301-1103 705-1103 715-1103 Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 347,179.99 6,989.75 1,474.70 37,803.14 834.00 622.41 1,591.09 764.55 33.92 2,776.93 11,542.64 1,192.13 3,447.67 8,025.72 424,278.64 424,278.64 424,278.64 Page: 1 (3 vchlist Check Register Page: 1 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35020 11/26/2003 02744 A & E TROPHIES 110358 Brass Plate Engraved/Dunbabin 001-1101-4319 21.22 Total : 21.22 35021 11/26/2003 05817 ACCELA INC. PA35714 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 14170 001-4201-4201 7,436.00 • PA35715 14170 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 001-4201-4201 7,436.00 PA35716 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 14170 001-4201-4201 7,436.00 PA35717 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 14170 001-4201-4201 7,436.00 PA35718 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 14170 001-4201-4201 7,436.00 PA35719 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 14170 001-4201-4201 7,435.00 PA35720 UPGRADE ACCELA PERMITS S 14170 001-4201-4201 7,435.00 Total : 52,050.00 35022 11/26/2003 12396 ADELPHIA 82111789900 .5023 11/26/2003 12408 AMERICAN AIR BALANCE COMPANY 7834 35024 11/26/2003 12455 AMERICAN MICROSYSTEMS, LTD 02124 35025 11/26/2003 11575 BNY WESTERN TRUST COMPANY 9999-14912 Powerlink/Air Traffic Monitoring/No 715-1206-4201 136.80 Total : 136.80 ADJUST CITY HALL AIR FLOW 14700 301-8622-4201 Total : 3,850.00 3,850.00 Bar Code Decoder & Scanner 715-1206-5401 364.69 Total : 364.69 Admin Fees Redemption Notice 137-1219-4201 138-1219-4201 60.00 60.00 Page: 1 vchlist Check Register Page: 2 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35025 11/26/2003 11575 BNY WESTERN TRUST COMPANY (Continued) Total : 120.00 35026 11/26/2003 00262 CALIFORNIA MARKING DEVICE 51776 Name Plate/Peter Tucker 001-1101-4319 54.12 Total : 54.12 #5027 11/26/2003 12230 CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT 12230 Overnight Express Mail/10/03 001-4202-4201 16.65 4105589 Overnight Express Mail/10/03 001-4202-4201 205.35 Total : 222.00 35028 11/26/2003 00016 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 42862111111 Water Billing/Oct 03 105-2601-4303 1,953.29 001-6101-4303 11,166.15 001-4204-4303 878.41 109-3304-4303 179.20 Total : 14,177.05 35029 11/26/2003 05469 CALLEN, FAYE 87821 Cancelled Class Refund 001-2111 30.00 Total : 30.00 35030 11/26/2003 10838 CANON BUSINESS SOLUTIONS a6805518 Service Agreement/11/1-11/30/03 0 001-1208-4201 455.10 Total : 455.10 35031 11/26/2003 11433 CAPELLO, JOSEPH L. 14839 2003 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 i Total : 24.61 35032 11/26/2003 11836 CASTELO, CHAD 1206-14889 Travel Reimbursment/T2 User Gro 715-1206-4317 296.65 Total : 296.65 35033 11/26/2003 09632 CDWG KK93075 VERITAS BACKUP EXEC ORACL 14780 715-1206-4201 633.26 Page: 2 15 vchlist Check Register Page: 3 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code: boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35033 11/26/2003 09632 CDWG (Continued) Total: 35034 11/26/2003 00634 CHEVRON USA, INC. 789819208831 Gas Card Purchses/10/14-11/06/0 715-2101-4310 Total : 35035 11/26/2003 06349 CLASS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS M10189 Software Maintenance • 001-4601-4201 Total : 35036 11/26/2003 05935 CLEAN STREET 38594 CITY WIDE STREET SWEEPING 14466 001-3104-4201 38595 DOWNTOWN AREA CLEANING 14467 109-3301-4201 14467 001-6101-4201 38632 CITY WIDE STREET SWEEPING 14466 001-3104-4201 38741 Street Sweeping/Triathlon/10/12/0 109-3301-4319 Total : 35037 11/26/2003 10782 CLIFFS AT SHELL BEACH, THE 851 Lodging/Jerry Gomez 001-2201-4317 Total : •35038 11/26/2003 04715 COLEN AND LEE 1424 General & Auto Liability Claims 705-1209-4201 1425 Liability Claims Admin/Oct 03 705-1209-4201 1 Total : 633.26 173.13 173.13 308.33 308.33 15,029.42 7,609.03 2,814.31 162.50 420.00 26,035.26 277.20 277.20 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 35039 11/26/2003 09614 CONTINENTAL MAPPING SERVICE 110703 300' Noticing For Planning Comm./ 001-4101-4201 1,497.00 Total : 1,497.00 5,170.00 35040 11/26/2003 12460 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL 4202-14875 Registration/Malabanan & Senteno 001-4202-4317 Page: 3 vchlist Check Register Page: 4 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35040 11/26/2003 12460 CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL (Continued) Total : 5,170.00 35041 11/26/2003 12453 CONTROLLED MOTION SOLUTIONS 14846 Replacement Hose 001-2201-5401 198.66 Total : 198.66 .5042 11/26/2003 07809 CORPORATE EXPRESS 45582582 Returned Merchandise/9/03 001-1208-4305 -26.26 47482452 Returned Merchandise/11/03 001-1208-4305 -8.83 47531551 Office Supplies 001-1208-4305 107.55 47769407 Office Supplies/Nov 03 001-1208-4305 187.80 47807493 Office Supplies/Nov 03 001-1208-4305 292.96 Total : 553.22 35043 11/26/2003 09329 DAVENPORT, NEAL 35044 11/26/2003 11723 DOUGHERTY & DOUGHERTY • 35045 11/26/2003 09426 DUCKETT, J.L. 35046 11/26/2003 12454 DYE, JAMES 87835 Damage Deposit Refund 001-2111 250.00 Total : 250.00 3 MASTER PLANNING & PROGRAK 12688 001-1201-4201 1,150.00 Total : 1,150.00 1206-14883 Travel Reimbursment/T2 User Gro 715-1206-4317 339.37 Total : 339.37 14867 Refund Towing Fees 001-3841 110-3302-4201 Total : 45.00 166.50 211.50 35047 11/26/2003 11034 EKLUND'S BLAST OFF 3655 Steam Cleaning/Triathlon 109-3301-4319 1,950.00 Page: 4 vchlist Check Register Page: 5 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code: boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35047 11/26/2003 11034 EKLUND'S BLAST OFF 35048 11/26/2003 06829 EL SEGUNDO, CITY OF (Continued) 1204-14908 35049 11/26/2003 10668 EXXON MOBIL FLEET/GECC, ACCT # 36 3739631 35050 11/26/2003 01962 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. 4-941-81547 935051 11/26/2003 06344 FIRST CALL STAFFING SERVICES 0709-81015 35052 11/26/2003 07910 FOSTER-GORDON MANUFACTURING C 10034 35053 11/26/2003 08729 FRENCH, MARILYN K. 1202-14804 Total : Cash Handling Seminar/Brian/Wi 110-1204-4317 Total : Gas Card Charges/10/9-11/08/03 715-2101-4310 715-2201-4310 715-4201-4310 715-4202-4310 715-6101-4310 715-3302-4310 715-3104-4310 715-4601-4310 715-2601-4310 715-3102-4310 001-1250 Courier Service - 11/04/03 001-4101-4305 715-4206-4201 001-1203-4201 Total : Total : Temporary Services/11/10-11/13/ 001-4201-4201 Presentation Folders 001-1101-4319 2003 Assessment Rebate 105-3105 Total : Total : Total : 1,950.00 150.00 150.00 3,438.67 411.31 78.93 86.21 214.35 470.70 188.20 87.47 310.08 62.07 77.45 5,425.44 17.65 44.17 18.42 80.24 179.00 179.00 511.34 511.34 24.61 24.61 Page: 5 18 vchlist Check Register Page: 6 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35054 11/26/2003 10620 FRIEDLANDER, KEN 35055 11/26/2003 05125 GHASSEMI PETTY CASH, MARIA I •35056 87830 14897 11/26/2003 00387 HANSON AGGREGATES WEST,INC. 174024 35057 11/26/2003 06518 HAYER CONSULTANTS, INC. 2083 35058 11/26/2003 04108 HAZELRIGG RISK MGMT SERV, INC. 11/24/03 35059 11/26/2003 00065 Damage Deposit Refund 001-2111 Petty Cash Reimbursement 001-1202-4317 001-1202-4305 001-2101-4305 001-2101-4317 001-2101-4305 001-2201-4309 160-3102-4309 001-3104-4201 001-4101-4317 001-4601-4305 001-4601-4308 001-4201-4305 001-4202-4317 001-4601-4308 001-6101-4309 109-3301-4319 Crushed Aggregate/Nov 03 001-3104-4309 Plan Checks/9/18-10/31/03 001-4201-4201 Total : Total : Total : Total : Worker"s Comp Claims/11/21/03 705-1217-4324 HERMOSA BEACH CAR WASH, ZIPP, IN 11/13/03City City Car Washes/10/03 Total : 100.00 100.00 166.29 21.40 7.03 57.11 17.30 20.41 65.82 53.35 20.00 3.38 280.71 32.01 42.85 83.11 93.27 189.66 1,153.70 398.22 398.22 21,524.74 21,524.74 5,375.62 5,375.62 Page: 6 iq vchlist Check Register Page: 7 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35059 11/26/2003 00065 HERMOSA BEACH CAR WASH, ZIPP, IN (Continued) 5060 11/26/2003 11237 35061 11/26/2003 04908 35062 11/26/2003 10677 35063 11/26/2003 01359 35064 11/26/2003 00077 35065 11/26/2003 12450 35066 11/26/2003 12458 35067 11/26/2003 12451 IDYLL MOUNTAIN INTERNET JAMESTOWN PRESS LAWRENCE ASSOCIATES LIGHTHOUSE INC., THE LOMITA BLUEPRINT SERVICE, INC. LUGO, SANDRA MARKS, JACQUELINE MOORE, TERRY 3265 4290 10/31/03 1267843 409688 87817 1141-14901 87822 715-2101-4311 715-3302-4311 715-1202-4311 715-4201-4311 Total : Web Hosting & Posting/10/10/03 715-1206-4201 Business Cards 001-1208-4305 Staff Augmentation/Oct 03 140-4707-4201 140-8147-4201 140-8626-4201 Vehicle Lightbulbs 001-2201-4309 Blueprint Services - 11/03 001-4201-4305 Cancelled Class Refund 001-2111 Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Work Guarantee Refund/Permit # z 001-2110 Cancelled Class Refund Total : 328.05 14.95 4.95 14.85 362.80 1,155.00 1,155.00 81.19 81.19 161.50 994.50 1,207.00 2,363.00 51.83 51.83 250.06 250.06 66.00 66.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 Page: 7 a© vchlist Check Register Page: 8 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35067 11/26/2003 12451 MOORE, TERRY (Continued) 001-2111 33.00 Total : 33.00 35068 11/26/2003 12444 ORANGE COUNTY ICE 4601-03532 Ice for Tree Lighting Ceremony/12/1 001-4601-4308 1,312.40 • Total : 1,312.40 35069 11/26/2003 10139 PARKING CONCEPTS INC. 284-1003 PARKING STRUCTOR OPERATI 14447 109-3304-4231 13,118.27 285-1003 LOT A OPERATIONS 14446 109-3305-4231 10,730.09 Total : 23,848.36 35070 11/26/2003 00534 PHILLIPS, BRUCE 14896 Advanced Disability Pymnt - Nov 0 001-2201-4180 2,364.50 Total : 2,364.50 35071 11/26/2003 11539 PROSUM TECHNOLOGY 9152A Consulting Services - Jul 03 001-2101-4201 18.75 9687 IT SYSTEM SUPPORT/OCT 03 14725 715-1206-4201 712.50 9688 Consulting Services - Oct 03 001-2101-4201 468.75 • Total : 1,200.00 35072 11/26/2003 06909 PRYOR, W.T. 1202-14882 2003 Assessment Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 35073 11/26/2003 08837 REDONDO BEACH, CITY OF 92820 Diesel Purchase/9/03 715-2201-4310 715-3302-4310 715-4204-4310 715-4201-4310 35074 11/26/2003 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA 482098947003 Registration/Tingley Total : 420.97 25.62 32.46 22.02 501.07 Page: ai vchlist Check Register Page: 9 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35074 11/26/2003 03353 S.B.C.U. VISA (Continued) 001-2201-4317 130.00 8641 Credit for Registration/J. Crawford 001-2201-4317 -30.00 Total : 100.00 35075 11/26/2003 11826 SAFETY -BELT U.S.A. 2101-14866 Membership/Thompson • 001-2101-4315 50.00 Total : 50.00 35076 11/26/2003 10410 SANTA ANA COLLEGE 14890 Registration Fee - Glen Ewart 001-2201-4317 150.00 Total : 150.00 35077 11/26/2003 11831 SIR SPEEDY 9708 Fund Raising Letter Copied/11/03 001-4202-4201 26.52 Total : 26.52 35078 11/26/2003 12305 SO. BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC COMM. 200304133 MOBILE & PORTABLE RADIO H 14469 180-8610-4201 974.25 Total : 974.25 35079 11/26/2003 08812 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC COMM 200304052 CODE 3 LIGHTING AND SIRENS 14044 715-2201-5403 1,697.82 Total : 1,697.82 035080 11/26/2003 11904 STRITE, BARBARA LEE 14858 2003 Assessment Tax Rebate 105-3105 24.61 Total : 24.61 35081 11/26/2003 12456 UNITED STATES TREASURY ID95-6000720 RE: Payroll Taxes 7/3/2003 001-1202-4251 2,986.62 Total : 2,986.62 35082 11/26/2003 09056 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTIONS 10291417 Web Page Hosting - Oct 03 715-1206-4201 74.95 14187793 Internet Line / Nov 03 715-1206-4201 893.00 Page: 9 12_ • vchlist Check Register Page: 10 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 35082 11/26/2003 09056 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTIONS (Continued) 35083 11/26/2003 11219 WESTCHESTER MEDICAL GROUP 1203-14851 .5084 11/26/2003 10703 WILLDAN 35085 11/26/2003 12452 WOO, HEIDI 35086 11/26/2003 01206 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES 67 Vouchers for bank code : boa 67 Vouchers in this report • 061-14240 87823 0061530 Physical Exam/Bruccolieri 001-1203-4320 Total : Total : Labor Standards Compliance/9/29- 140-8147-4201 140-8626-4201 Class Refund 001-2111 Signs Purchases/Oct 03 001-3104-4309 Total : Total : Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 967.95 500.00 500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 7,000.00 116.00 116.00 315.27 315.27 197,594.94 197,594.94 Page: 10 a3 vchlist Check Register Page: 11 11/26/2003 4:49:35PM CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Bank code : boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount • • "I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the checks listed on pages / to 4q.. inclusive, of the check register for / / fd D — 11/11ofb. re accurate funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to the budget." Date /�/0.� Finance Director Page: 11 • • • December 3, 2003 Honorable Mayor and For the Meeting of Members of the City Council December 14, 2003 CANCELLATION OF CHECKS Please ratify the following request for cancellation of the check listed below: #35074 — 11/26/03 — S.B.C.U. Visa — $100.00 Check was issued for the wrong amount. The check was not mailed. Acct. # 001-2201-4317 Concur: 4- Ad „l i Steph-- urrell, City Manager (A)ovV/vtA44.4.- Cdty be-Pury) Jo n M. Workman, City Treasurer Noted for fiscal impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director November 20, 2003 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 25, 2003 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS DECEMBER 23, 2003 NO MEETING JANUARY 13, 2004 Request from Chamber of Commerce for Fiesta permits City Manager Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of November 19, 2003. Public Works Director Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of December 2, 2003. Community Resources Director Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of December 17, 2003. Public Works Director Text amendment re. snack shop definition Community Development Director Appeal of P.C. denial of Variance to allow an addition, remodel and conversion of a duplex to a SFD resulting in lot coverage >65% at 259 31st Street. Community Development Director Appeal of the P.C. denial of a variance to allow a greater than 250 square foot addition on a property containing three units with less than two parking spaces per unit at 1427 Monterey Blvd. Community Development Director 2c I • • HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL November 26, 2003 Regular Meeting of December 9, 2003 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP NO. 26773 (C.U.P. CON NO. 02-5, PDP NO. 02-7) LOCATION: 510, 512 AND 514 ARDMORE AVENUE APPLICANT(S): COOPER AND COMPANY REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map No. 26773 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a three unit condominium project and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26773 at their August 20, 2002 meeting. The project is currently under construction. Process Once a map has been tentatively approved by the Planning Commission, copies of the tentatively approved map must be submitted to the L.A. County Engineer, who is contracted by the City, to review the map for its technical correctness (pursuant to Section 66442(a)(4)of the Subdivision Map Act). An applicant has two years from the date of tentative map approval to submit for final map approval. Typically applicants have not submitted for final map approval until projects are near completion and ready to be sold. Final maps must be submitted to the City Council and must be approved by the City Council, "...if it conforms to all the requirements of [Subdivision Map Act] and any local subdivision ordinance applicable at the time of approval or conditional approval of the tentative map and any rulings made thereunder...." pursuant to Section 66458(a) of the Subdivision Map Act. 2d Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: So Blumenfel s , Director Community D velopment Department Stephen R City Maria 2 Respectfully submitted, Ken R. ' -rtson Senior Planner y/f: fm5 1 Oardmore 1 • • RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 26773 FOR A THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 510, 512 AND 514 ARDMORE AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 9, 2003 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions outlined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 02-32 adopted after hearing on August 20, 2002; E. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to 15268(b)(3), "Approval of final subdivision maps", of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map No.26773 in _ the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 41, Dr. Dougherty's :Hermosa Bay View Tract, as recorded in Book 10, Page(s) 140 of Maps in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, for a three -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 510, 512 and 514 Ardmore Avenue, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2003. PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK 3 CITY ATTORNEY f:fm510ardmorers Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Recommended Action: December 3, 2003 For the City Council Meeting of December 9, 2003 ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS It is recommended that the City Council accept donations received by the City to be used as follows: Anthony and Jean Lombardo Kathy Dunbabin Lowell and Gloria Stirratt Hawthorne Savings Richard Hankus (on behalf of Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Foundation) R: spectfully submitted: Valerie Mohler Accounting Supervisor c: \donation 2000.doc $1,000.00 To be used for the Dewey Weber Memorial Statue project. (Recorded in Dewey Weber Memorial Fund account.) $100.00 To be use for maintenance on Veteran's Memorial. (Recorded in Veterans' Memorial account.) $50.00 To be used for Fire Department training. $1,000.00 To be used for Tree Lighting ceremony. $250.00 To be used for Tree Lighting ceremony. Concur: Viki Copeland Finance Director 2f • • December 2, 2003 Honorable Mayor and Members of Regular Meeting of The Hermosa Beach City Council December 9, 2003 CIP PROJECT 02-147 CURB-CUT/HANDICAP ACCESS RAMPS ACCEPTANCE Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Accept the work by CJ Construction, Inc. of Whittier, California, for CIP Project No. 02-147 Construction of Curb-Cut/Handicap Access Ramps as complete; 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion; 3. Authorize Staff to release retention payment to CJ Construction, Inc. upon receipt of unconditional release from all subcontractors and suppliers; and 4. Authorize Staff to release CJ Construction, Inc. from the Faithful Performance Bond and the Labor and Materials Bond. Background: On April 22, 2003, City Council approved entering into an agreement with CJ Construction, Inc. for the construction of Curb-Cut/Handicap Access Ramps at various locations citywide. Analysis: The contractor has completed the construction of 230 Curb-Cut/Handicap Access Ramps and all related work to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The project was constructed according to the plans, specifications and change orders prepared by Staff and completed on time and within budget. Therefore, Staff recommends acceptance of the work as complete. Fiscal Impact: Project Appropriation from CDBG Fund $ 250,000 Construction Cost (241,622) Design/Engineering (In House) -0- Construction Management (In House) -0- CDBG Administration Specialist (Consultant) (3,500) Unexpended Amount $ 4,878 2g Respectfully submitted, /3ehG�.tyk Homay6 n Behboodi Associate Engineer Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland Finance Director City Manager Concur: 92z Richard D. Morga t.E. Director of Public &A • rks/City Engineer Concur: Stephei4 R. krVell 2 F:\B95\PWFILES\CCITEMS\02-147 Acceptance 12-9-03.doc • • December 3, 2003 Regular Meeting December 9, 2003 Mayor and Members of the City Council RECEIVE AND FILE LIST OF REGULAR AND ONGOING CITY BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTIVE TERMS THAT WILL EXPIRE DURING THE 2004 CALENDAR YEAR Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the attached list, prepared for posting by the City Clerk pursuant to State law, of all regular and ongoing Hermosa Beach board, commission and committee appointive terms which will expire during the 2004 calendar year. Background: Government Code Section 54972 requires, on or before December 31 of each year, the preparation and posting of a Local Appointments List of all regular and ongoing boards, commissions and committees whose members are appointed by the City Council. The list must contain pertinent information on all appointive terms that will expire during the next calendar year, as well as information on the boards, commissions and committees whose members serve strictly at the pleasure of the City Council, without set terns (i.e., Board of Appeals). Pursuant to State law, I have prepared the attached list, which identifies eight tern expirations in 2004 (two Civil Service Board terns ending July 15, three Planning Commission terms ending June 30, and three Public Works Commission tennis ending October 31). As required by State law, the list will be posted in the City Clerk's office and the public library for public viewing purposes. It will also be posted in the outdoor display case at City Hall where agendas and other notices are typically posted. Noted: Steph ell, Cit Manager Elaine Doerfling, City Clem/ 2h • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH LOCAL APPOINTMENTS LIST In accordance with Government Code Section 54972 (Maddy Act) dealing with open lists of local appointive positions, the following is: 1. A list of all appointive terms which will expire during the 2004 calendar year, with the names of the incumbent appointees, their dates of appointment, the date each term expires, and the necessary qualifications for each position; and 2. A list of all boards, commissions and committees whose members serve at the pleasure of the legislative body, and the necessary qualifications for each position. COMMISSION INCUMBENT APPOINTEES APPT. DATE TERM EXPIRES QUALIFICATIONS CIVIL SERVICE BOARD Michael D'Amico 06-27-00 L. Dwight Taggart 06-27-00 4 -yr. terms, no term limit 07-15-04 07-15-04 Qualified Elector of the City (see HBMC 2.76) PLANNING COMMISSION Langley Kersenbooin 07-11-00 Ronald Pizer 07-11-00 (Peter Tucker) 07-11-00 4 -yr. terms, no term limit 06-30-04 06-30-04 06-30-04 Qualified Elector of the City (see HBMC 2.32 PUBLIC WORKS Richard Applebaum 04-22-03 COMMISSION Charlie Cheatham 09-12-00 Jean Lombardo 09-12-00 4 -yr. terms, no term limit 10-31-04 10-31-04 10-31-04 Qualified Elector of the City (see HBMC 2.32 BOARD OF APPEALS (Serve at the pleasure of Council - qualified to act on building construction matters - U.B.C. - See HBMC 15.04.020) David Garrett, Robert Lininger, Mike Ludwig, D.B. (Bud) Murray, Larry Peha ELAINE DOERFLING City Clerk Dated: 12-03-03 ACTION SHEET AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 December 3, 2003 7:00 P.M. Peter Hoffman Langley Kersenboom Sam Perrotti Ron Pizer 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call ALL PRESENT 3. Oral / Written Communications Chairman Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I Consent Calendar Any Planning Commissioner or public wishing to pull an item from below may request to do so at this time. 4. Approval of November 18; 2003 minutes ACTION: APPROVED (4-0). 5. Resolution(s) for adoption a. Resolution P.C. 03-63 denying a requested Variance to allow a greater than 250 square feet addition on a property containing three units with less than two parking spaces per unit at 1427 Monterey Boulevard. ACTION: APPROVED (4-0). Section II Public Hearing(s) 6. A-14 -- Appeal of Community Development Director's decision regarding lot coverage (buc K, PCcts 2i • • connected with underground parking at 2420 Hermosa Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. ACTION: APPROVED APPLICANT'S REQUEST THAT THIS IS NOT LOT COVERAGE (4-0). 7. GP 03-1 -- General Plan update. Staff Recommended Action: To receive and file. ACTION: WORKSHOP RESCHEDULED AND WORK PROGRAM TO BE REVISED (4-0). Section III 8. Staff Items a. Memorandum regarding rotation of the Planning Commission chairmanship (January, 2004 through September, 2004). ACTION: COMMISSIONERS KERSENBOOM AND PERROTTI TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN (4-0). b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. c. Community Development Department Activity Report of October, 2003. d. City Council minutes of November 12, 2003. ACTION: APPROVED ITEMS 8B -D (4-0). 9. Commissioner Items 10. Adjournment F:b95\cd\pcaction 2 1 • • Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 9, 2003 December 2, 2003 Regular Meeting of SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 03-13 - REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 17.40 TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED MIXED-USE PROJECTS IN THE C-1 COMMERCIAL ZONE INITIATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance. Background: For over 30 years, apartments have been permitted above commercial buildings as a conditionally permitted use in the C-1 zone with commercial development standards applied to the project. There have been no applications for new mixed-use projects in the C-1 zone with the exception of a project at 44 Hermosa Avenue originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 19, 2002 and subsequently approved with revisions on August 19, 2003. Following the hearing, the Commission directed staff to return with a text amendment to provide new standards for both the commercial and residential elements of mixed-use projects. At the meetings of March 19, April 16, and July 16, 2002, the Planning Commission initiated discussion of new standards, and directed staff to develop a draft ordinance based upon Commission input. On September 16, 2003 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance to add a new sub -section in Chapter 17.40 titled Mixed -Use Development, which contains development standards generally consistent with the R-3 zone for mixed-use projects in the C-1 zone. Analysis: Section 17.26.030 of the Zoning Ordinance includes residential use above a commercial building (mixed-use) as a conditionally permitted use, but omits reference to any residential development standards. Recently the code was amended to allow condominiums above commercial uses in the C-1 zone. Condominium development must comply with the limited development standards in Section 17.22.060. Other than condominium development standards, the Commission is guided by the general criteria for review of mixed-use development projects within the provisions for Conditional Use Permits and Precise Development Plans. The draft text amendment is intended to address the broader issues relating to use and development which currently applicable zoning standards do not address. The Planning Commission recommends adding a new sub -section in Chapter 17.40 titled Mixed -Use Development, containing specific standards for mixed-use projects. 5a • STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS Density: R-3 Development Standard The Commission considered the application of R-2 and R-3 residential standards to the residential portion of mixed-use projects and recommended using the R-3 standards since more than '/ of C- 1 zoned properties abut the R-3, RP or other commercial zones. This means residential development will be subject to the same density requirements of the R-3 zone, as well as the same development requirements (i.e. setbacks, open space, lot coverage, etc.) as R-3 multi -family projects. Alternately the residential density can vary with the abutting residential zone, but in some instances the C-1 zone abuts both R-2 and R-3 zoned properties which complicates this method of assigning density. (Please See Attachment No. 1, Zoning Map). The difference in R-2 and R-3 zoning typically results in one and two units on a single lot or three to four units on a double lot respectively, since the lots are not large. (See Attachment No. 2). With commercial required on the ground floor, the available area for residential living space is substantially reduced from a typical residential project. Thus the R-2 density may be too restrictive for small lots or single lot development to make such new development practical. (See Attachment No. 2). The overall number of new housing units is relatively small given the prevailing lot size and lot patterns. It is possible to construct 33 units at the R-2 density and 44 units at the R-3 density given the distribution and size of lots. 4 The attached plans show how unit size, commercial area and parking vary on two and three lots. (See Attachment No. 5) Setbacks: Front, Side and Rear There are currently no setback requirements in the C-1 zone for commercial or residential uses. The Commission did not recommend a change to the setback for commercial in a mixed use project, since it is similar in appearance and use to the rest of the commercial area. However, for the residential portion of a mixed-use project, the Planning Commission recommends using the R-3 zone setback requirements with the addition of a five-foot front setback, consistent with the requirement for condominiums.3 Also, given the reduced available area for residential development and the need to provide required open space, the Council may want to consider allowing the front residential setback to qualify as usable open space in mixed-use development if designed as a deck above the commercial level. Open Space The open spaces standard for both R-2 and R-3 development is 300 sq. ft. per unit with no more than 100 sq. ft. on roof decks and 100 sq. ft. directly adjacent a primary living space. The Commission recommends maintaining this standard. Noise, Security and Lighting All new development will be required to comply with the standards for sound proofing consistent with the condominium development standards in Chapter 17.22 of the Zone Code. Secured and separate access between commercial and residential portions of a project are required and new standards for lighting have been added to shield residential uses from commercial lighting. Page 2 c • • COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Minimum Commercial Depth Because the underlying zone is commercial, the development of ground -level residential or solely residential projects is not allowed. Though the code already requires that the ground floor be commercial, it does not really specify how much. It may be appropriate to require a minimum amount of commercial space, whether as a percentage of lot area or building area or as a minimum depth, to ensure adequate space for viable commercial development and so that the commercial is not simply a means to develop the property residentially. The Planning Commission recommends that the standards include provisions to require that the frontage be for commercial purposes only; that ground floor building area be primarily commercial, (limited to a maximum of 25% for residential for entry -exit lobbies or corridors only and not for primary living areas or sleeping rooms meaning at least 75% will be for commercial); and that the commercial portion contain an average depth of at least 30 feet, to preclude token commercial development. The Council may want to consider allowing a 24 minimum depth requirement, as the City's commercial development fronting the North Pier Parking Structure is 24 feet in depth, and contains viable commercial uses. Parking Projects with a residential and commercial mix typically are not appropriate for shared parking because parking needs overlap during morning hours and evening hours and the parking must be assigned to avoid conflict. The Planning Commission recommends that the full complement of parking be required for each use and that it be separated between uses. Requiring a full complement of parking will make it difficult to develop smaller lots, as parking drives the design and feasibility of these projects. Development of single or double lots with surface level parking will not accommodate significant commercial frontage as the parking utilizes most of the ground level. When combining three or more lots, however, subterranean parking yields substantially more commercial space. (See Attachment Nos. 4 and 5). Use Limitations The permitted use list limits uses permitted in the commercial zones. The C-1 zone already has the most restrictive list of permitted commercial uses, since it is intended for neighborhood commercial areas. There are 36 uses allowed by right or use permit and the Commission felt that it was appropriate to further limit the type of commercial uses in mixed use projects and added restrictions on bars, restaurants, parking structures and surface parking and laundramats. Hours of Operation •Given the proximity of commercial and residential uses in mixed-use projects, the Planning Commission recommends that the hours of operation for any commercial use be limited to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. Signs To promote a proper separation between the residential and commercial uses in a mixed-use development, the Planning Commission believes that signage should not be allowed above the Page 3 • • commercial story (i.e. signage can only be on the second or higher story frontage if a commercial use is on that frontage and story as well). Also, the Planning Commission recommends that lighted signs be illuminated only during business hours. Landscaping and Off -Site Improvements Current landscaping for new multifamily residential projects is one 36" box tree per dwelling unit on-site. The Planning Commission recommends that this standard be applied to the sidewalk abutting the project as a new street tree program for the C-1 zone. The type of trees will be subject to approval by the Public Works Commission, Street Tree Subcommittee. Sol Blumenfeld Community De CONCUR: irector lopment Department Stephen R. City Manager Attachments 1. Ordinance 2. Table Comparing of Project Density 3. P.C. Minutes/Resolution 4. Examples of Parking and Commercial Depth 5. Development Plans for 2 and 3 Lot Projects Notes 1. The allowable density is 1750 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit in the R-2 zone and 1320 square feet of lot area per dwelling in the R-3 zone. 2. R-3 front setback requirement also refer to setback notations on Zoning Map and do not include the C-1 zone. 3. In order to evaluate the specific development impacts and maximum residential build -out of potential mixed-use projects staff reviewed the hypothetical assembly of contiguous C-1 zoned parcels and compared standard commercial development versus mixed-use projects. Staff surveyed all properties in the C-1 zone and tabulated the existing and possible additional residential units on each (please see attached table). Currently 56 dwelling units are on 20 of the 43 C-1 zoned properties. Half (10) of these properties have commercial on the ground floor, while the other 10 properties are nonconforming (either wholly residential or providing residential use on the ground floor). Based on the allowable density in the R-2 and R-3 zones, it is possible to construct 33 units (using R-2 standards) or 44 units (using R-3 standards) in addition to the existing mixed-use properties. Further, since the majority of the C-1 zoned properties are on contiguous lots they can be assembled and redeveloped, yielding up to a total of 63 units (using R-2 standards) or 85 units (using R-3 standards). Given that some of the C-1 properties are adjacent to R-2 and R-3 zoned properties, there may be some possibility of assembling commercially and residentially zoned properties so that the residential development within a mixed-use development project in the C-1 zone can be combined with residential development on residentially zoned properties. 5. For example the commercial portion of the project at 44 Hermosa Avenue covers the entire frontage, contains approximately 90% of the ground floor building area, 43% of the site area, and the depth varies from 30-43 feet. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • ORDINANCE 03 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ADD A NEW SUB -SECTION TO CHAPTER 17.40 TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED MIXED-USE PROJECTS IN THE C-1 COMMERCIAL ZONE The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 16, 2003, to consider adding a new sub -section in Chapter 17.40 titled Mixed -Use Development, which will contain development standards generally consistent with the R-3 zone for mixed-use projects in the C-1 zone. Section 2. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 2003, to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission to add a new sub -section in Chapter 17.40 titled Mixed -Use Development, which will contain development standards generally consistent with the R-3 zone for mixed-use projects in the C-1 zone. Section 3. Based on the evidence considered at the public hearing and the recommendation of the Planning Commission the City Council makes the following findings: 1. Section 17.26.030 of the Zoning Ordinance includes residential use above a commercial building (mixed-use) as a conditionally permitted use, but omits reference to any residential development standards. 2. Adding a new sub -section in Chapter 17.40 titled Mixed -Use Development, containing specific standards for mixed-use projects should resolve this issue. 3. The subject text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the general rule set forth in Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as there is no possibility that this modification may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. Based on the foregoing and the recommendation of the Planning Commission the City Council hereby ordains that the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning, Title 17 -Zoning, Chapter 1.7.40, be amended as follows: 1. Add Section 17.40.180 as follows (underlined text to be added): 17.40.180 Mixed -Use Development (C-1 Zone). For residential uses allowed in the C-1 Zone as part of a mixed-use development, the following conditions and standards of development, in addition to any other deemed necessary or appropriate to ensure compatibility with existing or permitted uses in the vicinity, shall be required: 1 • • 1. The residential portion of a mixed-use development shall be subject to the development standards of the R-3 zone as set forth in Chapter 17.16 with the exception of the following: a. If the residential portion of a mixed-use development is a condominium development, then the development shall be subject to the condominium development standards as set forth in Chapter 17.22. b. Front setbacks shall be a minimum of five feet. c. The front setback area may be used for required open space if the area is a deck above the commercial level and otherwise complies with the open space requirements of the R-3 zone. d. No lot coverage maximum shall be applied. e. One 36" box tree per dwelling unit shall be placed as a street tree to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. In addition to the requirements of the commercial zone, the following standards shall apply to the mixed-use development. a. The ground floor shall be primarily commercial with a minimum average depth of 30 -feet, and living and sleeping areas of residential units shall be located above the ground floor. b. Residential use is limited to 25% of the first floor area for the purposes of providing entry -exit areas or lobbies, stairs and corridors, and shall not include primary living areas or sleeping rooms. c. Building frontage shall be used for commercial purposes with the exception of entry -exit corridors and stairs for accessing the residential units and/or for driveways to access parking. 3. Standards for noise, security, lighting: a. Noise: Residential uses shall be separate from commercial uses by sound proofed floors and walls with minimum sound transmission rating as required for condominiums as set forth in Chapter 17.22. Commercial uses hours of operation shall be limited where appropriate so that residents are not exposed to offensive noise or activity. b. Security: Separate and secured entrances for residences directly accessible to sidewalk and parking areas. c. Lighting: Outdoor lighting and lighting for signs associated with commercial uses designed so as not to adversely impact residences. No flashing, blinking or high intensity lighting. Adequate lighting to illuminate parking areas and corridors to access parking and public sidewalk. Lighting for signs may only be illuminated during business hours. 4. Signs. Signs shall be limited to the commercial building frontage pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 17.50. 5. Limitation on allowed Commercial Uses. Permitted commercial uses within a mixed use development shall be as permitted in the underlying commercial zone with the following exceptions which shall not be permitted: a. Restaurants and bars 6 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • b. Laundry and dry-cleaning businesses c. Parking lots and/or structures 6. Limitations on hours of operation. The hours of operation for any commercial use shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days of its final passage and adoption. Section 6. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the date of its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the Easy Reader, a weekly newspaper of general circulation published and circulated, in the City of Hermosa Beach in the manner provided by law. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance, shall enter the same in the book of original ordinances of said city, and shall make minutes of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ord C-1 mixeduse EXHIBIT COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNITS PER LOT FOR R-2 & R-3 ZONES 1 LOT (30' x 90') R-2: 2700 sq. ft. / 1750 sq. ft. per d.u. = 1.54 = R-3: 2700 sq. ft. / 1320 sq. ft. per d.u. = 2.04 = 2 LOTS (60' x 90') 3 LOTS (90' x 90') R-2: 8100 sq. ft. / 1750 sq. ft. per d.u. = 4.63 = R-3: 8100 sq. ft. / 1320 sq. ft. per d.u. = 6.14 = R-2: 5400 sq. ft. / 1750 sq. ft. per d.u. = 3.09 = R-3: 5400 sq. ft. / 1320 sq. ft. per d.u. = 4.09 = 8- 1 dwelling unit 2 dwelling unit 3 dwelling unit 4 dwelling unit 4 dwelling unit 6 dwelling unit R.bertson stated that the proposed deck does comply with the 30 -foot height limit for the R - Zone, . oted that the applicant is properly indicating the proposed and maximum height elevation t the critical height point on plans; that staff has studied the plans and d rmined that the proposed r.. f deck is approximately 2.7 inches under the allowable height it and, therefore, meets th- ode; and that the proposed deck addition complies w all zoning requirements, including c . en space and lot coverage. He added that,while the proposed roof deck modifies the architectu : appearance of the existing rear building, the change does not appear to compromise the overa chitectural appearance of -the building. Chairman Hoffman opened the public hea closed the public hearing. there being no public input, Chairman Hoffman MOTION by Vice -Chairman Tucker,"seconded by Co sioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON 03-5 -- Conditional Use Permit and Precise Developme ' lan amendment to add a roof deck to an existing condo ium at 927 17th Street. The motion c:. ed as follows: AYES: NOES: one ABST ii: None NT: None an, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker 7. TEXT 03-13 — Text amendment regarding C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) development standards. Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment. Director Blumenfeld stated that previously, the Planning Commission had approved a project at 44 Hermosa Avenue, which is located in the C-1 Zone; noted that at that time, the project was approved as a mixed use project without development standards relative to the residential portion of the project because none are provided in the zone; and advised that staff is proposing to amend Chapter 17.40 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide these standards pursuant to the Planning Commission's direction at the conclusion of that hearing, wherein the Planning Commission directed staff to develop development standards that were consistent with the City's other residential development standards. He indicated that staff has examined the primary issues for setbacks and density and prepared the draft text amendment setting a minimum amount of commercial space on the ground floor, requirements for parking, limitations on the allowed uses, provisions for landscaping, signage, and hours of operation for the commercial operations of mixed use projects. Director Blumenfeld pointed out that staff examined three options for developing residential standards; that one approach is to use the R-3 development standards and apply those across the board to all mixed use projects; stated that another would be to look at the adjacent residential density and make a determination on that basis as to what standards ought to apply; and noted that whether R-2 or R-3 densities are established, the issues relative to setback, open space and lot coverage remain the same - pointing out that the only difference is the number of allowable units. Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 2003 • • Director Blumenfeld stated that the City Council, in examining this issue relative to approval allowing condominium development in the C-1 zone, indicated the need to prohibit residential uses on the ground floor and to limit the appurtenant portions of residential use on the ground floor; noted that in the R-3 zone, there is a setback requirement of 5 feet; and that staff is recommending a 5 -foot setback requirement also for the mixed use development because it is consistent with the Condominium Ordinance applicable to either R-2 or R-3 properties. He stated that staff looked at the residential build -out; given the number of C-1 zoned properties and the potential to assemble property — pointing out that there are currently 56 dwelling units on 20 of the 43 C-1 Zoned properties and indicated that half or 10 of these properties have commercial on the ground floor, and the remaining 10 are nonconforming. Based on the allowable density in the R-2 and R-3 Zones, Director Blumenfeld stated that it is possible to construct 33 units using the R-2 standard or 44 units using the R-3 standard; that since the majority of the C-1 Zoned properties are on contiguous lots, they can be assembled and redeveloped and yield up to a total of 63 units using the R-2 standard or 85 units using the R-3 standard. Director Blumenfeld stated that given some of the C-1 Zoned properties are adjacent to R-2 or R-3 Zoned properties, there also may be some possibility of assembling commercially and residentially zoned property so that the residential development within a mixed use project in the C-1 Zone is combined with residential development on adjacent residentially zoned properties. He explained that relative to the commercial standards on the ground floor, the underlying zoning is commercial and the development of residential exclusively is prohibited, adding that the code already requires that the ground floor be commercially developed, but stated that it doesn't specify how much; and noted that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission establish a minimum. He stated that except for the appurtenant parts of residential uses (stairs etc.), at least 75 percent of the commercial area should be designated for commercial use and that there be a minimum commercial depth of 30 feet, to ensure that the commercial area is functional for a business. Director Blumenfeld advised that the C-1 uses are restrictive; that because of concerns with noise, staff has included the prohibition of pet stores, animal hospitals, arcades, restaurants, bars; that limitations of hours have been recommended, from 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., Sunday through Thursday, and 6:00 A.M. to midnight, Friday and Saturday; that staff is suggesting that signing be located below the second story only and no higher than the frontage of the commercial use; relative to landscaping, that it be placed along the street frontage (rather than private property); and advised that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the attached resolution amending and creating a new subsection in 17.40, entitled, "Mixed Use Development Standards." Commissioner Perrotti noted his preference to restrict the hours of operation with mixed use from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. during the week, and 10:00 A.M. on the weekends. Vice -Chairman Tucker noted his preference for a starting time no earlier than 8:00 A.M.; with regard to setbacks, he briefly commented on his concern with creating a box -like effect with the second floor, especially with that on the side yards; with regard to residential, he noted his preference to maintain a minimum of 3 feet from the side yards, a needed separation on the next /a Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 2003 floor up; and noted his preference for non -illuminated signage and the placement of this signage up to the mezzanine level. Director Blumenfeld explained that the Building Code would require at least a 3 -foot setback from the property line, for all residential use openings. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Perrotti that it is possible to use the front yard setback as allowable open space; or roof decks; and that staff is suggesting in Section 3 to use R- 3 development standards, except for the lot coverage. Senior Planner Robertson estimated for Chairman Hoffman that approximately 2/3rds of these properties abut R-3 and the remaining abuts R-2. Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Pizer that all these projects would be subject to the conditional use process for consideration by the Planning Commission. Vice -Chairman Tucker questioning if the top floor on these buildings would be less than 500 square feet and Director Blumenfeld explained that otherwise these buildings must have a second exit, pursuant to the Building Code. Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing; there being no input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Vice -Chairman Tucker noted his preference to set the hours of operation in the standards. Commissioner Kersenboom suggested that the hours of operation be taken on a case-by-case basis and noted that he could support the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Commissioner Pizer suggested that an applicant could apply to alter the hours of operation; and stated that he could support the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M., 7 days a week. Following brief discussion, Director Blumenfeld stated that Section 3, 1E will be rewritten as follows: "One 36 -inch box tree per dwelling unit shall be placed as a street tree to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director." Vice -Chairman Tucker reiterated his preference for non -illuminated signage. Director Blumenfeld explained that some signage lighting would be necessary and suggested that such signage be required to be turned off when the business is closed. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to -APPROVE TEXT 03-13 -- Text amendment regarding C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) development standards, with the following changes: Section 1E, One 36 -inch box tree per dwelling shall be placed as a street tree; Section 3C, lighting signs will be illuminated only during business hours; and Item 6, the hours of operation shall be 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The motion carried as follows: Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 2003 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker None None None 8. TEXT 03-14 -- Text amendment regarding State mandated density bonus ordinance. Staff Rec mmended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment. Director Blu -nfeld expressed the need to amend the Zone Code to comport with e State requirements fo -stablishing density bonus provisions; explained that the statute requirements encourage the goa for affordable housing in every jurisdiction; stated that e -ry city must adopt an ordinance that spe•'fies incentives to construct affordable housing units- . d pointed out that this City's Zoning Ordi .nce has no provisions for such density bonuses He mentioned that this omission was pointed out the Coastal Commission; stated that Sect' •n 17.42.100 is the proposed section to be amen% ed in the City's Zoning Ordinance, pr• iding the granting of density bonuses that are consis -nt with State law — pointing out t• at these provisions have been directly taken from State law. Director Blumenfeld highlighted the - reflected in staff report (of record); state would solely be at the discretion of the Cit State law and State standards for General P1 high land values in this City and the limited ava Blumenfeld explained that these circumstance interest in utilizing the density bonus provis' and household size ranges for affordable velopments eligibl for density bonuses, which are that per State . w, there are additional incentives that and not ti that this code amendment would satisfy o . ing Elements. Because of the extremely bility of undeveloped land, Director ma weigh against practicality and a developer's ns. He ighlighted the HUD -based income figures ousing. Chairman Hoffman opened the publ' hearing; there being n closed the public hearing. ublic input, Chairman Hoffman MOTION by Commissioner 'errotti, seconded by Commissioner -rsenboom, to APPROVE TEXT 03-14 -- Text amen ed ent regarding State mandated density bo s ordinance. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Ho P an, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: N' e ABSTAIN: I one ABSENT: Norie 9. ARK 03-5 -- Parking Plan to allow a vocational school for massage therapy spa -related training with shared parking in a shopping center at 1137 Aviation Boulevard. d Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION P.C. 03-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO RECOMMEND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ADD A NEW SUB- SECTION TO CHAPTER 17.40 TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED MIXED-USE PROJECTS IN THE C-1 COMMERCIAL ZONE The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 16, 2003, to consider adding a new sub -section in Chapter 17.40 titled Mixed -Use Development, which will contain development standards generally consistent with the R-3 zone for mixed-use projects in the C-1 zone. Section 2. Based on the evidence considered at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. Section 17.26.030 of the Zoning Ordinance includes residential use above a commercial building (mixed-use) as a conditionally permitted use, but omits reference to any residential development standards. 2. Adding a new sub -section in Chapter 17.40 titled Mixed -Use Development, containing specific standards for mixed-use projects should resolve this issue. 3. The subject text amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to the general rule set forth in Section 15061(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as there is no possibility that this modification may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Title 17 -Zoning, Chapter 17.40, be amended as follows: 1. Add Section 17.40.170 as follows (underlined text to be added): 17.40.170 Mixed -Use Development (C-1 Zone). For residential uses allowed in the C-1 Zone as part of a mixed-use development, the following conditions and standards of development, in addition to any other deemed necessary or appropriate to ensure compatibility with existing or permitted uses in the vicinity, shall be required: 1. The residential portion of a mixed-use development shall be subject to the development standards of the R-3 zone as set forth in Chapter 17.16 with the exception of the following: a. If the residential portion of a mixed-use development is a condominium development, then the development shall be subject to the condominium development standards as set forth in Chapter 17.22. b. Front setbacks shall be a minimum of five feet. /3 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • c. The front setback area may be used for required open space if the area is a deck above the commercial level and otherwise complies with the open space requirements of the R-3 zone. d. No lot coverage maximum shall be applied. e. One 36" box tree per dwelling unit shall be placed as a street tree to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. In addition to the requirements of the commercial zone, the following standards shall apply to the mixed-use development. a. The ground floor shall be primarily commercial with a minimum average depth of 30 -feet, and living and sleeping areas of residential units shall be located above the ground floor. b. Residential use is limited to 25% of the first floor area for the purposes of providing entry -exit areas or lobbies, stairs and corridors, and shall not include primary living areas or sleeping rooms. c. Building frontage shall be used for commercial purposes with the exception of entry -exit corridors and stairs for accessing the residential units and/or for driveways to access parking. 3. Standards for noise, security, lighting: a. Noise: Residential uses shall be separate from commercial uses by sound proofed floors and walls with minimum sound transmission rating as required for condominiums as set forth in Chapter 17.22. Commercial uses hours of operation shall be limited where appropriate so that residents are not exposed to offensive noise or activity. b. Security: Separate and secured entrances for residences directly accessible to sidewalk and parking areas. c. Lighting: Outdoor lighting and lighting for signs associated with commercial uses designed so as not to adversely impact residences. No flashing, blinking or high intensity lighting. Adequate lighting to illuminate parking areas and corridors to access parking and public sidewalk. Lighting for signs may only be illuminated during business hours. 4. Signs. Signs shall be limited to the commercial building frontage pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 17.50. 5. Limitation on allowed Commercial Uses. Permitted commercial uses within a mixed use development shall be as permitted in the underlying commercial zone with the following exceptions which shall not be permitted: a. Drive-through facilities b. Pet stores and animal hospitals c. Motor vehicle and equipment sales and service d. Adult businesses e. Game arcades f. Hotels/Motels g. Restaurants and bars h. Laundry and dry-cleaning businesses (LF i. Parking lots and/or structures 1 6. Limitations on hours of operation. The hours of operation for any commercial use shall be limited to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. VOTE: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 03-51 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of September 16, 2003. Peter Hoffmirman September 16, 2003 Date 29• r5 TAR C-1 mixeduse EXAMPLES OF MIXED-USE PARKING AND COMMERCIAL DEPTH -r(Q!GA L INGLE • LOT G40NFIl1RATION or►E P►.E1-UM UNIT WITH IAINIMAL GoMME.RGIAL AV -E-A ARV NoN-P14' EET fARKINE fVeN%PE97' -rcw, 1 13 LE '1"'12 -EST ALLEY hGALE I"' 20I S1 -1z -EST .4 AL LES' 'TYPICAL -DOUBLE i,aT coNFIGUR,4TIoN 75% GoMMER -IAL LOT cos/ ERAGE Nor fro,r I t3LE *ulE3TE ANSA N ?AV -H Nal lie G2u 112—EP ,s5 ?1..AN N I N4 GoMM Into N MAIJj7AT -P cR oMMEGIAL verTH (3o F T) • • (7 --1 m in • n � • • rs r Ep. G l -I 1 PpAfTMeNr c-�ur . —20� -A p:fl, sro�e a ;1 P-5 /J•�GeNJf i%r t�ENc� 4 o Miop 056 tX aMPL� Pf /fTM ENT. I� T, L 3 LOTS - 3 DWELLING UNITS WITH SURFACE PARKING • ABBREVIATIONS DRAWING INDEX My °"a NWT AN NWT A Kr KKK AMM A o :' oma., MN ION NAP A NN9MAIM LA DRUM N.M. MAL ION MN M30103 FLOOR PUN MC 41.001710.3 At AP." wMe..MST MI NINTANA/ NNW (AA LAFONTORT NAN. ...AN IAN 414174411 •P� AM AMON ,T. LIMIT mcmp• NT ALTA MO, PRCKMCCAL /1 RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT 30 HERMOSA AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA MN MCP RONA.3.1 IMO ROOS /Ad MOND -uAI RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED—USE DEVELOPMENT 30 Hermosa Avenue, oakes air11t(•c( Hermosa Beach, CA ......•,r..*........ PAT AND JAY'S DEVELOPMENT, LLC s.s Mama= A...,., 1541 Bel Alr Road n.:n. m'4 Los Angeles, CA 90077-3021 SOMNI OLDISH MANN MITS CAN N. MON 2. P VICINITY MAP PROJECT SUMMARY CONTACTS cm. C•••rt NG NOP IN CNINCT 014 COMPIC NOM CO. COMM NM 4_c 10TH m.4I MO. 0•3110 OA NWT NLNECT ACORES,:IS . a NUNN Y LEGAL awrona: IT: MT NO INTO 100(. u 0.101T:0.101T:0(0(6c NO oz. 040•46 OM OMC COCAIN �, A 4 � faE ::: .Np ixO 00!1,00 03P1ON. 0.17011.01001 COM. COMMON .m co.T.c. 0.1101 OUT TO MAN COWL OMITEATTA0 FL Pun, P.RAMC W .m uN? 00.11 T. wino { I y � 7 wR=rRUCTM TYPO ITR V.0IRIWIwe1m OC,IPNICY: Nl NOVafLMLIRONALf/iR fR.I, Rtaf06nYL0WLt. 1 . GARAGE WYE. K STOIMd PROJECT INa1TccT: AnaaATes AROLmLTs MI CT11I6aA.q.. Leulau r.Ncn. uuranu M1s. µ (31.0) 374-9133 iGIIfNi.:4B GMa CM. 000 FCAT K AL PAM PON 0 PROJECT 9.1WMT . )Aw SOM. SIAICTW: ML'MB100 OIC .0U.ST1UT MIMOSA MN71...000 .00. SYMBOL LEGEND POu1TAF GT. • _ PUMA MAKI LW w. IT. MONb001 aTHM1 OO.r Vlni011 1. NN OAT. ORM OVYT)Y MK 04.0 � GQIO LLOOIL=rW=RRMYI,sq. lllOf 0 GAOL. PRIVATE emir. > WT. I-'='F�) 14000. MON MA PAO. _` ! Mao.. 1.nf q. n. I X I LVOw, 00100RAs CND IP. 11. MOOR. 3017 w. IT, TOTAL MIA. LW rt. �I wm.NOOMLo DA OA pop, P ww 0.6 00.10.1.6 STREWN° V 0 w. ORT UNITONO ATa Ni_ 1)1 w.rt. 1,Y1 w. IT. TN= 3001 wow. rt. 1Q m1RLR.9(MI., APpbS.) ❑ 1.1000 .1001. P.°. PM,,.1M AN. MON R..LKwo00 Kw. Loom �l TOTAL MEM 1ASO w. IT. a1I1T. T nwOoeR,ILR.-` iA l'a WIT. sq, rt. SCO w. PT. O OppR=pq R , .A.wln cl.a+M.I.LMI o COMM. LOLAT 6. MON D. DAMN. AC. SON CORI NC. ILMTRICAL DAV. DAMNa 001.14 00. MOICANCP AP. m. TOTAL MM. LOS w. IT. ; e LEVEL.N: ww.IT. TOTAL 0(10000 M. - 11Aw w. IT. REQUIRED WORN mem CONTROL POOR 0L G6TA FOTO e iciaT�r 40 11, `r°"1Rlw""1°d1eL 3004 (MT. SaR..wT LOOMAG ALLS %>✓a) .4 BALLS WEST MR1mwOR COSITITC WAWA MAN LAM. KECK. 4 ® AN. a comma KJ. V gm.s PDC T� MSIoeO GOUNO 11.1.•1.1=0430 r 0=) SSOLS TOTAL MON IONS RwIA10= TALLS PARKING PIlOVIOE0 MELTa MOM e°n�m UNCTION e=vATw: I0r*r101 COVER SHEET 10 11. /MAN STA RATION AAKING 1 n MODEM. U STALLS (85109, STALLS GUEST RETAIL (AN0104)1ai0 .9 STALLS © ON.muTm Ma WTI ouecTlo=AL ARraw NcoNam. 01. OWL TOTAL MEN _v STILLS (4 mPINAT). 14% N. FOORmoon SR. STORAGE FIFA 0100.17.314N ELECTRICAL : =11e=Uorr la mi NOT anA OU11=r STANY naca"` FAL P . i.L. CODE ANALYSIS +PMMA^ LiarPUMA. MY9mNIT9YM==aN P.M V ON1=rN W 00.•MOs PAK FAL MRR:A IL K. MINA. � N. TOF avm0M1RNM Tm TYNE FUN. 1 F.N. ODUM MM NNN Pa UNS.wsuo 41,0)0518= SJOWCARw 04 - 68'1,'"1" PI F .PA MIT.lw.4MONT , masafn mons mew.,� Q o1naurEr .rm a ANn 8 rem. i1, 3 -NAY =0(101 0. YTOI.00P00NT (L MOS 1401.110 Ou1uT TAO. T1311110 MO °"00"` .0 'P: ( 11p.1.DIT NOUN eKOK LOe1 30(449 M-waYIF. I )4 6 COMMON,. + 3010 WM r T. TOE OEas-=mo Myo wig ,.s MINN nu.>m1I =.P. 1.1SOS, 230=, ��,r u ac=me, . MAROONS m U 31013 aMr=cTaR � .4. l AM 30300( Mt Kw... MIN1T LMINI OUT Tn. ,: OP ""a tY. MAL w, r1Kr um ummumm 2.17017 •,000 SS. - •»==•P• < 1 . _ or .40 aaO.05T1 o 140 900 G ,RAI 20(100(3''-. =)s uo1T 0T W. PLUMBING z-3� Si1lL'� CALK 6.1.1.030 0.T1AII. MOP 5/ 0: 100210105.50 VOW. wrAan0.121. ILL 01.0a TOO. WITUMO 1w OMP/: ./4j:1IN110110.6MOvemul RO21 11. 1MU101OOLILLO MUCK 4y lane MMM ^ w 00 06.0 vEAT. 0014.4. GAN. 60,11.1 FIN NA 8)0(074PROTECTIOPROTECTION 0 OCCUPANCY =9NT0 5 . 11.110112004 NO V9T11'Al ti Os anur ; =NOWIDI MAO -w 5YI01..049 GIL WO.IM/re wm, vmm nw TOM015I000MNe 10.1.1110. SEE CAC 00219 A9 wMTS LO. ^ 02/11/05 TM. NWT IN MD GRA. 0(.2.0.40 KIK M.. ROOF -, MT FOR ON•ONTAQ amc. w. WALL LEGEND '.. w_. ICC. PM1133 MOOT 110 MOO ,Mw. 1M.®RT4 NOM .. _.,__.. few m0( NU. m uxO. - _ - - 111179 O1av41cT=ew,100 562 172.41, -Se: STRUCTURAL A _O f1 31.904. IMMO VOM OMNI OM O O O,O,O O O 10 a`�� MAW ,O �CJ j •C\f.+y �r-r �.�� ,, z re 14 yr shy Ir -r s•�• F lc 2c u 3c c 5 „ i iii ark r -r r-11• 4 r -r r -r r-• r.• ,r -r r-.• r-• r• -r r -r , oakes .:r. h'?eri F. p } COMMERCIAL 'ARKING CAR ENTRY/EXIT _I-1_ Se...wily Gob i 8 1 y —r. - _ ---_ __ _ RESIDENT ." '' 15 - r -- -r - CsUFST ti 10 - g r -r — i USE DEVELOPMEN 1 EDGE Of 5L B EAK ABOVE 13 t I Q 16 RES DENT PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PARKING GARAGE GUIST 'j,, 11 7,1 th o .7 I RESIDENTIAL/COMMER( 30 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA PAT AND JAY'S DEVELOP 1541 Bel Alr Road Los Angeles, CA 90077 4 + Irs..w.sa I = p _ •r RESIDENT 17 I UNIT- PRIVATE p ENTRY 12 UNIT -E PRIVATE ENTRY e --f b k °v uv 'uv 1°"°'"'" / \ TRASH PRNIT-PIVAT- ENTRY ' __: STAMP - -- UNIT -B - UNIT -A UNIT -C 11.3-•0113" I COMMEIftke. SPACE 110. 419.01. I T W b � 31.=._iia-. k uv uv UNIT -D UNIT -E ^•• '�' us-,os.aa1.y II NORTH © "' 1.-r c9BI I PRIVATE ENTRIE II I L —� �w v.- • 03-101 :r. s -.r 3.-1. trr r s- i r -r —, 1ST FLOOR PLAN A3.0 r 1._r'•__--.._ b'-1. 1 O �. --_ - _.._ • AMMO AIM 0 A...Ka •....: •r -o• A r-cr V.' 21.-•• 21. • • 6 • 1 . A 0' =------=---- r-f-FliFFEFFI-Frrr r-r-F1.1-1-E1-1-1-Frrr --,-drrrrrrrrrr ;--0F1-1-1-1-1-Frrr ill BEDROOM - BEDROOM BEDROI BEDROOM t... _ '.; CO 0 1 fi i 11 I 1 A r Ei 1 -11 1 F ___ . b ii JC • j, 1 I L1...1 I L I.I_L -,----- 1. ,-.- . — 1 - - _ _ ji. '..- ........, 03 0 I. L i. L . L, —1 w...c. -I W.I.C. .11. ILILLL. . I__ •109.13. I 11,•109.33 I , in- •loo rl 1 13ATI-1 -BATH "--ii --- 1- L _L. 1 --.-!•n i I ,-7-, 1: 10 1 Il's z L., M - .11 . ..--- Amon - -- - - 0 11-'-- _I/ULM— _ • - --I . . - - - .• ... _ d 7:::-.7 ,....., 7 In T-1 al I 1 - 1 , .,,„ - --- ,___ , „ ,...., , -- 4-1.0111=4: . ilLigilin • • • • 41$ .. . m m • _ • Ir. 7 J_L_L_L_L • 0 LLLLL LL LL LL L L L I. L LL .LL Li LL I-."-- l',... . li sOuGwr ABOVE - .. .i 1 Dl MEDIA SKYLIGHT ABOVE KITCHEN _b.. SecnaGlir ' I_ 11+10;1 - - __.,- ....,,VE ._/ I . MEDIA r ! L ! .1H2iil KITCHEN 1 .-.1 '... AL/COMMERCIAL MIXI ;a Avenue, leach, CA AY'S DEVELOPMENT, U. Jr Road s, CA 90077-3021 _ I L L LL $ -•-- -1 .---' p Eta .-i.•.!_2 1- - (..... . - -, PWDR - ' • "Ir.- --- EiElpica LL L.L.L -r- PANTRY - , PANTRY ILI.L1 L I F „;, 1 1.-.. OATS , , 1 1 1 2nd Root Plan I L LI -LI_ . , 41111 L pkI.b L ._, . L L DINING DINING N STAMP Li I.LL I : I'. QN LLL UNIT-D UNIT -E NIT -F . -' - ., LLI_L.L LLLLL - , "'• LLLLL LLLL - —ill- =••• 11 LIVING LLLLL .-. LIVING , LLI-LL - ROOM ROOM LLL.1_1_ In, 4411.6'1 E] irn..113.60 [2 Io• -•113.•••I ?=r...r,Y.1.•42 COATS LI --:j 1 -1-• FH , . -LLL • ,............., ......_..., 1 " 1 t. .1 L LL L hLLLLL.LLLLLLLLL—L.,._, - .......` I................, D CI t L .LLLt U _LLLLLL L.LL.LL1.1.-1-1-1-t- _, -J -.I -J ..Fa. -.7"J -1 -1="7-.3 ..-1 ..:t... 0 J_l_l_l_l_JJ-I.J.JJ.JJ.J-1 J. . L.L1-1.- L.1.7.L L'1_ L.LLLLL LLLLLLL.LLL L LLL -CI LI • - i=i,Ei...-L'..a-T---....-L-c-t--..- LLL.- L ,.L1...LL 1 LL L LLLLLL.L.LLL_LLL 1 LLL -LLLLLLLL LLL L L.......LLM fl —1-J-LJJJ-J.J-JJJJ-1-1_1JJ_I.,-....r.r.. BK-1-J-1-1J-JJ-1-1-J-1-1JJ-1-7.iJ .1-1J-11-1-1-1- nmeci_LLI_LL_LLLL B LLLLLLLLLLLLE LLLLLL-L1,-.-.-L-t-m-L-1.- Li i ILLI-1-1..i.L.LLL ••••• to-ic64-3.1••• L LLL L. L L I L LLi_i_ L LL L.L L 1 1 L I_LLLL -L L I_L L 1_1_ LLDALGOI9t I...L.., -'usi_l_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1_1.1.11.J..11 — 1 i J J_I.J.J_I_J.J.1_ 1.1_! JJ..1_1.J. ',1_LLLLLLLLI...,LLLLLLLI_ILLL.LLLLLLL, ". es/UKu , 1t. L ..._,. ._ L. L.. L L LL 1.......-: 1 L. LL L. 1. LLL1-1..L.L.LLI-LL.L.L-LLLL' ' _:_l_IJJJ-I-J-1-1.8ALUNICAT,_l_i_, ' ' ' I-JJJJJJJ-I-J-1-J...:-1.1_1-1-1_,JJ 1J.-',.. I_LLLLLLL LLLLLLLL.LLII_LLLI-LLLLL' ' ' . LLLLLL LLLI_LLL-li.LLL.LLLLLL' .... _ ....- L- . L. LL _l_LLL.L.- L..- LI. L -t -L L ' • . L. , • L.LLLL--L_L...-'-._ I 1 cANopy . -1-1JJ.J.J.J.JJ -1-1-1..I.I-! JJ...,_i 2 J,J_ ' ' .1.-LL-L.LL-LLLLLL-LILL LI- L-.LLLL, LLLLLLI-ELLL---LLLLI NORT11 0 -- gy_,. • i';‘,= -_,-__•s,__, 0 _.... . -1-!-!-I-!-!-!--1-1-J-:-I-1--!-L-i - - ----1 _LLLLLL 1 V-.• .., . .1,-0. ..". — 2ND FLOOR PLAN A3.1 - - . 0.-I• 10.-0. i_ 0 , . _ mosO sop -A,el Q 0 0 '" e� .� Kr-o- Kr-o- ° ° ,s c• I i it-i• irx Irx� 13--r.. ER w�� '-r r _ + i UNIT-D -- MASTER BEDROOM UNIT-F y ! — . BATH • _UNITE 1 d -- — --- O III__f 5 �J. _ JJJ. .. JJ.6- p� t G L LLL —J L — -- ~ Z I JJJ_0 I LLL -O.LLL LLL ' a_ Iw- .marl _JJ_I LwL In•.n..or1 ------- LLL In-,uurI O -_-- T - . - == -�I------ —.--w:�:c—�--------- -------r—!- CZ-------- -- 1 -- -- -- _ -,—J- -- �� -i f- -- -- o D O seeee, oo - — -- —._.. — o� �aette_ON — -- ��,aseee- - 1 •IIIrdilu= on =_��C��1�� \ I�� r -, I i --'I2j COUNTER �I r-,ILI commit a LLL r-___ LLL" r----i JJ Lt_L LL LL LLI�nr+Rq ;51mloRi su1'U ffI [3nrrcc4LLLLI_LLLL i5NTUGNfi r:xacrcry JJJJ JJ_1J < a ' LI L.LLt_L_L 4___��IJ LLLLLLL LI_ � ` JJ _1_1_1_1_1_1J_ ,,, _L.LI ;.I_LLLLLLLLL L :_LL L.LI_LLLLLLL LI_LLLLLLLI_ LLLL LLLLLLLLL.L.L.LLL '', JJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJ. JJJJJJJ.JJJ JJJJ_I.JJJJJ_JJJ re W �� - IT k to q _L I 1 I L.LI..L _LLL . L L ' I_ LLI_1_LLLL 'I.l_. LLLLL LLL LL . I LLLL.LL.LLL I.. I.!_I. I. I_LI I L 1. LLL LI I_L I LL I.L.I I LI_ 1 I LLL .. I.. LL_i. LLLLLL - i.LLLI. LLLLL'^ LLL L_I LLLI MKN'L EQUIVT. _ _ MECM'L EQUIVT. ' .LLLL' .LLLLis .l-LLL, .LLLL---- . I_LLLI_.I_I.I_1_t LLLI_L .I1 LLLLI_L LLLLLLLL LLLLL LLLLLLLLL LLLLLLL 11 I LI_1 LL1 LI.LLt FITFdRpEE_L. I.. L L LL' LI-L.1.1_ LL. I.. I_I.. LI. LL L I. I LL 1.1.1..1 I.LI L': LLTT ..1_ I I_LI. L_ .— M�,,L EQU19T. - II JJ_IJJJJJ.JJ.JJJJ J_IJJJJ_IJJJJJ_J_ J_IJJJJJJ_1_I_JJJ_ JJJ.J_1.JJ_..1..1_1_1_1_ JJ_11_1_1.1_1_1_1.1_1_1_1_1_ JJ.JJ_IJ..LI_IJJJ_.1.. JJJJJ J.1 .1 1_1.1 1.1_ JJJ JJJ_I .J JJ JJJ I J J J J J J JJ J J J J J_ JJJJJJJJJJJ_1_ IlII b }�. b k RESIDENTIAL/COM 30 Hermosa Avenw Hermosa Beach, CA PAT AND JAY'S DEV 1541 Bel Alr Road Los Angeles, CA 90 I LI LLLLL II II Ii LLLLLLL I. L LI L� JJJ_11.1._1_1_1JJJ_ I LI.I.L LL l I I. LLI_.LL I_ LI L. _LLLL :_1.I.-LLLL _.� ..LLLLLLL . L LLL _LLL.I_ ----- - - ImLL_LLL. 1_ I_ 11.1.1 I. LLLI_LL_L.I LI. I L_ -L L_LL.LLLLLi LLLL . LLL LLLLL 1_I.LL.I_ L' . LLLLLLLLL L1_1_1_1_1 -LLL.1._LL_LLL LL L LI.' . _.__ III I JJJ_I_IJ_IJ_IJ_1_I_ JJ_1_I_IJJ_1JJ.J_1- _IJ.JJ_1..1JJ_1..I.J.J.J_ JJJJJ .1_11_1_1.1_1_1_ JJJJJJJJJJJJJ_ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJ_ Ad floor N.n .LLLLLLLLL LL L LL. JJJJJJJJJ-JJJJJ_ •_LLLLLLLL . I :_ I. I_L-LI_L ,.L .LLLI_ .LLLLLLLL L:. LLLL. .LLLLL LLL L:_1.1 L. t. JJJ_IJJ_1JJJJ_JJ JJJ_IJJJJJ_1JJ_1J_ STAMP. 149, �7{•,Tp^My. • I__LI_LL LLL - -.. -LLLL ____ _ __ __LLL_'J_ .LLLLL LLI_IL ._:..L-:_' _LLLLLLLL ,._,. I.L LL.. .LLLLLLL L_I. I LL-L LLLLLLLLLLLLLL JJJJJJJJJJ.JJJJ JJJJJJJ.JJJJ_JL JJJJ_JJJ_1.JJJ J J_ JJ. JJJJJJJ_ fit• ,My j19�o .q19• ROOF ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF ROOF DECK ROOF ,r - lea J-... -4M' E 0 �, may ,19.FA� 'r `. 0. �n� 'R—=?i's�r4, 3r _.rte.= gl z-. 1r"" t. 56;%�,yx, l6)-k1k '^( %.iii. tea,-Ia+->sw, NORTH O — nitro, yb r ve . r-r orld ��-- O a- - --- ._ - - .. _ __ - -- Ir=T. -- - — _„•__ _-� -- :r _. �. _�_.. _ _ __ - I .__. -- i,cr ... 3RD FLOOR PLAN A 2 Q_. qx _ • 11111111111.1 InIN o comrr owns mo. — ow amp ma °—� 1 j11 PLATE 10Pr a b _ EL 124.4.1. � I in ._. el Ale • r CO FLOOR LEVEL a v I O R li z LU 0- o 41 L• -I V/ I MST ROCAEL PERS 0 w 6.66.60 WEST ELEVATION® IIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MI Hermosa Avenue, mora Beath, CA ' AND JAY'S DEVELOPMENT, 1 Bel Alr Road Angeles, CA 90077-3021 TOP Of ROOF MAI, ,_-- • ILVRR11"5, 1.4•11111 NM 0.101.. CeM11 WM P911. SCALE: 1/.' • 1•-0• WOY Qp EAST•MTST •a,...ar� I I I I ElEVA1IO6 l•A.1 ....Lay STAMP _ _ I ( ._,__ .T I---.-.-1 M ST FLOOR\ n *.. . �.: .� %...., V ��/A09IG =MAW4 : �••1� .:.. :<...: ..:� .. .. : ..�.... .�F ..�� \\ ..�. \�L.. ♦ .�\�\ /r,/./��.� \\\\.... i OL10Y-SOI, pp.,..v I/... 1'-0' 'n 111-106 • EAST ELEVATION( moo Sou!: U.' . I•.0' A-5.0 3 LOTS - 3 DWELLING UNITS WITH SUBTERRANEAN PARKING • ABBREVIATIONS DRAWING INDEX ....WI e MI ''O A HT1 RAOMR. RAN A lan. NOT W. MORN 01.111.1 4. convue.• NJ TRIP xr �a�A W. RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT M TW°R "A KM MLIII^AM, 30 HERMOSA AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA •`L "n" ..0 LOT "UR SZVATICM 6.4.1 RPM •WMMOT. MCA MIL ,«O. LION. As IOISTWNION .C.C. LT.. MOM TIRMAL WTI MIL WALW.C.. VICINITY MAP PROJECT SUMMARY CONTACTS RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT 30 Hermosa Avenue, 0 Hermosa Beach, CA PAT AND JAY'S DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1541 Bel Air Road Los Angeles, CA 90077-3021 OP. ILLC. NOT IN CONTRACT C.A. MORI RIS. NOT TO F. owner .001...om «AVOL. CA 0.2i WI WOWW.. • AVIWA NIRMOSA Im CA CA. CAM ODOCKLEM ON 0.11[01 tlW.OI(oa, �,� Y.1LL O..fr.,LO! LORI AN a.aAOL.L, uaA.«GaO.: Iwl��w�I��l� .:( 100))31.4.11 P. MO WOW AO�OTAO.IWCT AaaO,noAAAGTc1. Gram. oacm.,-44mM. �.CLO OW. CORADOR KR MO Cr. COUNTERS. ' Ivm � Lue MIL MAIM ALM. RAM �. w.,.0 WTxOOo { le �. 7 {1a� GGW.IWGGTgY T.\ „Rv•MIwWnNA1® OOO.uCf, !N) WNMGOM/Kf.O. (M)) ILl'.f0MN1 CAM. (U,1 WWtlR GAMG. M.� p R01�\ 1.1W0 us � A0« la �MONe �) a"®aa KY .YIMAR RAI GG�MG MC Oa RAO COLT 1 MIR FR M -MO MAR .IY«.V PRINT ""'" 4 °""A'°" SYMBOL LEGEND AMR. " GI�IGU,�NOG,II.,.O: a1]G.6 rt. WM.R: YIOG.a MI OMR r. PAM TOR A MOM NAG.. L.«a w. IT. �- .ALn. ra.N R. ROM MAO FLOOR. RP SO. FT I i{ 1 MO.(OI+..101. TOT.... II« w..*. ILL COO 1.06 RP KC/ OWN ` M WIT AA>FLOOR. I. w.IT. ISI Woao.\mm. «R POSTS. OS 001.0.M. STROGTNj a X MOUS MOOR. SOO SO. r4 TOTALAA. 1.1•1 w•rt. um Ram- IA. Al. rt. MIRO wox- SOGw. rt. ® RR. MMA.\(WMAM.M.) 0 IMO. s,x.a GOO. an.a PA OCT .v.l .«. vAaL.Aoa. 3 /Jn NNW 1.I. IT . 1mu4. L WOUND WAR rAxlOw. '.a�w. rt. O IwmON STA. 0.0 MOO......x, Iuiu WO n. RIOT. n,,,,, ATOM n.«.nvaL K\16OGIG ARM . IIi«w. rt. RGQGIPED PARKING e� WORN A0a1. COMP W)OO OR O\TA PO. Kona e fi«ilwwu OMR VAL 19.600. .v� O. iea.NJ aSTALLSM4m..rul unRa ia.:,. .mG.O. GROOM ROM .aaIlamemAL GMT WRMGSn RAS le ifil?"="' AaV� I:210v. . II TOTAL T4:WATaIX MIT. V. OM 0STALLS M.. WARM ALS WARM .30 aNLSMLR x.xgNG PROVIDED ION AMOR MIRROR aevATGW COVER SHEET TLO. a,yo„ 41.0.1.3 SRO LTA YAM O. OmOWTIAL WITS -AP OTO.PAVINGJ Mgjjj,•(Wn3WYVAR CAROMRAT. TOTAL 0/0010 -)0 MRS (A 000151), 3016 .....---40......, ROTATOR.WALL ® WOILwTm AIM W'IM o1AMOn.L MUM PLAT so STO. 1.0.0 ILCOR CAW CIL OM 101.1.41•110. ROA. STORAOR ELECTRICAL :1 AI NOT CORM 01/11.0 STANE "'-0 FROM ROM CODE ANALYSIS M)LL� memo` MAa1o3LOTIR OUR ORM W WouxTm rtxnVu �1_O)OVOVGIf W .OaN. AOa wart .r 11. TWO TOP a.oWOWR KO. RAPCRASCOO TOO. TM.. AOC FACROF 001/11 TOL ROM= TIR V NILI OO.0 LOWMLZ 1.1 .13010 A \1 0010m 0.0 ARRAS3-WAY .01AOA i;I «m®wL uwR a . Nn Oona u CM OM1 c.Gna.LA1GLM,T SWOOP R. W.T.PROC• OVn.. % IWOIQCOR RUM IL ROMNOON1m OAla oW)OS MA 1.401 OF S11.0 TOL MCI( fl:11515 1 i 00414M SWITCH : ORM.. TOP OP AL MUM m.' S.F. ) l0 fl OUTIAR CAM• I�11p1f : _ TOR OR xo.....WALLo.ALa G. wean p.m...) W@xG1m ,).coo f..: cpm t/. MG aaAMna.: �, -A—A- MO(ISOM. �... o aWAL PLUM/RIG �:s=� —� Mall ,?_• T�'r_`a•••• ILS: I NA No.vaTAL.xO wmcAL a Mmonto GS PM YR 5.1.. 1.01.1. ROP ,WON xIVI" N. NOxmox1AL MO VVT110.NM TAL O VLR1cr LSI V,: I NA NMOMA .o . . �"�OAT COma y~Y wawa x40 --�L�-0.�• 1u1n1T! MITv In./ VOUS30 el CR. COMM1ORrnOW..ON • OaOAMTdO: I MMOAL NOOMO Vexnw 11.I011ra1 MO1BI.MA. MIGRATIONS: SR OIC OWTM)0 RAM LO! "" O/11/153 GAY.• arrvn V.... ..,IL MITTN. ROOF xa IIw AN. W. War NOLLOW WI WA 1 I Cf.O.n ...._- —__.._ -- AG-Ia N.c TT TIM Na. ...TT W.C. OM. �^^-^• xCN S1W WALL ),I V.xA. I.. W. W...T. . .. ----OMAKVAxO®A.. M..« OO WALL. WS MIM.. A-0 MEM L_ Au.m QLO O Q O l$) rd , Ir-.• -. 214 .r{'. / TT -r it -r I, 0 r -r Ir -d' �t tr4 ' A FL . 0., 41 I I I �— //' �', 111 4 ,i'_I 1 ` 1Z1" 16 RESIDENTIAL UNIT A 13 i b T SjA16 #1(0 `0 4 Is I .-I---- jI I• co '1. " 15 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 12 y EOUIPT. RM y r z r. 4 w INC RESIDENTIAL UNIT C II i 1 COMM. UNIT S' MIXED—USE DI , LLC RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL 30 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Bead), CA PAT AND JAY'S DEVELOPMENT 1541 Bel Alr Road Los Angeles, CA 90077-3021 -- - - - --- —� I - --- - - _ _ - ---- - -- - --- -- �- — b >• 'T _ ., '.� ., 1�� 1/ . _ _. _ _ – . . 1 I 'y GUEST 1 -.-. ]0 C _ . _ --- _ ..–_ _ _ LII— �`iY% 2 COMM. UNIT 'V -" b . --,L_ _ —e---'------'— A COMM. UN[I g y 3C comm.UNIT' F w IT 4 —I - TIE . N—N Roar lion '9''I2- STAIR 1 _ -----• t2 COMM. UNIT --,_ 1 D _� I I NC COMM. UNIT 'V - 4 ° - - _ B ,_ ._ _ y SUMy, 3 ' _...L_ SC COMM, UNIT F 4 - —) – — = � • — – b b Ramp Landing' - 10%SLOPE Rano UP {/- 20%SLOPE -Raw UP (/10%SLDPE R.mP UP r 6 COMM. UNIT T' 4 2.-61.6t`:t Z Er.TauS ]r. S�L Z�� T 4 I \ \ - - .4444 444403-1Pu-10.w. T COMM. UNIT T."" M/IIry NORTH O _ t/.• - I'd b -- co-. _ _ Y4 -' _� r4 r-.. 1 ,-0.. ' ` ° ` , __, �� t, -Ir BASEMENT PLAN A-3.0.... r .,��- - - .,rx O moon a= OT YAW Q...� r4 11--1 rr-r 4 11-1• { tr-r A • (' 1S-rr Irk• 1r-Ip PL i Q 1 „�„ Iin.o.....,.., n1 nlin nrn1�31eb In 1io1n im„ b I rd Yd T_r ��� YX r-r �1 I •` l f f I illi •,. Ovarfd Gate uv BIS, ; I 11 r"' rwe'° COMM. UNIT .0' �. COMM. UNIT F COMM. UNIT F STAIR 1 LOBBY - 74 ! , ' 1 C 2C 3 - Al !! d ca CD Y I :, �SY/ I LOBBY - *• a — Z O— ♦-- _... .,.Tf E E a:1 -=, - Rdl 4P_Ooor 1 j- ' l'i—'-- Mechanical Units for C0111111.141 Spaces - y 1+ 0 o 1� Ci' _�- ` J .. .. ..... ,. ... ` 7 Y STAIR i2 R' I I x_ '-. .- I L 11 sc p1 I b3 --L IOS ..-T - —� W N _ _ ._ _ — _ Trash-Aaopl Smnaa1'e• �_�( Fi"' _ 9) S.F.) ry Y • 1 Una or Slab Brack A - 1 f ;,..1-.)Int.I 1 —w� Wr • E _ C } ♦ -_- Storage 'V (Nee.. 208 S.F.) ___-._.�� ___ _.. _.. 4_. 9.0t- ,. 5o93.F.) re�B15.F r. c vO. pQ ._.• (Raided Slab Platform) ' rI �O I ( V WC OV STAIR*3 FLIT], OF la Rear Ran - _ ...-... Slab Break Below - - --- '....--‹. � I STA/4P 0— s � ` -o- - - ,-- - —0 1 I - - , 1 COMMERCIAL UNIT (Area m 947 S.F.) D COMMERCIAL (Ara UNIT E COMMERCIAL UNIT F .1�� -��__� 3.'i:r= 1rr-....ar I Iw-.N.AT I ® Y i� 'i�"y 7itJ3'.-. I 1 I --aa_roaaauw ss..c ,a .-001/03_ a �- l- 1 Iw O e � �- 7 NORTH O m. al-loo _ �; ? - _�aL O "'� — 'of 12 r_r r-� ;i N- 1ST FLOOR PLAN A-3.1 p%• — q I 1 1 o r-r ''.i). ,V-T as-r r-Ia / CJ " IST, I I_.r `�� lid_ I I II-4-1�1 q� I ` Ij I T`1 ti 1— _ sf1i' 4 ! j / y ISI Z �t 11 �" , 1 ' D E s Ali -71 I a 1 -!•�� I i l R B _ _ I I 111\1 .1 I 0_h , —� -I r{ iil �, I R , p l I 11LIi1 j u� 1 =i— -- ! I 1- I. t ; v IIs1 _ la1 `T R (A1 ' d 1 CO I i ii-i-F i`' I I I - i I i 1O pp j' Y [� I ri __ q f �, T I 9 a II 1 iy fl-, Is i 1_r Y .. -..-... gf i I i9 II — t - R v� I 3 l 1 I I - 4. 1_11_1 , J 4 q IrL1-1-1—T pp 01, n 40 iL- I 1 , �. 1—r �` CLQ a _- I 41 6:,Jj,1�� ". 4" L _L i, r-la. , s•r x� 1 fr. ,r4 r-n• 0 y a-r / i r_/s ' so a-r i n•-r r - N z p T r O v z z O OO ( .r [[ D s y��,,ry•u { q �Is[I( e RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED—USE DEVELOPMENT D D D R w NJ e 2 2 '��s'h , s 'li�'{�� I� �I� [n s 1;4�,s�[[�,l,; € 30 Hermosa Avenue, Oakes ,1l (I) tact s Hermosa Beach, CA ��__ IL PAT AND JAY'S DEVELOPMENT, LLC C,.,,.mill *WK., is 3 {1a 7,[17►8 1541 Bel Air Road Los Angeles, CA 90077-3021 1 g Z9 0 .,. .. a_ >t .... yr, ,r... a -I -- I j VI F ! II IS iS D y _ma 1 1! k `, i; R I t 6 �: i�i 1 i it -; 1 1\1 iI r CI €:.; II fl I11 lI 1 1. 1i1 II ! � — _ — �_ — — — ; iii I 1 .I RE:= 1 ,,, • R:=p .. . I - - - - -• _YJ`. f_ I •.III 1' it 141 v p is I I 3f - �1a 1 _±( 'i/ I-- n - r 1114;1)-i h i, II ; � g �II r 1 ,1 1, t 1; E' er• l'ir I !11 ,I —11� 1111 j EMI P .. I' tz ' [ , p r ...1/ 0_15-2i Ip L J __- y w 73 0 -,1 I- 00 x I, zp D CO W 1 E 4 _. - C 'N11q u j�}, �'�I�� M ' �tllfi,t�j I� t t Itt 4011 4�, l; € RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT 30 Hermosa Avenue, oakes :T I'i'Il'If',•C(ti Hermosa Beath, CA PAT AND JAY'S DEVELOPMENT, LLC 61S Cyp.� A.�,,., DDD D I Fu, oil; 1541 Bel Alr Road 1.1 „�� Los Angeles, CA 90077-3021 """s Z9 Irma on & ........ 1.1121.4 A A A /mar 10.14VEr ti' — S N Gila. ralline Y‘ i 41 -- ..1. R. Skel I III TOP OF FUTF .,,,, 12.1.••• __..i$__IL_1. i 11. r , - ir 11- r 1 ca .... '..? — , , .te .1 L 1-. Y n I I 41 '? .... o .4 MI I RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED—USE DE 30 Hennosa Avenue, Hermosa Beath, CA PAT AND JAY'S DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1541 Be] Air Road Los Angeles, CA 90077-3021 1., .1. __ _ "—I .... li, ,..IIIII MST ROCA . MAW _H - .---1 L__ MMHG WEL 19-.9.50' WEST ELEVATION 0 Cann. .? n ..•s. manor ROM9OF WIPE, T l r , 1 r EAST • WEST ELEVATION • • AIN Rige* ,,,, • .7 [Ti [Ti I I STAMP .. H I L.........-..6 Ii 11.1111./IT ...... s_40 ., , ,, , •.. / . . . . \ .. .... / 11 ,... , , .,.... ' . / • / , \ ,. , —' EWS;. :fgr7 A oo. " .., -4 I 1 1 Y'r ,..1.7772.7...:—. -._. Pr -4-12' —....... r _ . (Ramp talfiran;ant parking) f''' ' K." VC . fIRSTR004 I I ate Comerda Privm Parkin Private ______ Commerdal-Paridn ,... ''''' co-loa MUCK LEM 19-99.50 EAST ELEVATION ...... SCALE: 1/... ,-0A-5.0 . _ • 6/leo December 1, 200: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 03-9 December 9, 2003 1/ 11 i�td t.� RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE CONVERSION OF A BREW -PUB AND RESTAURANT (ON -SALE BEER AND WINE WITH LIVE ENTERTAINMENT) TO A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT WITH ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT LOCATION: 73 PIER AVENUE - MEDITERRANEO Recommendation To sustain the decision of the Planning Commission by adopting the attached resolution. Background At their meeting of October 21, 2003 the Planning Commission approved the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment by a vote of 4:1. PROJECT INFORMATION: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: LOT AREA: AREA OF ESTABLISHMENT: (NO CHANGE IN TOTAL) PARKING: C-2 Restricted Commercial General Commercial 2,802 square feet Approx 3,300 square feet (Interior) 740 square feet (Outdoors)) No on site parking ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt The proposed new restaurant is located on the north side of Pier Plaza, in the former location of "Brewski's". The Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit in 1994. for on -sale beer and wine. In 1997 the Commission approved a CUP amendment for on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment. The CUP for on -sale general alcohol was never implemented. The applicant has commenced work on the alterations for tenant improvements since the alterations do not change or intensify the use of the building as allowed under the 1994 C.U.P and entail less than 1500 square feet of improvement (the threshold for a Precise Development Plan). Analysis • The applicant is altering the interior and exterior to accommodate a new restaurant with a new theme. The improvements will generally change the character of the business from a brewpub/restaurant to a more traditional sit-down restaurant with a broader and more complete menu. The changes include a new seating plan, replacement of bar height tables with lower restaurant tables, and some alterations to the kitchen. The removal of the brewing tanks will allow for more table seating, and further allows for an increase in outdoor tables. Changes to the exterior facade are also included in the project plans. The building facade will be finished with new stone, tile, lighting, column and cornice details and new wood 5b columns will be added to the building interior as part of the change from a v. pub to sit-down restaurant. No changes are proposed to the bar except to add a "wine service" bar, and the location previously identified for a stage for live entertainment has been eliminated. The intent is to continue to have non -amplified entertainment as incidental to primary restaurant use, to provide background music. No specific changes in the conditions of approval have been requested by the applicant. Brewski's operated at this location for nearly ten years as a restaurant with few nuisance and noise complaints. It was one of the earliest businesses to open in conjunction with the downtown revitalization that commenced in 1994. The original owner will also operate Mediterraneo, and plans to maintain the business as a dining establishment. A seating plan has been approved to accommodate fewer occupants than allowed with the seating configuration for Brewski's (a reduction from 144 to 132 including the outdoor seating). The Planning Commission based their decision to approve the project both on the testimony received at the hearing from the applicant and City policy and precedent for other businesses on Pier Plaza. The applicant described the proposed business as having a different emphasis than `Brewski's," and stated their intent to be a restaurant with a broader and more substantial and complete dinner and drink menu, catering to a different, more "up -scale" clientele. With its limited scope of alterations, the proposal does not significantly alter the existing and approved primary use as a restaurant; continues the live entertainment as non -amplified to provide background acoustic music; and does not substantially alter the seating layout, bar area, and other features of the business. Also, the changes are consistent with City policy and precedent for restaurants located along Pier Plaza, which is primarily a restaurant and entertainment district, and has historically been found appropriate for restaurants with full service on - sale alcohol. The proposed Conditions of Approval, therefore, are consistent with the provisions for surrounding restaurants that also offer on -sale alcohol and live entertainment. Since the restaurant, as modified, continues to involve live entertainment, the attached resolution includes a condition for live entertainment in the same manner of the 1997 CUP, to limit the entertainment to non -amplified music unless the applicant prepares an acoustic study pursuant to current noise ordinance requirements if they desire to change the live entertainment from non -amplified to amplified music. Standard conditions for noise attenuation have also been included in the resolution. The Commission also included a 6 -month review of the business for compliance with the C.U.P., which is an effective method for evaluating operations relative to noise or nuisance complaints after the business opens. CONCUR: If AV " ::Viii/ o Blumenfeld, Communi Dev irector opment Department Stephen R. rre City Manager Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Planning Commission Minutes / Resolution 3. Location Map 2 obertso Senior Planner 1 • • RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, UPON RECONSIDERATION, AND AS AMENDED, TO ALLOW ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AT 73 PIER AVENUE, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 27, BLOCK 13 HERMOSA BEACH TRACT Section 1. An application was filed by "Mediterraneo" restaurant, represented by Louis Skelton, seeking an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow on -sale general alcohol, and alterations to an existing restaurant with live entertainment. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit on October 21, 2003, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Based on the evidence considered at the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the request subject to conditions as set forth in P.C. Resolution 03-57. Section 3. On October 28, 2003, the City Council, pursuant to Section 2.52.040, initiated review and reconsideration of the decision of the Planning Commission. Section 4. The City Council conducted a duly notice public hearing to reviewand reconsider the decision of the Planning Commission on December 9, 2003, at which the record of the decision of the Planning Commission and testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council. Section 5. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, and the record of decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council makes the following factual findings: 1. The current Conditional Use Permit (CUP) granted in 1994 was approved for on -sale beer and wine in conjunction with a brewpub and restaurant, and was amended in 1997 for live entertainment. The proposed amendment is to allow general alcohol sales, and to convert the space to a full-service sit down restaurant including the removal of the brewing tanks and the manufacturing of beer on the premises. With its limited scope of alterations, the proposal does not significantly alter the existing and approved primary use as a restaurant and proposes to continue the live entertainment as non -amplified to provide background acoustic music, and does not substantially alter the seating layout, bar area, stage location and other features of the business. 2. The site is located in the downtown district, which has several similar restaurants with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment. 3. The site is zoned C-2 allowing the existing on -sale alcohol use with a Conditional Use Permit. Section 6. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit: 3 1 • • 1. The site is zoned C-2, and the continued operation of the restaurant with the proposed modifications is suitable for the proposed location. 2. The imposition of conditions as required by this resolution to address noise concerns relative to the current requirements of the noise ordinance and to address nuisance concerns will mitigate any negative impacts on, and will improve its compatibility with, nearby residential or commercial properties within the downtown district. 3. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, minor alterations to existing private structures. Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the City Council sustains the decision of the Planning Commission and hereby approves the requested amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, which supersede the conditions contained in P.C. Resolutions 03-57, 94-27 and 97-43: 1. Interior and exterior building alterations and the continued use and operation of the restaurant shall be substantially consistent with the plans submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2003. 2. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. daily. 3. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 PM to 1:15 AM. 4. Double pane windows or solid doors shall be provided on all openings to the outside. 5. Live entertainment shall be limited to background non -amplified acoustic music such as a piano, guitar, violin, etc. 6. If entertainment is to include amplified musical instruments an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer, including proposed sound dampening features to baffle and direct sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Said study and sound dampening features shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits and shall be implemented in the building prior to occupancy. A. The acoustical study shall be based on the worst-case scenario, or on a sound level that will not be exceeded at any given time. B. Management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels. C. During the performance of any live entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed. D. The air conditioning system shall be of an adequate capacity to air condition the restaurant. E. All exterior doors shall have self-closing hardware. 7. No live entertainment or amplified music, audio, television or speakers of any kind shall be permitted in the outside seating areas. 8. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of the residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • 9. The business shall provide adequate staffing and management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons both inside and outside the business and in nearby public areas. 10. The Police Chief shall determine if a continuing police problem exists, and may authorize the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel to eliminate the problem, and/or shall submit a report to the Planning Commission, which will automatically initiate a review of this conditional use permit by the Commission. 11. The exterior of all the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and maintained free of graffiti at all times. 12. Any changes to the interior layout which would alter the primary function of the business as a restaurant shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 13. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 14. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the city's noise ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to surrounding residential neighborhoods, and/or commercial establishments. Noise emanating from the property shall be monitored to verify compliance with the noise ordinance in response to any complaints. 15. The Planning Commission shall review the operation of the restaurant for compliance with conditions of approval and compliance with the Noise Ordinance 6 months from the opening of the new restaurant, and in response to any complaints thereafter. 16. The Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void if not executed within two years of the date of the approval of this Resolution. 17. The owner shall comply with requirements of the encroachment permit for use of the public right- of-way. Section .8. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed a the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Conditional Use Permit Amendment shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance -of a building permit. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of Government Code. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. Section 9. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 2003, PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY B95/cd/cc/Cupr-73Pier 6 • • The Planning Commission expressed thanks and appreciation for the thorough efforts •f thtree subcommittee members, and there was consensus to recommend that the ree subcbmmittee report be forwarded to the City Council for approval. CONSENT\CALENDAR MOTION by •mmissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner ersenboom, to APPROVE the Se• ember 16, 2003, Minutes as submitted. The motion arried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, ersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 5a. Memorandum regarding clarification of con tions in P.C. Resolution No. 03- 47 for a nonconforming remodel at 2540 nhattan Avenue. Director Blumenfeld explained that staff questing that the Planning Commission reconsider some of the wording in two of th'e onditions, the first being the unfinished basement area — pointing out that the prop rty ow r is requesting to reconsider Condition 3 on Page 2, replacing it with the followi g: "3. The tairway that accesses the basement level shall be open to the floor abov , with no doorways, and a deed restriction shall be recorded limiting the use of all f ors of the building one dwelling unit." Director Blumenfeld explained that the is a of having no doorways between the basement level and the floor above is import t to the owner, his desire being not to enclose the stair; explained that doing so wo d create some significant remodeling. problems; and stated that staff believes that by emoving the doors between the floor-to-fl'bor connections, it will alleviate the potential f a future bootleg. Vice -Chairman Tuer pointed out that the property owner would still hav to record a deed restriction, d that this also should alleviate any potential for a bootleg ap- ment. It was the ,consensus of the Planning Commission to make the requested chane - by minute order. Public Hearing(s) 6. CUP 03-9 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to convert a brew -pub to a full-service restaurant with on -sale general alcohol at 73 Pier Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Director Blumenfeld explained that this request is to amend the original conditional use permit that was granted to Brewski's for on -sale beer and wine; stated that an application was subsequently filed and approved for the restaurant with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment; and noted that the on -sale general alcohol portion of the permit was not put into effect. He explained that the owner is proposing a change the format of the restaurant, and that the proposed use is appropriate to the zone and General Plan; advised that the applicant is proposing some cosmetic changes to the exterior of the building; that the interior will be altered to eliminate the micro -brewery portion of the original project; that standard table seating will be created pointing out that the high -top Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2003, Page 2 of 18 7 • • tables will be eliminated; and that within this area, the restaurant will be slightly reconfigured. He noted that there would be no changes to the bar area; that wine service will be added; stated that the location of the previously identified stage for live entertainment has been eliminated; but that the owner is proposing to maintain the entertainment aspect of the conditional use permit, the intent being to have non -amplified entertainment. He expressed staff's belief that the modified proposed use is fitting for the Pier Plaza area; that it will not create additional nuisance problems; and noted that it will not increase the occupant load above the original use. Responding to Vice -Chairman Tucker's inquiry regarding the removal of the brewing tanks and the original Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) licensing, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant will have to reapply for their ABC license. Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. Albro Lundy, representing Mediterraneo Restaurant, handed out a packet of information depicting what is being proposed. Commissioner Perrotti questioned the likelihood of this business becoming more of a club or bar atmosphere in the future. Responding to Commissioner Perrotti's concern, Mr. Lundy stated that limited food service will be available one half hour before last call; advised that the applicant has no intent of this establishment becoming a bar or dancing facility; and explained that the music most likely to take place will be a trio, singles drummer or harp player, something that will add to the elegant ambiance of the establishment. He stated that the quality of the food will make this business a success, not the entertainment. Charile Cheetum, 548 Second Street, expressed his belief that this business should not be permitted to obtain an on -sale general alcohol license, believing that this will allow this establishment to eventually become a bar; and asked that drinking on the patio should be prohibited after 11:00 P.M. Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his belief that the proposed hours of operation are appropriate for a bar, not a restaurant; and stated that this establishment should close at midnight on the weekends and 10:30 P.M. on the weekdays. Roberta Moore, 930 9th Street, stated that she is not opposed to bars in Hermosa Beach. Mr. Lundy stated that this business will raise the business standards in this area; that this business will seek to cater to the older crowd, not college aged individuals; advised that the applicant is in the process of negotiating a transfer for the full liquor license; and stated that if the transfer is refused, the applicant will carry on with the smaller brewing activities. There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kersenboom noted his support for this higher end restaurant; pointed out that it already has a liquor license; and stated that he is looking forward to it opening for business. a Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2003, Page 3 of 18 • • Vice -Chairman Tucker pointed out that the establishment already has a liquor license; commented on the City's periodic review of conditional use permits for conformance; and expressed his belief this business will be a good addition to the Downtown area. Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief that because of the 2:00 A.M. closing of this business, it will likely become a drinking and music establishment; stated that he would prefer not allowing the general alcohol use; and noted that in 6 months, the Planning Commission should review the operations of this business to determine how it is truly performing. Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief that this is a perfect area for this type of restaurant; stated that a rowdy/nuisance business is more of an issue with poor management than it is with serving general alcohol; and stated that he would support a 6 - month review of this permit. Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that the location for this business is appropriate and noted the need to encourage a vital Downtown area. MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 03-9 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to convert a brew -pub to a full-service restaurant with on -sale general alcohol at 73 Pier Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker Pizer None None 7.' . VAR 03-4 -- Variance to allow an addition, remodel and conversion a uplex to a single-family dwelling resulting in lot coverage greater t . 65% at�259 31st Street. Staff Recommended. £ ction: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld expla • - that this project involves proposed to be converted to a o�qggle-family dwelling; stat involves 233 square feet; and advised that the proje parking. He advised that the project is'nonconfor and lot coverage; and explained that the su out that the proposed lot coverage is 71 Planning Commission had approved allowing a 250 -square -foot additio two units and the nonconformi and explained that since t further expansion that i that this request is eliminate one o a second fl reconstr are b d existing duplex which is that the addition in the project will provide a full complement of ng to front and side yard, open space variance relates to lot coverage — pointing Director Blumenfeld explained that the 1997 as a nonconforming remodel, tained the conforming use of the del was completed in 1999; square feet, there is no e project. He stated r is proposing to e floors with ted and floor s project i the duplex that m parking; noted that the re project involved an addition of 2 lowed under the nonconforming status o remove some of the nonconformities; that the ow e units by removing the first floor kitchen and connecting r and a spiral staircase; and noted that the garage will be rel ed closer to the alley, which will allow the addition of 175 square feet h the first floor for an additional bathroom and bedroom and the addition of a mas h on the second floor. r Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2003, Page 4 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 03-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS AMENDED, TO ALLOW ON - SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AT 73 PIER AVENUE, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 27, BLOCK 13 HERMOSA BEACH TRACT Section 1. An application was filed by "Mediterraneo" restaurant, represented by Louis Skelton, seeking an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow on -sale general alcohol, and alterations to an existing restaurant with live entertainment. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit on October 21, 2003, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission Section 3. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. The current Conditional Use Permit (CUP) granted in 1994 was approved for on -sale beer and wine in conjunction with a brewpub and restaurant, and was amended in 1997 for non -amplified live entertainment. The proposed amendment is to allow general alcohol sales, and to convert the space to a full- service sit down restaurant including the removal of the brewing tanks and the manufacturing of beer on the premises. With its limited scope of alterations, the proposal does not significantly alter the existing and approved primary use as a restaurant and proposes to continue the live entertainment as non -amplified to provide background acoustic music, and does not substantially alter the seating layout, bar area, stage location and other features of the business. 2. The site is located in the downtown district, which has several similar restaurants with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment. 3. The site is zoned C-2 allowing the existing on -sale alcohol use with a Conditional Use Permit. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit: 1. The site is zoned C-2, and the continued operation of the restaurant with the proposed modifications is suitable for the proposed location. 2. The imposition of conditions as required by this resolution to address noise concerns relative to the current requirements of the noise ordinance and to address nuisance concerns will mitigate any negative impacts on, and will improve its compatibility with, nearby residential or commercial properties within the downtown district. 3. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, minor alterations to existing private structures. /0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested amendments to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, which supersede the conditions contained in P.C. Resolutions 94-27 and 97-43: 1. Interior and exterior building alterations and the continued use and operation of the restaurant shall be substantially consistent with the plans submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 21, 2003. 2. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. daily. 3. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 PM to 1:15 AM. 4. Double pane windows or solid doors shall be provided on all openings to the outside. 5. Live entertainment shall be limited to background non -amplified acoustic music such as a piano, guitar, violin, etc. 6. If entertainment is to include amplified musical instruments an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer, including proposed sound dampening features to baffle and direct sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Said study and sound dampening features shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permitsand shall be implemented in the building prior to occupancy. A. The acoustical study shall be based on the worst-case scenario, or on a sound level that will not be exceeded at any given time. B. Management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels. C. During the performance of any live entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed. D. The air conditioning system shall be of an adequate capacity to air condition the restaurant. E. All exterior doors shall have self-closing hardware. 1. No live entertainment or amplified music, audio, television or speakers of any kind shall be permitted in the outside seating areas. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of the residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 3. The business shall provide adequate staffing and management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons both inside and outside the business and in nearby public areas. 4. The Police Chief shall determine if a continuing police problem exists, and may authorize the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel to eliminate the problem, and/or shall submit a report to the Planning Commission, which will automatically initiate a review of this conditional use permit by the Commission. l/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • 5. The exterior of all the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and maintained free of graffiti at all times. 6. Any changes to the interior layout which would alter the primary function of the business as a restaurant shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 7. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 8. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the city's noise ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to surrounding residential neighborhoods, and/or commercial establishments. Noise emanating from the property shall be monitored to verify compliance with the noise ordinance in response to any complaints. 9. The Planning Commission shall review the operation of the restaurant for compliance with conditions of approval and compliance with the Noise Ordinance 6 months from the opening of the new restaurant, and in response to any complaints thereafter. 10. The Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void if not executed within two years of the date of the approval of this Resolution. 11. The owner shall comply with requirements of the encroachment permit for use of the public right- of-way. Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed a the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Conditional Use Permit Amendment shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of Government Code. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. Section 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. VOTE: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Tucker NOES: Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 03-57 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of er 21, 2003. Peter Hoffman, Can October 21, 2003 Date Cupr-73Pier l3 Sol Blumen ld, ecretary 14TH ST. JO Jr JO.J !J t.ra.: Jo 23 14 - • 25 r/ V 26 • r Jo ll.l j�100 °O 38 9 30 31 •,IO II 12 13 14 15 16l 17 I8 BLK. II %2 2) .--- '''.170".'..'"70..... ",13 30 JO JJ Il IN • • / a JO K 19 20" JO JO Nl 32 !OI N 3 JO 21 JJ 14 22 23 14 - • 25 r/ V 26 JO crr 27 lJJ 28 l,./ JO 29 JO rt 13TH 6 II t -3 ST Ja JO O O y 8 9 '2 q' .JJ JO '41' M -I 1g 1 30 i . . I rJe.J 1, JO 0-.. b car F • ®/ II C.' BLK 0 12 ror *l 0 1 WI 14 - N 15 - JO \0\ 16 JO zoo 17 . l0 IB A 4 PIER S W m TH JO \.. 19 so JO JO 'f '�,,� .0 20:i 31 1 "8 � :.nl - JO • N iir Q2 4 JO 13 ra 22 I0 - Nl - O 23 21 • •Jo! JO n 24 10 JO /4J,1 ` OIQy 25 1 SI a.J.lI II. J JO 26 6 l0 ! 1, ./ li I U. 127 ;6 J JI of ICI •'O 28 N.I ` JO 29 ^ 7 JO 9183-2 S 14TH ST. g W N 0 2 K W 2 • 201000 m /6N®• AVE. /00 0 9 10 II 0 BLK. 12 b JO 17 "18 JG 11TH N 0 /00 4187-5 0 0 ST. ADDRESS: 73 PIER AVENUE V O • O O r 0 al 0 MANHATTAN • -Er • • • J 3 S2101831NI 'SNOIS30 NISV210 1031IHO IV 'N0113)IS SIf10l Mt f V tv.'3P3; P 41;PtM41:11..""" "" • If PEilliniiig111111111111111111 - mer1611011140'00!milir ili € i € e111€1g ��� Z 1 4"117°8 !Pas1111052:101! 111111111110M 3 9 ;4101 € 1a 111 all€1:di /3 € 111/1 1 � � :14A1Alejsa RRB�TiSB _ x/111110 € Via C e�Sq 2 1 0 P. • • • WU • • 1 14'-4' 8'-0. r -0- ldJQ APiO MOO oan • i> EF • LOUIS SKELTON, ARCHITECT 2537 D PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY #168TOR TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 (310) 375-9992 FAX (310) 378-7935 email: onon®earthlink.com •• PROPOSED ELEVATION & SECTION • MEDITERRANEO 73 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 4 • • 11'-4' I I • • • 12'-81 .1 0 27'-11 1/8'' ro V m• n 1 CD. t 11'-4' I . NMI BM II OD e-■ ' I 1r—s''I ERSA 27'-11 1/8' I m O • • • i N 1 0 x 00 P ii n Ill 6 G % 0 4` BREWERY ARCHITECTS INTERNATIONAL 2537 D PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY # 168 TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505 (310) 375-9992 FAX (310) 378-7935 email: onon®earthlink.com 4 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN MEDITERRANE0 73 PIER AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA b • • I. • • Mediterraneo Mission Statement To create a restaurant with a relaxed atmosphere that focuses on the quality aspects of cuisine, wine, and spirits. Fashioning a feeling of Mediterranean living through simplicity, dining, and passions for the tastes of the kitchen and the bar. Key to Our Success Chef Antonio Race has a long-standing philosophy of creating an atmosphere of learning and growth. All employees will be provided with continuous education throughout their employment. Consistently writing papers and attending classes on food, wine, and spirits. Not only will they know what we carry but how it is made, where it comes from, and the history behind it. Chef Race believes that sharing this passion and knowledge will create something unique which will be seen and felt by everyone that visits. Mediterraneo is not just another job or restaurant; it will be a place of passion and knowledge for food, wine, and spirits. The Menu of Mediterraneo The concept of the menu is very simple, in execution and interpretation. Chef Race has a southern Italian mind when it comes to cooking, healthy simple foods for reasonable prices. While world-class cuisine is always his standard, high prices are not. With appetizers priced $4.00 to $9.00 and main courses priced from $9.00 to $19.00. In addition there will be an extensive tapas menu available in the same price range as appetizers. The kitchen will serve a full menu from 11:00am to 10:00pm and tapas will be available from open to close, one half hour before last call.. Providing an option for the late night dinner. Mediterraneo's goal is to help our clientele understand that you can eat healthy world-class food without spending too much money. i 4 -4 j • • -The Menu - This menu is based on light Mediterranean food and has influences from Italy, Spain, France, and Greece. It is still a work in progress and will change slightly before opening. As one reads through it the concept can be seen and it will hopefully provide a good idea of what we want to offer. Salads House Salad Romaine, Fresh squeezed lemon juice, Extra -virgin olive oil and Sea salt Italian Salad Romaine Lettuce, fresh Tomato, red onion, banana peppers and a red wine vinaigrette Greek Salad Cucumber, Kalamata Olives, Feta cheese, bell peppers French Salad Spanish Salad Caesar Salad Romaine lettuce with a creamy dressing of Parmigiano, finished with croutons Caprese Salad A classic from southern Italy, fresh Mozzarella, tomatoes and basil Spinach and Salmon Salad Baby spinach tossed with Smoked salmon and nuts Cannellini Bean Salad White beans tossed with baby scallops and shrimp and fresh roma tomatoes • • Antipasti Bruschetta Marinated tomatoes over grilled bread Salmon Carpaccio House -cured salmon, laid on a bed of baby greens with red onions and capers Baby shrimp stuffed Avocado Fresh avocado stuffed with tomatoes and shrimp Gamberi Diavola Sauteed shrimp served in a spicy tomato sauce Prosciutto with Melon An Italian classic -thinly sliced Prosciutto wrapped around slices of canteloupe Chilled Seafood Plate Shrimp, Scallops, Green Mussels, Calamari Meats and Cheeses Imported meats and cheeses from the Mediterranean Olive Plate An outstanding selection of olives from the Mediterranean Mount Vesuvius A beautiful mountain of Mozzarella erupting roasted red peppers Antipasta della Casa Mushrooms, broccoli, carrots, spinach, and artichokes Prosciutto -wrapped Asparagus Thin slices of Prosciutto wrapped around spears of asparagus and baked with Parmigiano Seared Tuna Seared Tuna laid on a bed of baby greens • • Panini Spinach and Mozzarella Sauteed spinach and fresh mozzarella Prosciutto and Mozzarella Imported Parma Prosciutto with fresh mozzarella, tomato and basil Grilled Eggplant Grilled eggplant and Provolone Smoked Salmon Smoked Salmon, baby greens, onions and capers Roast Beef An outstanding roast beef served with lettuce and tomato Grilled Chicken Breast Grilled chicken breast, roasted pepper sauce and provolone • • Main Course The main courses below include lunch and dinner options Penne all'Antonio Hollow pasta sauteed in a light, pink cognac sauce with scallops and shrimp Bacetti alla Sorrentino Ravioli stuffed with cheese served in a light tomato sauce topped with fresh mozzarella Tortellini alla Panna Meat tortellini sauteed with mushrooms, peas and ham in a cream sauce Gnocchi alla Sorrentino House -made gnocchi in a fresh roma tomato sauce finished with mozzarella and basil Linguine alla Pescatore Linguine in a rich tomato sauce with shellfish Greek Pasta Kalamata, Feta cheese and roasted pepper sauce Linguine alla Puttanesca Oil -cured olives and capers cooked in a rich tomato sauce, tossed in linguine Penne alla Mediterraneo Penne pasta in a sauce of fresh roma tomatoes and calamari, finished with parsley Penne all'Arrabiata A traditional Neapolitan dish- spicy tomato sauce with penne pasta and basil Matriciana A tradition from Rome-Pancetta with a light tomato sauce Bolognese An Italian classic -slow cooked tomato sauce infused with meat and vegetables Pollo Pulcinella Chicken breasts sauteed in a pink sauce with sun-dried tomatoes, shrimp and a side of pasta Salmone all'Antonio Salmon filet sauteed in a delicate lemon sauce and served with vegetables Filetto alfa Griglia Filet Mignon grilled to perfection and laid on a bed of greens with a side of vegetables Pesce Spada alfa Griglia Grilled Swordfish steak marinated in a red wine mint vinaigrette Tonno in Padella Pan -seared Tuna finished with extra -virgin olive oil and a side of grilled vegetables Paiella A combination of shellfish, fish and vegetables in a saffron rice Zuppa di Pesce Fish and shellfish stewed in a rich tomato sauce Grilled Lamb Grilled lamb served with cannelloni beans and roasted red peppers Vegetarian Lasagna Layers of pasta, freshly grilled vegetables and a light tomato sauce Couscous A vegetarian's delight -couscous with fresh vegetables • Grigliata Mista di Pesce Salmon, swordfish, scallops and shrimp grilled and laid on a bed of baby greens Pollo Sette Colli Chicken breast topped with roasted peppers and mozzarella in a light white wine sauce, served with a side of pasta • • .0 December 1, 2003 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council December 9, 2003 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; ZONE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL SPA -7 TO R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; AND, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NINE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission, at their meeting of August 19, 2003, considered the requests of the applicant, and based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, voted 5:0 to deny General Plan Amendment (GPA) 03-3, Zone Change (ZC) 03-3, Condominium (CON) 03-7, Precise Development Plan (PDP) 03-8 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 060067. The Planning Commission found that the requested redesignation and rezoning of the property to residential use is not in the best interest of the City with respect to long-term development of the Pacific Coast Highway Commercial Corridor. Specifically, the Commission found that the General Plan Map accurately depicts the appropriate commercial depth for long-term land use and development of the commercial corridor and is at a consistent depth for the block between 5th and 6th Street, and that reducing the potential depth for commercial development would preclude the opportunity for new commercial activity or the continuation or expansion of existing commercial activity along the Highway, and will reduce the already limited opportunities for new and/or expanded commercial uses along Pacific Coast Highway. Site Information GENERAL PLAN: ZONING: DEPTH FROM P.C.H: EXISTING USE: UNITS ALLOWED IF R-2 ZONE: NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED: PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Commercial Corridor SPA -7 140 to 290 Feet Commercial 9 6 Under Latest Plan Revision 2,500 to 2,600 Square Feet Each Unit Negative Declaration Recommended' The subject property is located on the north side of Fifth Street, and contains no connection to or frontage on Pacific Coast Highway and is currently fully developed with commercial uses. The property abuts property to the east and north that also is designated Commercial and zoned SPA - 7, and contains commercial uses. Abutting property to the west and across Fifth Street to the south are designated Medium Density Residential and zoned R-2. The subject property is currently occupied by four businesses including two motor vehicle repair shops, an auto upholstery shop and an office. The General Plan was changed from Multi -Use Corridor to Commercial Corridor, and the zoning changed from C-3 to S.P.A. 7 as a result of the "Multi -Use Corridor" study in 1989. The depth forcommercial development from P.C.H. is 290 feet. Motor vehicle related business and a retail flower shop occupy -the remaining property on the block between 5th and 6th Streets, which surround the subject property to the north and east, and which also contains frontage on P.C.H. Sc • • Analysis GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT / ZONE CHANGES The applicant is proposing to limit the Commercial General Plan and Zoning Map designations to a depth of 140 feet from P.C.H. and change the subject property to Medium Density Residential and R-2. While this is more consistent with the property to the south across 5th Street, which has a commercial depth of 130 feet, it is inconsistent with abutting property to the north, which shares this same block and has a commercial depth of 290 feet. (Please See Attached Zoning Map). The central policy issue for City Council in all of the Highway related zone change requests is where to draw the commercial boundary and whether the commercial lot depth should be maintained or reestablished. Approving these changes would preclude future use of the property for commercial purposes and limit the potential redevelopment of the Pacific Coast Highway fronting commercial property. The proposed change is significant as it reduces the commercial lot depth by 150 feet (from 290 feet to 140 feet). The question of what can practically be developed in 150 feet is useful in making a decision about the proposed rezoning. Hypothetically, a 150 -foot depth allows development of a strip mall (in line shops and surface parking) or up to 10,000 square feet of two-story office development with 2 levels of subterranean parking for 40 cars. A 290 -foot depth allows development of a hotel larger than those recently developed along the Highway at 2"a (Holiday Inn) and 15th Street (Hampton Inn). In commercial areas such as the Highway, most hotels are relatively small, however, the larger the site the more desirable for hotel development according to the Hilton Hotels Corporation.2 It is arguable that the City's goal of enhancing the commercial development by ensuring commercial lot depth has been realized with projects such as these two new hotels, and the new Say -On drugstore. The applicant argues that this property does not fit in with the intent of encouraging new commercial development along P.C.H. because of existing ownership divisions, and economic and neighborhood compatibility considerations. To support this argument the applicant has provided a traffic generation analysis and a supplemental fiscal analysis that estimates the existing and potential tax revenue associated with this property. The traffic analysis demonstrates the lesser traffic impacts residential uses have as compared to commercial uses, and the fiscal analysis demonstrates the potential fiscal advantage to the city in terms of tax revenue of the proposed residential use as compared to the existing commercial use. According to the analysis, even a successful commercial redevelopment of the site would provide no greater fiscal revenue than the residential uses because of the property tax gains. In response to these arguments, the issue of neighborhood compatibility is really subject to the kind of use proposed for a property. Some commercial uses such as hotels are very good commercial neighbors and have little impact upon the surrounding area., Regarding the fiscal analysis, the report does not fairly reflect what assembled property with a hotel would produce in tax gains or the tax benefits if developed with a larger business "mini -box" use such as an Office Depot or Staples. The report simply examines a 3,500 sq. ft. stand alone business or part of a complex of retail stores. The point of the SPA zone is to force land assembly to a higher and better use. A more complete analysis would show the net affect for a hotel or mini -box use over 1.4 acres, the total land area under the current zoning. In considering the appeal, the Council must weigh the benefits of rezoning and redesignating commercially zoned property along the commercial corridor, against the disbenefits of losing some of the relatively small amount of commercial property in the City. Approximately 14% of • • the City is zoned commercial and less than 6% of that land is located along the City's commercial corridors. Reducing the depth of commercial lots renders the remainder of a site less usable for quality commercial and tends to have collateral effects on abutting properties since it becomes harder to provide the kinds of environmental mitigation for a project (increased setbacks, landscaping, etc.) that larger sites afford. RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT The applicant has provided project plans, revised since the Commission meeting, to show the intended residential development should the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change be approved. The project has been modified from 9 -units in three attached clusters, to a project containing six detached units. The applicant as part of the appeal submitted these revised plans. If the Council does not support the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change there is no reason to consider the details of the development permits for the condominium project. However, if the Council determines to approve the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the Council can only act on the originally submitted 9 -unit residential project as part of this appeal. Otherwise the applicant's modified development project must be remanded back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. The applicant's preference is to have the project remanded back to the Planning Commission. Staff is providing the following general analysis of the modified residential project as information for the benefit of the Council if it is considering approval of the GPA and Zone Change to R-2. The development permits on this modified project, however, are separate from the legislative actions required for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, and must be remanded back to the Planning Commission since it is not the same project reviewed by the Commission. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN / CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — IF R-2 ZONE The proposed project, as revised for Council review consists of six detached units. One driveway will be provided on Fifth Street to provide vehicle access to all the units along a common "motor court". The buildings each contain two stories above a basement, and roof decks. The units range in size from 2,500 square feet to 2,568 square feet and contain 3 bedrooms and a den and 3 Y2 bathrooms. The buildings are designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style of architecture. The project originally submitted for Planning Commission consideration contained the maximum number of units that would be allowable in the R-2 zone (9 units), in three attached clusters, in a contemporary design. Also, the unit sizes were much smaller, ranging from 1,200 square feet to 1,600 square feet. Each unit contains a two -car garage private with access via the common motor court to Fifth Street. Guest parking in is provided along the common driveway adjacent to the garages, with three more guest parking spaces provided than required by the Zoning Ordinance for a total of 6 spaces. No on street parking will be lost, as the new curb cut on Fifth Street will replace two existing curb cuts. The project is generally designed to comply with the R-2 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Lot coverage calculates to be 38%, to comply with the maximum of 65% and all required yards are provided. The prevailing setback along the north side of Fifth Street is 10 -feet, and the project provides 10 feet for all the building that front on Fifth Street. The plans show sufficient common open space area to comply with the requirement for projects containing five or more units, as 646 square feet is provided in a landscaped garden area in the rear of the property. The plans also 3 provide for the minimum of 300 square feet of open space per unit, witdecks and private yards. The Zoning Ordinance describes the required common open space area or facility as areas that may include "play areas, pool, spa, recreation room, gym, garden and similar amenities for the common use of all owners." The proposed common open area for this project contains a picnic area which would appear to be sufficient to comply with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The structures are proposed to comply with the 30 -foot height limit, as measured from existing corner point elevations and existing grade, but the plans do not provide the necessary detail on the roof plans at this point to verify compliance with the height limit. In summary, the condominium project plans are sufficient to demonstrate the applicant's intent for developing this property should the General Plan Map and Zoning Map be changed, and show a project that complies with R-2 zoning requirements and typical design requirements of the Commission. However, further detail will be needed on project plans if remanded to the Planning Commission to meet the standard of review typically required by the Commission. So Blumenfeld, Community Dev Concur: irect r opment Department Stephe r urrell City Manager Attachments 1. Resolution to sustain the Commission's denial 2. Planning Commission Minutes / Resolution 3. Maps (Location, General Plan, Zoning) 4. Aerial Photo and site photos 5. Applicant's letter and analysis (traffic study, fiscal analysis) 6. Correspondence Ken Ro ' e " on Senior Planner 1 At their meeting of July 10, 2003, The Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended an environmental negative declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendment/Zone Change, and the development plan based on the initial study, and traffic impact analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan which demonstrates that residential use will have a substantially lower traffic generation than the existing uses, and 3 other alternative commercial land uses. Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan dated June 9, 2003. Table 2 provides the traffic generation comparison between the existing use, the proposed residential use, and alternative commercial uses; specialty retail; fast food restaurant; sit-down restaurant. The most recent project revision reduces the number of dwelling units to six from nine originally proposed. 2. Hilton Hotels Corporation, Greg Francois, Vice President Western Region. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • RESOLUTION 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO SUSTAIN THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 (S.P.A. 7) TO TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2), AND TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 6 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 FIFTH AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE WEST 150 FEET OF A PORTION OF LOT 24, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Andrew Fisher owner of property at 725 Fifth Street seeking to amend the General Plan Map and the Zoning Map for the subject property, and for a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 6 -unit condominium project. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and condominium project on August 19, 2003 at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Based on the testimony and evidence reviewed at the hearing the Commission denied the requests, as set forth in P.C. Resolution 03-43. Section 3. The applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision, and modified the condominium project by reducing the number of proposed units from nine to six. Section 4. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and entitlements for a condominium project on December 9, 2003, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council. Section 5. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, and the record of decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council makes the following factual findings: 1. The property is designated Commercial Corridor on the General Plan Map, and S.P.A. 7 (Commercial Specific Plan Area) on the official City Zoning Map as a result of the Multi -Use Corridor study in 1989. The S.P.A. 7 zoning for the site allows continued commercial use of the property, or an assembly of this property with the P.C.H. fronting commercial property, and does not allow residential use. 2. The requested change will reduce the depth of the commercial designated property, as measured from P.C.H. westward, from 290 feet to 140 feet, and replace the commercial designations on the subject property to allow residential development for up to nine units consistent with the Medium Density Residential classification of the General Plan and the R-2 Zoning district in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The property at 725 Fifth Street currently is used for commercial purposes containing motor vehicle repair shops and an office. 1 • • 4. The adjacent property to the north is designated on the General Plan and Zoning Maps for commercial purposes to a depth of 290 feet, and to the south across Fifth street to a depth of 130 feet. 5. Surrounding abutting property to the north and east is designated Commercial Corridor on the General Plan Map and Zoned R-2, and is currently developed with automotive related commercial uses. Section 6. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to the General Plan Map to reduce the depth of the Commercial Corridor designation from 290 to 140 feet, is not in the best interest of the City with respect to long-term land use and development of the Pacific Coast Highway Commercial Corridor. 2. The General Plan Map accurately depicts the appropriate commercial depth for long- term land use and development of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor at this segment of the corridor and is at a consistent depth for the block between 5th and 6`h Street. 3. Reducing the potential depth for commercial development would preclude the opportunity for new commercial activity or the continuation or expansion of existing commercial activity along the subject segment of the P.C.H., and will reduce the already limited opportunities for new and/or expanded commercial uses to locate along Pacific Coast Highway within the boundaries of Hermosa Beach. Section 7. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the requested General Plan Amendment. Section 8. By virtue of the denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment, it would be contrary to State Law to approve the Zone Change because such a change it would render the Zoning designation inconsistent with the General Plan designation. Therefore, the Zone Change is hereby denied. Section 9. By virtue of the denial of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change it would be contrary to the Municipal Code to approve the proposed 9 -unit residential condominium project as the current zoning does not permit residential uses. Therefore the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 6 -unit condominium are hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of ,2003 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY B95/cd/cc/ZCr725-5thdenial include ' s in: along the roof line. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, NOES: None ABSTAIN: Non ABSE►I one ucker 9. GP 03-2/ZC 03-3/CON 03-7/PDP 03-8 -- General Plan amendment from Commercial Corridor (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MD); zone change from Commercial SPA -7 to R-2 Two -Family Residential; or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 60067 for a nine -unit condominium project; and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 725 5th Street. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Blumenfeld advised that this site currently consists of 4 businesses; stated that immediately east of the subject site are other auto -related uses that comprise the full commercial depth of this zone; and noted that this property has been commercially zoned for many years. He stated that in 1989, the City approved a Multi -Unit Use Corridor Study and as a result, rezoned the property from C-3 to SPA -7, which essentially retained the commercial zone designation. He added that this maintains the depth of the commercial lot at 290 feet; advised that the applicant is proposing to rezone and re -designate the property to R-2 and Medium Density Residential, which would be consistent with the property to the south but inconsistent with the property to the north. Director Blumenfeld stated that the central issue in this zone change is where the commercial lot depth. is to be established and/or whether it should be maintained. In the present zone case, he added that the zoning will reduce the commercial lot depth by 150 feet, basically from 290 feet to 140 feet, which would preclude the opportunity to more efficiently redevelop the property commercially if the demand develops. He added that the question of what can be developed on assembled property on a 290 -foot lot depth versus a 140 -foot lot depth is helpful in making a decision about rezoning this property — stating that, hypothetically, a 150 -foot lot depth allows development of a strip center with in-line shops and surface parking or, alternatively, a 10,000 - square -foot office building with two floors of subterranean parking. He explained that in contrast, a 290 -foot lot depth readily accommodates development of 70 plus room hotel, with surface parking. The larger lot size the greater the opportunity for more hotel or retail development. He added that the City Council has generally supported maintaining the commercial lot depth but most recently approved the rezoning and re -designation of a parcel on 10th Street. Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant argues that the property cannot be commercially redeveloped because of ownership patterns, economic consideration, and neighborhood compatibility; that patterns of ownership preclude the ability to assemble the property for larger commercial projects and that the traffic analysis demonstrates the proposed residential use is a lower traffic generator than any commercial use for the property. He added that the fiscal analysis compares the financial impact in terms of revenues to the City and indicates that a successful commercial development on the site provides no greater revenue to the City than a residential 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2003 project due to property tax gains; and in a separate correspondence, he noted that the applicant argues that a residential project also yields more revenue than the current commercial project. In response to the applicant's arguments, Director Blumenfeld explained that the issue of commercial neighborhood compatibility is subject to the kind of use proposed for the site; that some commercial uses, such as hotels, are, in fact, very good commercial neighbors and have very little impact upon adjacent residential uses. He advised that the traffic analysis accurately reflects that residential uses are generally a lower traffic generator than commercial uses, however, the fiscal analysis does not reflect the fact that the property could be fully assembled to accommodate larger uses such as a hotel or mini -box retailer which would produce substantially greater tax gains if developed. Director Blumenfeld explained that the point of the SPA designation is to force land assembly to a higher and better use and that a better fiscal analysis would have shown the net affect of such uses assembled with property for a fairer comparison. He added that the owner argues that for 30 years the SPA -7 zone has not resulted in such projects being developed, however, both the SPA zone and the underlying C-3 zone have produced this sort of redevelopment north and south of the subject property, such as the Hampton Inn Hotel and the Holiday Inn. He stated that these projects were developed over the last 5 years. Director Blumenfeld explained that mixed use development is a real possibility for the City's commercial corridors — pointing out that this is currently under consideration by the City Council. He stated that with regard to questioning where to draw the commercial lot depth, the City would have to come to some accommodation between the benefits of rezoning and re -designating the commercially zoned property against the disbenefit of losing some of the relatively small commercially zoned property in the City. He mentioned that 14 percent of the City is commercially zoned, 6 percent of that being comprised by the commercial corridor. Relative to the proposed project, Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant is proposing 9 detached units served by a common driveway at 5th Str� to 8 fee; that hethat thee lng setback along 5th common open space Street is 10 feet; that the project provides a setback of proposed is consistent with the City's requirements, 900 square feet being provided; but stated that the plans are deficient in the amount of private open space directly accessible to primary living area, with the common areas being shown as passive recreation areas rather than containing other amenities that are suggested in the code, such as a pool, spa or active .use. He stated that there are 9 parking spaces required for the project; that the project is fully parked with all parking in garage spaces; that all guest parking is supplied on site per code; and mentioned that the project units are not varied,- which has been a previous concern of this Commission. Overall, he stated that the project complies with all development standards in the zone but for the open space issue directly adjacent to primary living area. He added that staff will return at the next meeting with a resolution if the Planning Commission decides to approve the zone change and General Plan Amendment. Chairman Hoffman opened the -public hearing. Steve Kaplan, 1219 Morningside Drive, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, highlighted the numerous signatures on the petition to support this application; stated that he is not challenging the underlying philosophical/policy arguments in support of retaining the present General Plan and zoning classification on the property; explained that the purpose is to encourage the development of high quality commercial projects along PCH. He expressed his belief that the City's policy goals Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2003 • • are not achievable in this area — pointing out that all 3 projects mentioned in staff report, Say -on and the hotels, were developed at a depth far less than 300 feet, closer to the 150 in question. He highlighted the following 9 reasons/practical arguments in favor of amending the General Plan and changing the zoning classification for his client's property at 725 5th Street: 1) The stated policy goal of both the SPA -7 and the Commercial Corridor has not produced the desired results, at least as it affects the 3 larger parcels in SPA -7. Mr. Kaplan stated that there are only 3 parcels in the SPA -7 zone that have 300 feet in depth — his client's site, the Verizon site, and the Learned Lumber site. He added that the Verizon and Learned Lumber sites are under single ownership and controlled by one party; stated that the site he is representing here this evening is tucked behind a site that fronts 5`h and 6th Streets, goes down 6`h a little bit and does not front PCH and, thus, to have any sort of integrated quality development that would include his client's property would require some sort of cooperation between the property owners, at least in the sort run. He stated that none of the 3 sites have been redeveloped with new commercial projects since the goal of the Commercial Corridor has been put in place — pointing out that the larger users need larger sites, better access and more parking and that none is available on PCH; and that because of congested traffic, parking and restrictive the nature of these sites, he expressed his belief that this goal cannot be met. 2) His client's property does not front on PCH -- it fronts on 5th Street, and the access is from a residential street. 3) The proposed 9 -unit project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kaplan stated that at the moment, the applicant's property contains 4 businesses within the property lines; that these businesses are filled with cars coming and going; and that these uses are not compatible with the 3 consecutive 4 -unit residential apartment complexes across the street. 4) The surrounding neighborhood residents support the applicant's proposed project, as noted in the petitions that have been provided. 5) The proposed project would lessen traffic impacts in the surrounding neighborhood. 6) The proposed project would not cause any negative impact to the City revenue and fiscally. 7) The existing PCH frontage property between 5th and 6th Streets provides sufficient depth for new potential development. Mr. Kaplan stated that in all 3 of the projects noted in staff's presentation, the two hotels and the Say -on, are all developed with PCH frontage -depth of approximately 140 feet. 8) The owner of the PCH frontage property which land -locks the applicant's property is unwilling to develop integrated commercial property and unwilling to consider swapping the properties. 9) Approving the requested action is not precedent -setting, noting that City Council has recently approved a similar request near PCH. 9 Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2003 .• • Mr. Kaplan concluded that these 9 reasons are practical and outweigh the philosophical policy of hoping to attract large-scale commercial development on the PCH corridor, given the reality that larger parcels are needed and are not available on PCH. Rick Learned, 2716 Via Alacones, Palos Verdes Estates, owner of apartment buildings directly across the street from the proposed project site, expressed his support for all 9 points addressed by Mr. Kaplan; and addressed his support for the proposed request. Bill Klavo, 714 5th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed his concern with weekend and night disturbances with a large business at this site in the area; and stated that he would prefer to see homeownership over commercial development. Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing. Vice -Chairman Tucker addressed his concern with the City losing this commercial parcel and stated that the City cannot afford to lose anymore commercial parcels along PCH. Commissioner Kersenboom stated that in the last 5 years the City has experienced major businesses locating on substantial lots within the City; and stated that because of these changing times, he would not support any loss of commercial land. Commissioner Perrotti highlighted the low percentage of available commercial land in the City; stated that he would not support the applicant's request, believing that this could set a precedent for future proposals; and expressed his belief that the proposed condominium units are small and that it may create a parking problem in the area. Commissioner Pizer concurred. Chairman Hoffman expressed his belief that there is no compelling argument that this needs to be done at this time. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to DENY GP 03-2/ZC 03- 3/CON 03-7/PDP 03-8 -- General Plan amendment from Commercial Corridor (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MD); zone change from Commercial SPA -7 to R-2 Two -Family Residential; or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 60067 for a nine -unit condominium project; and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 725 5th Street. Motion carried as follows: AYES:, Hoffman, Kersenboom; Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE /0 • Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • • P.C. RESOLUTION 03-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO DENY A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR (CC) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 (S.P.A. 7) TO TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 FIFTH AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE WEST 150 FEET OF A PORTION OF LOT 24, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Andrew Fisher owner of property at 725 Fifth Street seeking to amend the General Plan Map and the Zoning Map for the subject property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on August 19, 2003 at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission Section 3. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. The property is designated Commercial Corridor on the General Plan Map, and S.P.A. 7 (Commercial Specific Plan Area) on the official City Zoning Map as a result of the Multi -Use Corridor study in 1989. The S.P.A. 7 zoning for the site allows continued commercial use of the property, or an assembly of this property with the P.C.H. fronting commercial property, and does not allow residential use. 2. The requested change will reduce the depth of the commercial designated property, as measured from P.C.H. westward, from 290 feet to 140 feet, and replace the commercial designations on the subject property to allow residential development for up to nine units consistent with the Medium Density Residential classification of the General Plan and the R-2 Zoning district in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The property at 725 Fifth Street currently is used for commercial purposes containing motor vehicle repair shops and an office. 4. _ The adjacent property to the north is designated on the General Plan and Zoning Maps for commercial purposes to a depth of 290 feet, and to the south across Fifth street to a depth of 130 feet. 5. Surrounding abutting property to the north and east is designated Commercial Corridor on the General Plan Map and Zoned R-2, and is currently developed with automotive related commercial uses. mix of single and multi -family uses. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to the General Plan Map to reduce the depth of the Commercial Corridor designation from 290 to 140 feet, is not in the best interest of the City with respect to long-term land use and development of the Pacific Coast Highway Commercial Corridor. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 • 2. The General Plan Map accurately depicts the appropriate commercial depth for long- term land use and development of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor at this segment of the corridor and is at a consistent depth for the block between 5th and 6th Street. 3. Reducing the potential depth for commercial development would preclude the opportunity for new commercial activity or the continuation or expansion of existing commercial activity along the subject segment of the P.C.H., and will reduce the already limited opportunities for new and/or expanded commercial uses to locate along Pacific Coast Highway within the boundaries of Hermosa Beach. Section 5. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the requested General Plan Amendment. Section 6. By virtue of the denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment, it would be contrary to State Law to approve the Zone Change because such a change it would render the Zoning designation inconsistent with the General Plan designation. Therefore, the Zone Change is hereby denied. Section 7. By virtue of the denial of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change it would be contrary to the Municipal Code to approve the proposed 9 -unit residential condominium project as the current zoning does not permit residential uses. Therefore the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 9 -unit condominium is hereby denied. VOTE: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 03-43 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of August 19, 2003 August 19, 2003 Date zcr725-5th denial l- 133111S Hl5 5ZL :SS31:1aad 4.v ZZ OZ 0„( • `D tp 61 p h u' 81 • LI 9/ H15 S / W 4 0r zU :acv's/ yr 0 O 00 M r. «r •1, • ' 0i• lit t 1- -p: 00 2 9/ f o0i a.a. • M r _ ao t I � M 10 N vt t 8°,0 !IVO/ 4 1 5 9 L .1 ..ahi 1 ...rr R I034 I M CS 9 it O// 00 91 2 X06 0r/ E. 4 H19 '1S $1t/ 06 701 t) Oct L °t_-9- -- e I slb 1 ® o,a/ 01/� 6t 91 .o Oq J 1 W 01 101 01/ 0 01/ r•M119 SZ X10'1 0e' A Sr 9i 061 1 or • S 061 0` 9 02 I /1 I ZZ 1'Od LZ 101 ® 8L 'N18 06? 0a • .s0'^1_ 0/ DO CO V5 '1S H1L or • LEGEND Category - use LD - Low Density Residential (max. 13 du/ac) MD - Medium Density Residential (max. 25 du/ac) HD - High Density Residential (max. 33 du/ac) GC - General Commercial NC - Neighborhood Commercial CR - Commercial Recreation CC - Commercial Corridor IND - Industrial OS - Open Space / Public Facilities SPA - Specific Plan Area (max. 14.7 du/ac) MHP - Mobile Home Park ►AST CC NINE ST. MD N GRAVELY CT. CC ID MD CC HD HIGHWAY 1 CC Proposed for Redesignation From CC (Commercial Corridor) to MD (Medium Density Residential) Ni MD MD i co LL OCEAN VIEW LD CC CC MD GENERAL PLAN MAP co 0 J MIN • LEGEND Zone - Use R-1 - One Family Residential R -1A - Umited One Family Residential R-2 - Two Family Residential R -2B - Umited Multiple Family Residential R-3 - Multiple Family Residential R -P - Residential Professional RPD - Residential Planned Development C-1 - Neighborhood Commercial C-2 - Restricted Commercial C-3 - General Commercial M-1 - Ught Manufacturing OS - Open Space OS -1 - Restricted Open Space PA -7 COAST SPA -7 SPA -7 R-2 'a •v6 W W V y W i GRAVELY CT. R 2 ' I. 10 R-3 -- SPA-7 HIGHWAY OCEAN VIEV R-1 SPA -7 Proposed for Change From SPA -7 To R-2 R-2 y W 4, SPA -7 R-2 M-1 * i W y _ y ZONING MAP Is 725 Fifth Street • • STEVE KAPLAN ATTORNEY AT LAW December 2, 2003 City Council City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attention: Ken Robertson Senior Planner, Community Development Department Re: Property located at 725 Fifth Street, Hermosa Beach Members of City Council: The undersigned represents Andrew Fisher, the owner of the above referenced property and the applicant with respect to the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Precise Development Plan and Tentative Subdivision Map applications to be heard on appeal before the City Council on the evening of December 9th The purpose of this letter is to detail our reasons for seeking the support of the City Council in approving 1) the change of the General Plan designation of my client's property from Commercial Corridor to Medium Density Residential and the corresponding zoning designation from Specific Plan Area No. 7 to R-2; and 2) the revised Precise Development Plan and coincident subdivision map. Please find outlined below our positions in support of the filed applications: 1. For well over 30 years the City of Hermosa Beach has had a policy goal of seeking to maintain a 300 -foot depth of commercially zoned frontage along the southerly portion of Pacific Coast Highway, from Eight Street south to the 190th Street city limits. The goal of the policy is to encourage large scale, integrated commercial developments. With the adoption of Specific Plan Area 7, the city codified this goal. In only 3 instances, however, was the goal of mapping/maintaining a zoning depth of 300 feet of commercial frontage along PCH realized. Unfortunately, however, no large-scale projects, incorporating all of the 300 -foot depth potential, have been developed. In fact, of the three new developments approved or constructed since the adoption of SPA -7, two have frontage depths less than 200 feet (125 PCH/Holiday Inn Express and 155 PCH/Sav-On Drug) and the other site (1530 PCH/Hampton Inn) has a frontage depth of 150 feet, similar to the property affected by the subject applications. Although the goal of promoting large commercial development along the highway is understandable, including the potential of creating and increasing annual fiscal revenues for the city, the policy has not achieved its desired end result. 1 219 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE SUITE 212 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 PHONE (310) 802.1230 FAX (310) 802.0060 E-MAIL SIKREATTY@AOL.COM /$ • • Hermosa Beach City Council December 2, 2003 Page 2 In the instant matter, my client's property does not front Pacific Coast Highway. His property is surrounded on two sides by the property fronting the highway and on the other two sides by residentially zoned property. The access to my client's property is from Fifth Street, adjacent to apartments across the street and a single family home to the west. In addition, my client has approached the owner of the property that fronts Pacific Coast Highway between Fifth and Sixth Street about the possibility of an integrated development. The other owner is not in favor of any such arrangement. Given the facts that my client's property 1) does not front PCH; 2) does not have access off PCH; 3) is adjacent to residentially zoned properties; and 4) that the existing commercial property fronting PCH has a very usable depth of 150 feet, I believe our request to change the General Plan and Zoning designations of my client's property is both reasonable and justified. In support of the filed applications, please find submitted herewith petitions signed by 76 Hermosa Beach residents expressing their support for my client. 2. Included in the materials submitted to the planning staff in support of our application is a Trip Generation Analysis report from the firm of Linscott Law & Greenspan. The conclusion of said report is that the proposed project will have a significantly lesser traffic impact than the existing use of the subject site or any other proposed project site alternative. 3. Also included in the materials submitted to the planning staff is a Comparative Fiscal Revenue Projection from the firm of Kosmont Partners. The conclusion of this report indicates that the city will receive more annual fiscal revenue from my client's proposed project than it presently receives from the existing site uses. 4. Finally, and in answer to the contrary consensus opinion of the Planning Commission, I believe that in addition to the reasons outlined above, two compelling reasons exist to support our applications: • The goal of maintaining a strict adherence to a 300 -foot commercial frontage on Pacific Coast Highway in SPA -7 has not been realized and has not worked. I urge the City Council to acknowledge this practical reality and ask Council to consider approving well planned projects, such as the one before you, that deviate from policy yet bring a benefit to and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and community. • The applicant is this matter deserves the support and help of the City Council to realize his dreams after 25 years of being a part of the Hermosa Beach business community. His property, situated off the highway is no longer a viable commercial parcel. The site is more compatible with the adjacent residential uses and should be so classified. • • Hermosa Beach City Council December 2, 2003 Page 3 For all of the reasons discussed above, request is hereby made to the City Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and to approve all of the entitlement applications filed concerning the property located at 725 Fifth Street. Thank you for your consideration of this material and I look forward to appearing before you next Tuesday evening. Sincerely aplan ENGINEERS ENGINEERS & PLANNERS • TRAFFIC, TRANSPORTATION, PARKING 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 • Costa Mesa, California 92626 Phone: 714 641-1587 • Fax: 714 641-0139 June 9, 2003 Mr. Andrew Fisher c/o Steve Kaplan 1219 Morningside Drive Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Philip M. Linscott, P.E. (1924-2000) lack M. Greenspan, P.E. William A. Law, P.E. (Ret.) Paul W. Wilkinson, P.E. John P. Keating, P.E. David S. Shendcr, P.E. John A. Iloarman, P.E: Clare M. Look -Jaeger, P.C. Richard E. lBarretto, P.E. LLG Reference No. 2-032451-1 SUBJECT: TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED 725 5th STREET RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Hermosa Beach, California Dear Mr. Fisher: As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Analysis for the proposed 725 5th Street residential development project, located in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. This letter summarizes the traffic generation forecast for the existing project site land uses, as well as four (4) project development alternatives. Generation factors and equations used in this analysis are based on ITE's Trip Generation, Sixth Edition. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The project site is generally located along the north side of 5th Street, west of Pacific Coast Highway -in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. Exhibit 1, located at the rear of this letter, presents a Vicinity Map that illustrates the general location of the project and depicts the surrounding street system. Existing Land Uses Existing uses at the project site include three auto repair facilities with a total combined floor area of 8,775 SF (i.e., Southbay Mercedes — German Auto Repair Shop, Asenkas — Japanese Import Repair Shop, and Aba Upholstery) and a 1,000 SF office (2"d level). Access to the existing project site uses is provided via a full access driveway on 5th Street. Pasadena - 626 796-2322 • San Diego - 619 299-3090 • Las Vegas - 702 451-1920 • Founded 1966 • An LG2WB Company INSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Proposed Project Development Mr. Andrew F seer c/o Steve Kaplan LLG Reference: 2-032451-1 June 9, 2004 Page 2 Based on information provided by Withee Malcolm Architects, the project site will be redeveloped with nine (9) residential condominiums/townhomes. Access to the proposed residential project will continue to be provided via a full access driveway on 5th Street. Please note that prior to the development of this project, the existing land uses and all associated structures will be demolished. For comparative purposes, this analysis also evaluates the traffic generation potential of three additional project alternatives (hereon referred to as Alternatives #2, #3, and #4, respectively). Alternative #2 includes the development of 4,050 SF of retail/commercial uses) Alternative #3 proposes to develop a 4,050 SF fast-food restaurant with drive-thru, while Alternative #4 proposes to develop a 4,050 SF high -turnover (sit-down) restaurant. Similar to the preferred residential development project (Alternative #1), all existing on-site uses will be razed prior to the development of any of the aforementioned alternative projects. Table 1, located at the rear of this letter report following the exhibits, summarizes the existing and proposed project land uses. TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. As previously mentioned, generation factors and equations used in is analysis are based on the Sixth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 1997]. The trip generation potential of the existing and proposed land uses were estimated using ITE Land Use Code 840: Automobile Care Center, ITE Land Use Code 710: General Office Building, ITE Land Use Code 230: Residential Condominiums/Townhomes, ITE Land Use Code 814: Specialty Retail, ITE Land Use Code 834: Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru, and ITE Land Use Code: 832: High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant. To account for trips that come directly from the everyday traffic stream on the adjoining streets, applicable pass -by reduction factors were applied to the traffic forecasts for the specialty retail, fast-food restaurant, and high -turnover restaurant alternatives. The factors used in this analysis are based on information published in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, October 1998, or San Diego Traffic Generators (SANDAG), April 2002. Applying a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.25 to the 16,218 SF parcel results in a 4,050 SF development. Z2- LINSCOTT s; LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS Mr. Andrew Fisher c/o Steve Kaplan LLG Reference: 2-032451-1 June 9, 2004 Page 3 Table 2 summarizes the trip generation rates and corresponding trip generation forecast for the existing and proposed land uses. As shown in Table 2, the existing land uses generate approximately 190 daily trips, with 28 trips (18 inbound, 10 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 31 trips (15 inbound, 16 outbound) during the PM peak hour. Based on common traffic engineering practices, the traffic generated by the existing land uses may be considered to represent a "trip credit" for the project site, against which the proposed project might be compared. Alternative #1 (residential condominiums) is forecast to generate 50 daily trips, with 4 trips (1 inbound, 3 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 5 trips (3 inbound, 2 outbound) during the PM peak hour. Alternative #2 (specialty retail) is forecast to generate 150 daily trips, with 5 trips (3 inbound, 2 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 9 trips (4 inbound, 5 outbound) during the PM peak hour. Alternative #3 (fast-food restaurant) is forecast to generate 1,810 daily trips, with 103 trips (53 inbound, 50 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 67 trips (35 inbound, 32 outbound) during the PM peak hour. Alternative #4 is forecast to generate 480 daily trips, with 38 trips (20 inbound, 18 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 25 trips (15 inbound, 10 outbound) during the PM peak hour. Review of the trip generation forecast indicates that the residential project alternative (Alternative #1) is expected to generate significantly less traffic on a daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour basis than the existing land uses, as well as Alternatives #2, #3 and #4. Table 3 presents a trip generation comparison of the existing land uses to project Alternative #1. As shown, the proposed condominium project will generate less trips than the existing land uses on a daily basis, as well as during the AM and PM peak hours. Tables 4, 5, and 6, similar in structure to that of Table 3, presents a trip generation comparison of the existing land uses to project Alternatives #2, #3, and #4, respectively. As shown in Table 4, Alternative #2 will generate less trips than the existing land uses on a daily basis, as well as during the AM and PM peak hours. Conversely, as shown in Table 5, Alternative #3 will generate more trips than the existing land uses on a daily basis, as well as during the AM and PM peak hours. Alternative #4 will generate more trips on a daily and AM peak hour basis, but less trips during the PM peak hours. Z3 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS CONCLUSION Mr. Andirew Fisher c/o Sieve Kaplan LLG Reference: 2-032451-1 June 9, 2004 Page 4 Given the results of the trip generation forecast comparison, the preferred project alternative (residential condominiums) will have a significantly lesser traffic impact than the existing land uses, as well as the three potential project development alternatives. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this analysis. Should you have any questions or comments, please call me at (714) 641-1587. Very truly yours, LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS Christopher H. Nguyen, P. Transportation Engineer II Attachments N:\2400\2032451\Report\2451 Trip Generation Comparison Letter.doc Lr .,II►IIII►II,, ©NO SCALE LINSCOTT LAW& GREENSPAN ENGINEERS SOURCE: THOMAS BROS. KEY PROJECT SITE EXHIBIT 1 VICINITY MAP 725 5TH STREET, HERMOSA BEACH LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS • • TABLE 1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TABULATION2 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach Project Description Size Existing Uses • Automotive Repair Facilities3 8,775 SF • Office 1,000 SF Proposed Uses • Alternative #1 — Residential > Condominiums/Townhomes 9 DU • Alternative #2 — Commercial > Specialty Retail 4,050 SF • Alternative #3 — Restaurant > Fast -Food with Drive-Thru 4,050 SF • Alternative #4 — Restaurant > High -Turnover (Sit -Down) 4,050 SF 2 Source: Withee Malcolm Architects and Steve Kaplan. J Automotive repair facilities include Southbay Mercedes (German Auto Repair Shop), Asenkas (Japanese Import Repair Shop), and Aba Upholstery 2 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN E N G I N E E R S TABLE 2 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST' 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach ITE Land Use Code/ Project Description Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2 -Way In Out Total In Out Total Generation Rates: 20.00 1.91 1.03 2.94 1.69 1.69 3.38 • 840: Automobile Care Center (TE/1,000 SF)5 • 710: General Office Building (TE/1,000 SF) 11.01 1.37 0.19 1.56 0.25 1.24 1.49 • 230: Residential Condominium/ Townhouse (TE/DU) 5.86 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.36 0.18 0.54 • 814: Specialty Retail Center (TE/1,000 SF)6 40.67 0.72 0.48 1.20 1.11 1.48 2.59 • 834: Fast -Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru (TE/1,000 SF) 496.12 25.43 24.43 49.86 17.41 16.07 33.48 • 832: High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant (TE/1,000 SF) 130.34 4.82 4.45 9.27 6.52 4.34 10.86 Generation Forecast: 180 10 17 1 9 1 26 2 15 0 15 1 30 1 Existing Uses • Auto Repair Shops (8,775 SF) • Office Building (1,000 SF) Total Trip Generation for Existing Land Uses: 190 18 10 28 15 16 31 Proposed Uses • Alternative #1: Condominiums / Townhomes (9 DU) 50 1 3 4 3 2 5 • Alternative #2: Specialty Retail (4,050. SF) 150 3 2 5 4 5 9 • Alternative #3: Fast -Food w/Drive Thru (4,050 SF) 1,810 53 50 103 35 32 67 • Alternative #4: High -Turnover Restaurant (4,050 SF) 480 20 18 38 15 10 25 TE/DU = Trip ends per dwelling unit (residential). TE/1,000 SF = Trip ends per 1,000 square -feet (SF) of development Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1997). 5 Automobile Care Center daily trip rate is based on SANDAG Trac Generators (April 2002). 6 Specialty Retail AM peak hour trip rate is based on SANDAG Traffic Generators (April 2002). 2 LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS • • TABLE 3 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON' EXISTING USES vs. ALTERNATIVE #1 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAILY 2 -WAY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 4 OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Existing Land Use 180 10 17 1 9 1 26 2 15 0 15 1 30 1 • Auto Repair Shops (8,775 SF) • Office Building (1,000 SF) Total Trip Generation for Existing Land Uses: 190 18 10 28 15 16 31 Proposed Land Use 50 1 3 4 3 2 5 • Alternative #1: Condominiums / Townhomes (9 DU) Net Trip Generation — Existing Uses vs. Alt #1 -140 -17 -7 -24 -12 -14 -26 7 Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1997). Forecasts are rounded to the nearest 10 vehicles on a daily basis. 2b L INSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 4 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON8 EXISTING USES vs. ALTERNATIVE #2 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAILY 2 -WAY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Existing Land Use 180 10 17 1 9 1 26 2 15 0 15 1 30 1 • Auto Repair Shops (8,775 SF) • Office Building (1,000 SF) Total Trip Generation for Existing Land Uses: 190 18 10 28 15 16 31 Proposed Land Use 170 -20 3 _ 3 2 -- 5 _ 5 4 -0 6 1 10 -1 • Alternative #2: Specialty Retail (4,050 SF) Pass By Trips Reduction9 Total Alternative #2 Trip Generation Potential: 150 2 4 5 9 Net Trip Generation — Existing Uses vs. Alt #2 -40 -15 -8 -23 =11 -11 -22 8 Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1997). Forecasts are rounded to the nearest 10 vehicles on a daily basis. v Pass -By Trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. To account for trips that come from the everyday traffic stream (i.e., existing traffic on Pacific Coast Highway), a 10% retail pass -by was incorporated into the PM peak hour and daily trips. The 10% reduction is based on SANDAG's pass -by rates for specialty retail uses. LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 5 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON10 EXISTING USES vs. ALTERNATIVE #3 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach to II Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1997). Forecasts are rounded to the nearest 10 vehicles on a daily basis. Pass -By Trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. To account for trips that come from the everyday traffic stream (i.e., existing traffic on Pacific Coast Highway), a pass -by reduction factor of 49% was used for the AM peak hour and 50% for the PM peak hour (Source: Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, October 1998). A pass -by factor of 10% was applied to the daily trips. PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAILY 2 -WAY AM:PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Existing Land Use 180 10 17 1 9 1 26 2 15 0 15 1 30 1 • Auto Repair Shops (8,775 SF) • Office Building (1,000 SF) Total Trip Generation for Existing Land Uses: 190 18 10 28 15 16 31 Proposed Land Use 2,010 -200 103 -50 99 -49 202 -99 103 71 -36 65 -33 136 -69 • Alternative #3: Fast -Food w/Drive Thru (4,050 SF) Pass -By Trips Reduction'' Total Alternative #3 Trip Generation Potential: 1' 810 53 50 35 32 67 Net Trip Generation — Existing Uses vs. Alt #3 +1' 620 +35 +40 +75 +20 +16 +36 to II Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1997). Forecasts are rounded to the nearest 10 vehicles on a daily basis. Pass -By Trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. To account for trips that come from the everyday traffic stream (i.e., existing traffic on Pacific Coast Highway), a pass -by reduction factor of 49% was used for the AM peak hour and 50% for the PM peak hour (Source: Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, October 1998). A pass -by factor of 10% was applied to the daily trips. LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ENGINEERS TABLE 6 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON' 2 EXISTING USES vs. ALTERNATIVE #4 Bay Harbor Condominiums, Harbor City PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAILY 2 -WAY , AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Existing Land Use 180 10 17 1 9 1 26 2 15 0 15 1 30 1 • Auto Repair Shops (8,775 SF) • Office Building (1,000 SF) Total Trip Generation for Existing Land Uses: 190 18 10 28 15 16 31 Proposed Land Use 530 -50 20 — 20 18 — 18 38 ._ 38 26 -11 18 -8 10 44 -19 • Alternative #4: High -Turnover Restaurant (4,050 SF) Pass -By Trips Reduction" Total Alternative #4 Trip Generation Potential: 480 15 25 Net Trip Generation – Existing Uses vs. Alt #4 +290 +2 +8 +10 0 -6 -6 12 Source: Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (1997). Forecasts are rounded to the nearest 10 vehicles on a daily basis. 13 Pass -By Trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. To account for trips that come from the everyday traffic stream (i.e., existing traffic on Pacific Coast Highway), a pass -by reduction factor of 43% was used for the PM peak hour (Source: Trip Generation Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers, October 1998). A pass -by factor of 10% was applied to the daily trips. THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS OF APPLICANT ANDREW FISHER SUPPORT ►1 ' u_I_ J. .. 1 ►1 N ' ED WITH THE CITY OF }MIMOSA BEACH CONCERNING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 5t4 STREET NAME• 7 ADDRESS cif/ rric_404zo LtAeNc-O i �� C vIrs :EfoZ T/v S 57-, /NIS/ c# 90,Rfy +- -7/7 S --)J S-_ wt oso Beekdif C qo zr l Tam 6onn 7)0 s,-4 sr14-t-givivca s.o164, cA- ?Ozs-. 7ge1 �A E :uoS/4 �4 c., 04 EiS 722- S 52z /77 sc so y 27(6 Vllt VA -1:70 r PUC etc, -2_74f 7. 8. 9. 10 11 RvaL' Tia c/ 51 OSO Ct 9o� �Lt/u N l L l< 765, y i9 -it /'�F'ieMc�5�4 i3C II, 6/4. ?c,25-4( ka/ 765 IPAgh e 1 / roc 6ad, CA 9G1'5K w 12. IU kelt C. cam► 1 7th ti'", 5F-. ' gY\/ 0.4c-1(.) 23q 1�e I1 (�Q (PyC-4-en►^,05,, pv c...\-‘ CSI 13. cx�� D r y D\� 04 14. \ o( (013 \ St `c.0 < - -1G{0-`),5' i 1S. �v $/ u,2$ S� f l oSA flte8 *15y �t tkkc LoS sik-k_. Si • 111-0 so).- o go Z54 -?0 2 M i Awbr d £) -p ‘,.3 ->° 74's7 - //g_ 4.4 '` ASO V4 0 O , G3 S r .� � ,d3 . �oLk /1// // 7dr4/tel/ ‘g3 �� . .3 . J47W ftMi (-(-,.` /73) UilUy Pk- - /4. a C i o2 d1 M70 —0AIUlf 602 b -m S' f r�, r44oe Y &fl(LlF1'1 4. K do 70`f if! nT {co. of, `-t'o25`f cc c4 V emit `F -STH t -4e ftA,Aosa ex -k, CA cio a 5 l 32- ZO:IZ 20, S Gnu VZSOSVSOI2:Xed 08W z�y e2.4/ ,26) c26 7 .ley • THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS OF APPLICANT ANDREW FISHER SUPPORT THE GENFRAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE CITY OF H RMOSA BEACH CONCERNING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 5t11 STREET NAME ADDRESS F-11.4 Si MSS W,„ vim 6-\-eiv\)1.\(') 63S5/�� ''i3. F7 (4- S . c, 3o7 mkt //'Zi ,/- 32) Jo4[ 03 owi�-eJY l ,! /t1,O 37j 167 1� 45) 46? ,471 3O7 ((,,O ?o 5-t. 6)- C Co 7 9 crfl f� 33 31 58 39 90 it - (1 -2_ Lt3 • THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS OF APPLICANT ANDREW FISHER SUPPORT THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND A)NE CHANGE APJ JCATIONS FLED WIT$ THE cm OF RERMOSA BEACH CONCERNING THE PROPERTY LOCATED.ja 725 5t° STREET NAME ADDRESS I T 44E17.74 APL A )1 PreAMMIMPli 1 L ISI LIf171 I /1.11121411 - •,i o II'2 47 1, 5 S 5 53 entionr. or Ir 4 ' J A- L A 0 AIM. !, sir - VIA i ON eQ - 1' A�,,,� ISM ' ter-;.- ' ff•� 111 5 4 • °:inde=1P_ - . AMR sct p :rG E r' .�1�A j9 Lo -IsI I*k 6r16±Tr141 a V -e (.frl 05 I PPP -14.1 AllINSIM 3 5-6 57 58 6,0 G) 62 6 6'-t 6'6 67 68 63 70 7/ 72 73 7y 7 76 7 7g VII I 73 gd- g�l 3q .11 1 6- 02_ G.3 Gq- 6S G7 Gd 70 71 72 73 7`t 7s 76 77 73 Sc PPLUCATIONS MED WITH THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONCERNING THE PROPERTY GOC4Tsp AT 725 511 STREET NAA - ADDRESS .9 -Q IV 1 cc 44v -LSD R 0P' 6F6)- t�t'(4- s r-rE 3` 7_ I _ -tr,7 S `� A v, _ ■� III ■■ `r - NEI .r G s, r '` ,1k -L _Q 113 7._.4 di L� f -‘- L-1— ■6 !r { c 471i fGP ✓t -P .p E_z_ u- _ j u> �,h ,i, `a Z // /:._, -9vl2 .. . - '`mQ'► m in.■ ,1-- CO ■n 1111■ 1111 1111■■ ■ ■ ■1111■� ■ 111111■11 ■. 11■■ ■1111 ■ ■ ■■ ■■.. ■.. ■■■■■■■■ 1111■■■■ ■ 1 1111■ 11■■11 ■ ■■�■ 1111■■■ ■11 _ ■ ■ ■ ■1111. ■ ■11..11 ■ ■. ■ - 1111■ _ ■ ■ ■■■ . ■ 1111. ■ ■ .■. , 3s THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS OF APPLICANT ANDREW FISHER SUPPORT THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONCERNING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 5th STREET ADDRESS 0,/\A GC: -)As -7/ 0 4577-4 cr--. S71 iv/.s k-c,-i-gy-fr- 2 7/6 VIA- i-cr1fA.-0,, 9dJ. 6 f 7,A(p MOSc,30;::4A f(1A c:f0S'y 4er-0409'4 A-9 Eeyielk /3r-wrA 6. &vivi\l „trio, 5440.ve.. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. • THE UNDERSIGNED NEIGHBORS OF APPLICANT ANDREW FISHER SUPPORT THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS FILED WITH THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONCERNING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 725 5th STREET NAME • 1. A/4 /iA 2. 17'' / 3.41fAltose</?.°41,iCt, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ADDRESS J 37 A osi° rorai p tnr • • Memorandum RECEPIED DEC 0 4 2003 COM. DEV. DEPT To: Steve Kaplan, Esq. From: Ross S. Selvidge, Ph.D. and David DeSwert Date: December 3, 2003 Subject: Revised Comparative Fiscal Revenue Projection for 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach based on updated residential development scenario At your request, Kosmont Partners ("Kosmont") has revised its original projection (dated June 9, 2003) of the potential site-specific fiscal revenues that are likely to be produced by two alternative development scenarios for the property known as 725 5th Street, Hermosa Beach ("Property"). This revision is based on a new proposed residential development scenario. The Property is currently developed with several commercial buildings totaling approximately 9,775 square feet. The original application for rezoning and a General Plan amendment was filed to permit nine new owner -occupied residential units on the Property. The new proposed residential development scenario, which is the basis for this revised projection, includes six owner -occupied residential units ("Scenario A"). Alternative development Scenario B consists of general retail space and its specifications remain identical to those used in the original projection. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the potential annual fiscal revenues that would be generated for the City of Hermosa Beach by the two scenarios. As a point of reference, the current fiscal revenues being generated by the Property for the City are also estimated. SUMMARY FINDINGS The- following are the estimated annual fiscal revenues in four -principal categories- -that are expected to be generated by the Property in its present use and with Scenarios A and B upon stabilization of occupancy. The existing use generates approximately $5,000 in annual fiscal revenue. Redevelopment of the site is expected to generate significantly higher annual fiscal revenues. Scenario A is expected to generate approximately $12,600, and Scenario B should generate approximately $11,900. Scenario A is projected to produce approximately 5.9% higher fiscal revenues on an annual basis than Scenario B; therefore, the development of a residential use on the Property rather than a retail use would have a positive impact on the City's annual revenue. The estimated amounts for each revenue category are as follows: 601 S. Figueroa Street Suite 3550 Los Angeles California 90017 ph 213.623.8484 fx 213.623.8288 NVww.kosmont.com Revised Comparative Fiscal Revenue Projection for 725 5t° Street, Hermosa Beach December 3, 2003 Page 2 of 4 Scenario A Scenario B Existing Residential Retail Utility User Tax $500 $1,800 $700 Business License Tax 1,200 0 1,000 Property Tax 1,400 10,800 1,400 Sales Tax 1,900 0 8,800 Total Fiscal Revenue $5,000 $12,600 $11,900 A description of the existing use and development Scenarios A and B and the derivation of the revenues in each of these categories is described in detail in this analysis and presented in Exhibits 1 through 6. SITE SPECIFICATIONS The following is a description of site specifications for the Property in its current use and for development Scenarios A and B. These specifications are summarized in Exhibit 1 for the existing use and in Exhibit 2 for Scenarios A and B. The 9,775 square feet of commercial space that currently exists on the Property is occupied by four businesses. Two auto repair shops, South Bay Mercedes and Asenkas Auto, occupy 3,000 square feet and 2,875 square feet respectively. Aba Upholstery, an auto upholstery repair business, occupies 2,900 square feet and Les Frames Enterprises, a general business office, occupies 1,000 square feet. Approximately 15 full-time and 7 part-time employees work in the four businesses currently located on the Property. Scenario A is the development scenario for which an application for rezoning and a General Plan amendment has been filed. It calls for the development of six condominium units. The average size of the units will be approximately 2,580 square feet and the total amount of habitable space will be approximately 15,480 square feet. Scenario B is a hypothetical 3,500 square foot retail development. It can be constructed alone or as a portion of a larger development extending along Pacific Coast Highway. The size of the retail development was based on a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25, which is standard for retail projects. It is estimated that the retail businesses that occupy the Property will employ nine people. ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUES The direct site-specific annual fiscal revenues to the City will come from four principal sources. The factors utilized in producing the estimates of those revenues came from a number of sources including the current owner and Kosmont's own reference materials. Pc) Revised Comparative Fiscal Revenue Projection for 725 5/b Street, Hermosa Beath December 3, 2003 Page 3 of 4 UTILITY USER TAX The City levies a 6.00% tax on utility consumption at the "retail" level, which is paid by the utility user. The tax is levied on all utilities, including electricity, natural gas, water, telephone, cable television, and cellular phone. Estimates for the utility expenditures subject to utility tax were based on information provided by,the current owner and utility expenditure patterns in comparable projects. The derivation of the total utility taxes received by the City are presented in Exhibit 1 for the existing use and in Exhibit 3 for Scenarios A and B. The owner of the Property estimates that current combined utility expenditures total nearly $8,300 annually. This amount generates approximately $500 in utility tax revenue for the City. The utility expenditures for Scenario A were calculated based on per unit and per square foot factors for the different utilities. Combined annual utility expenditures should total nearly $30,000. This would generate approximately $1,800 of tax revenue for the City. The utility expenditures for Scenario B were calculated based on per employee and per square foot factors for the different utilities. Combined annual utility expenditures should total over $12,000. This would generate approximately $700 of tax revenue for the City. BUSINESS LICENSE TAX The City levies business license taxes on retail gross receipts. A flat tax of $100 is levied on the first $20,000 of gross receipts. Any excess above $20,000 is taxed at a rate of 0.10%. There is no business license tax on commercial rental receipts. Based on information provided by the current owner of the Property and estimates by Kosmont, the total business license tax revenue generated by the existing businesses is approximately $1,200. The residential units in -Scenario A will be owner occupied; therefore, no business license tax revenue will be generated by this scenario. To calculate the City's business license tax revenue for Scenario B, the business license tax rate was applied to estimated gross receipts from retail sales. Retail sales were estimated to be in the range of $250 per square foot based on the type of retail user that the site should be able to attract. Total retail sales were estimated to be $875,000. This amount would generate approximately $1,000 in business license tax revenue for the City. This calculation is shown in Exhibit 4. . `vxrit tit: ,parpt rs: • • Revised Comparative Fiscal Revenue Projection for 725 5`b Street, Hermosa Beach December 3, 2003 Page 4 of 4 PROPERTY TAX The total base property tax is 1.0% of market value, in accordance with Article XIII of the State Constitution. Allocations of the base property tax between taxing entities varies by tax rate area (TRA). For the TRA in which the Property is located, the City will receive approximately 20.0% of the base tax. A property is assessed at a market value that is determined when sale, change of ownership, or new construction occurs on the parcel. On an annual basis, a property's assessed value cannot increase by more than 2.0%. Redevelopment of the Property is likely to result in an increase in the property values of the site and a corresponding increase in the property tax revenue generated for the City general funds. The current assessed value for the Property is $717,254. This generates $1,400 in property tax revenue for the City. This calculation is shown in Exhibit 1. The assessed value for Scenario A is based on the anticipated per square foot amount for which the nine condominium units can be sold multiplied by the total square footage. Client estimates that the condos will be sold at approximately $350 per square foot. The total estimated value for Scenario A is nearly $5.4 million. This will generate approximately $10,800 in annual property tax revenue for the City (see Exhibit 5). Based on conversations with individuals familiar with the retail real estate market in Hermosa Beach, retail space is valued at approximately $200 per square foot. Based on this amount, the total value for Scenario B is estimated to be $700,000. This value will generate approximately $1,400 in annual property tax revenue for the City (see Exhibit 5). SALES TAX The State collects an 8.25% sales tax on all qualifying sales in Los Angeles County. One percent (1.0%) of taxable sales is subsequently subvened by the State to the local jurisdiction (in this case the City of Hermosa Beach) in which the sale took place (i.e., to the point-of- sale). Based on information provided by the current owner of the Property and estimates by Kosmont, existing taxable sales are approximately $192,000 annually. The existing businesses generate approximately $1,900 in sales tax revenue for the City. This calculation is provided in Exhibit 1. Scenario A is a residential development and will generate no on-site sales tax revenue. Taxable sales for Scenario B are estimated to be in the range of $250 per square foot based on the retail users that are likely to occupy the space. This will generate approximately $875,000 in annual taxable sales. The City's sales tax revenue from this scenario is estimated to be $8,800 annually. The tax revenue to the City is presented in Exhibit 6. EXHIBIT 1 HERMOSA BEACH COMPARATIVE ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUE EXISTING USE AND FISCAL REVENUES Business Business Type Improvements Sq. Ft. South Bay Aba Asenkas Les Frames Mercedes Upholstery Auto Enterprises Auto Repair Auto Upholstery Auto Repair General Repair Business Office 3,000 2,900 2,875 1,000 Combined Total 9,775 Existing Fiscal Revenue (Estimated) Utility User Tax Utility Usage Total Tax Rate Amount Total $8,300 6.0% $500 Business License Tax Amount $1,200 Property Tax Assessed Value $717,254 Tax Rate 1.00% City Share Percent of Total 20.00% Amount $1,400 Sales Tax Taxable Sales Total $192,000 PSF Tax Total - Rate 8.25% Amount $15,879 City Share of Sales Tax Percent of Total 12.12% Amount $1,900 Combined Total $5,000 Revised Kaplan HB Fiscal Rev 01.xls KOSMONT PARTNERS 12/312003 1:06 PM EXHIBIT 2 HERMOSA BEACH COMPARATIVE ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Land Square Feet Improvements Commercial Floor Area Ratio Square Feet Residential Number of Units Square Feet Total Average Per Unit Employees Square Feet Per Employee Amount Scenario A Scenario B Residential Retail 14,000 14,000 6 15,480 2,580 0.25 3,500 400 9 Revised Kaplan HB Fiscal Rev 01.xis KOSMONT PARTNERS 12/3/2003 1:06 PM • EXHIBIT 3 HERMOSA BEACH COMPARATIVE ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUE ANNUAL UTILITY USER TAX Revised Kaplan HE Fiscal Rev 01.xls Scenario A Scenario B Residential Retail Project Specifications Improvement Total Units 6 Total Square Feet 15,480 3,500 Employees Total 9 Utility Expenditures Electricity Per Square Foot $0.41 $0.66 Total 6,316 2,310 Natural Gas Per Square Foot $0.17 $0.09 Total 2,601 315 Water Per Square Foot $0.19 $0.10 Total 2,972 336 Telephone Per Unit $1,200 Per Employee $800 Total 7,200 7,000 CATV Per Unit $660 Per Square Foot $0 Total 3,960 0 Cellular Phone Per Unit $1,200 Per Employee $240 Total 7,200 2,100 Combined Electricity $6,316 $2,310 Natural Gas 2,601 315 Water 2,972 336 Telephone 7,200 7,000 CATV 3,960 0 Cellular Phone 7,200 2,100 Total $30,249 $12,061 Utility Tax Rate 6.00% 6.00% Amount $1,800 $700 KOSMONT PARTNERS 12/312003 1:07 PM EXHIBIT 4 HERMOSA BEACH COMPARATIVE ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUE ANNUAL BUSINESS LICENSE TAX Scenario A Scenario B Residential Retail Improvements Number of Units 6 Square Feet 15,480 3,500 Sales Per Square Foot $0 $250 Total 0 875,000 Exclusion (20,000) Taxed at Percent 0 855,000 Tax On First $20,000 $0 $100 Tax on Excess Rate 0.10% 0.10% Amount $0 $855 Total $0 $1,000 Revised Kaplan HB Fiscal Rev 01.xIs KOSMONT PARTNERS 12/3/2003 1:07 PM EXHIBIT 5 HERMOSA BEACH COMPARATIVE ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUE ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX Improvements Square Feet Scenario A Scenario B Residential Retail 15,480 3,500 Value PSF $350 $200 Total 5,418,000 700,000 Tax Rate 1.00% 1.00% City Share Percent 20.00% 20.00% Amount $10,800 $1,400 Revised Kaplan HB Fiscal Rev 01.xls KOSMONT PARTNERS 12/3/2003 1:07 PM EXHIBIT 6 HERMOSA BEACH COMPARATIVE ANNUAL FISCAL REVENUE ANNUAL SALES TAX Scenario A Scenario B Residential Retail Improvements Number of Units 6 Square Feet 15,480 3,500 Sales Per Square Foot $0 $250 Total 0 875,000 Tax Rate 1.00% 1.00% Amount $0 $8,800 Revised Kaplan HB Fiscal Rev 01.xIs KOSMONT PARTNERS 12/3/2003 1:07 PM • OUTLINE OF PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION PURPOSE OF MY PRESENTATION TONIGHT: * CONVINCE THE-IVIEIVIBERS OF CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO A POLICY GOAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AREA -7 THAT HAS NOT ACHIEVED THE DESIRED RESULT * OFFER 12 PRAGMATIC REASONS TO SUPPORT THE FILED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATIONS A. PHILOSOPHICAL/POLICY ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF RETAINING PRESENT GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION GOAL: The purpose of SPA -7 and the Commercial Corridor plan is to encourage the development of high quality commercial projects along Pacific Coast Highway PROBLEM: No project approved/constructed since the adoption of SPA -7 has realized the goal of developing a commercial project with a 300 -foot depth on PCH B. PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF AMENDING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR 725 FIFTH STREET. 1) Stated policy goal of SPA -7 and Commercial Corridor has not produced desired results. a) The 300 ft. CC designation applies to only 3 sites in SPA-7...at the subject site; on the east side of PCH at 1st St; and between 6th and 8th Streets on the west side of PCH — both of those sites under single ownership. b) None of those sites have redeveloped with large commercial projects Reason: Large, tax revenue producing developments such as car dealerships and big -box retail need larger sites/better access/more parking than is than is available on PCH. 2) Property does not front on PCH; site access is from residential street. 3) Proposed project is compatible with surrounding neighborhood; existing auto related use has become incompatible with surrounding residential neighborhood. 4) Proposed project contemplates a density 33% less dense than allowed by requested R-2 and MD classifications and provides double the amount of code required guest parking spaces. 5) Surrounding neighborhood supports planning applications/proposed project. a) Submitted signed petitions a product of 2 community outreach meetings. 6) Proposed project lessens traffic impacts in surrounding neighborhood. a) Report from Linscott Law & Greenspan submitted. 7) Proposed change in property use does not cause negative impact to city revenue. a) Report from Kosmont Partners submitted. • • 8) Existing PCH frontage property between 5th and 6th Streets provides sufficient depth for potential new development (frontage depth at 6th St. is 300 feet). a) Hotels at 1St and 15th Streets and proposed Say -On Drug project at former VW site all developed with PCH frontage depths of ranging from 150 - 225 feet. 9) Owner of PCH frontage property between 5th and 6th Streets is unwillingly to develop integrated commercial project. 10) Approving requested action is not precedent setting. City Council has recently approved similar request for property on 10th Street, near PCH. 11) Proposed use/project is consistent with Housing Element Policies Sections 2.1 through 2.4 and Section3.2 contained within the recently adopted Housing Plan of the city's General Plan. 12) Subject parcel, without direct access to PCH, is no longer a viable commercial site. The applicant, who has conducted business in Hermosa Beach for over 30 years and owned the property for 25 years, deserves the support of the City Council in order to maximize the highest and best use of his property. C. CONCLUSION I respectfully submit to the City Council that the practical and pragmatic reasons that I have presented in support of my client's request to change the General Plan and zoning of his property outweigh the philosophic goal of hoping to attract large scale commercial development on the PCH corridor at the subject location. • irb-r\---iptc-t I) Aii-t-&-Licx-ra,- 1z(.. 1.3 torn f. gonibas December 8, 2003 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Tom Gombas, and I am a resident of Hermosa Beach, living at 710 5th Street. As a neighbor directly across the street from the current auto shops, I support the applications for rezoning submitted by Andy Fisher. With the exception of the auto repair businesses, the entire street is residential. The traffic and noise generated by the current businesses disrupt the neighborhood on a daily basis. From the constant flow of tow trucks (delivering vehicles), parts trucks, UPS/Fedex deliveries, etc. to parking issues caused by their customers, to the noise generated by their power tools, these businesses are a nuisance to this neighborhood. This environment is not conducive for us or our newborn baby. I support the City's consideration to rezone this business property to residential. It will significantly improve the quality of living for this Hermosa Beach Neighborhood. Respect . ly, Gombas 710 5th Street, Hermosa Beach 710 5TH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 PH 310.384.8629 EMAIL TOMG@GUMBONIA.COM • • November 19, 2003 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council December 9, 2003 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION PROGRAM Recommendation: That City Council receive and file this report. Background: On October 14, 2003, the City Council directed staff to provide an overview of the structural observation program in building inspection. Analysis: Structural observation is a program of specialized inspection by the engineer or architect of record for certain structural elements of a building. The requirements for structural observation are established under Section 220 and Chapter 17 of the Uniform Building Code. The engineer or architect of record for a project typically designates the construction elements that need to be observed including: footings and stem walls, caissons, piles and grade beams and hillside anchors. Framing work subject to structural observation may include: steel moment frames, steel braced frames, concrete moment frames and masonry wall frames. Section 220 of the U.B.C. defines structural observation as: A means of visual observation of the structural system, for general conformance to the approved plans and specifications, at significant construction stages and at completion of the structural system. Structural observation does not include or waive the responsibility for the inspections required by Section 108, 1701 or other sections of this code.1 As provided in the above definition, a jurisdiction may require structural observation in addition to standard inspections typically required in the construction process. The City has required structural observation in this manner for many projects including seismic retrofits in the downtown, the renovation of the Bijou Building, column removal and replacement in the Hermosa Pavilion, grade beams and moment frames on residential projects and for the Pier and new lifeguard building. If plans are inadequately drawn or there is conflict between the project construction and the plans, the City has also utilized structural observation to sort out the inconsistency and ensure compliance with the engineered design. The engineer's report is certification of such compliance and takes precedence over the field inspector's observations or plan inconsistencies. How the program works: When required by the code, the engineer of record or the building official, the structural observation program utilizes the engineer of record in the inspection process to examine construction consistency with the engineered design. Section 1702 of the building code requires structural observation in Seismic Zone 3 or 4 (which includes all California) when one of the following conditions exist: 6a • '• 1. The structure is defined in Table 16-K as Occupancy Category 1, 2 or 3. 2. The structure is required to comply with Section 403 (Group B office buildings located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, Type I or II F.R. with an approved automatic sprinkler system) 3. The structure is in Seismic Zone 4 as set forth in Table 16. 4. When so designated by the engineer or architect of record. 5. When so designated by the building official. When any of the above conditions apply, the engineer or architect of record for a project is required to provide inspection to ensure that the engineered design is constructed pursuant to plan and specifications and fulfills the intent of the engineered design. Structural observation is distinguished from special inspection or deputy inspection as provided for in Chapter 17 of the UBC. Structural observation is a requirement that the engineer of record participate in the inspection of particular seismic engineered design, whereas, the intent of special inspection as prescribed in Section 1701 is to provide continuous or special inspection which can only be satisfied by an inspector assigned to continuously monitor the project and which requires special expertise and quality control to assure code compliance. Special inspection is defined as inspections required by the engineer or architect of record to observe work assigned for conformance to the approved design drawings and specifications.2 Staff contacted 60 cities in the region (see attached survey) and no jurisdiction permits structural observation to stand in lieu of the standard inspection program of the city or which deviates from the provisions of Chapter 17 of the Building Code as mandated by the engineer or architect of record under Section 1702. Staff contacted Stuart Tom, Los Angeles Basin Chapter President of the ICC, Subcommittee Member of the LARUCP and Building Official for the City of Glendale who confirms that structural observation is an added inspection by the engineer of record to ensure that the building construction is executed pursuant to the engineered design and is not a substitute for municipal building inspection. Staff also reviewed the structural observation program in the City of Manhattan Beach with Carol Jacobson, Building Official, on 10/14/03 to inquire about that city's experience with the program. Manhattan Beach uses the mandatory structural observation program outlined by the Building Code and the Los Angeles Regional Uniform Code Program (LARUCP) (Attachment_No.1).3 Manhattan Beach's structural observation program replaces a voluntary program that was discontinued on September 3, 2002 with adoption of new building code amendments in that city (Attachment No. 2). The prior program was voluntary and permitted the use of the engineer of record or architect for all structural inspections at the discretion of the builder in lieu of the City inspector. That program was eliminated when the City discovered that basic inspection items were being missed by the engineer conducting the inspections.4 The new program is mandatory and a supplemental inspection to ensure compliance with all seismic strengthening requirements for projects under specified conditions. The new program does not waive regular City building inspector on-site inspection. (Attachment No. 3). { • • of Blumenf Id, I irector Community evelopment evelopment Department Concur: Stev: f: u''ell, City Manager Notes: 1. Section 108-- Inspections-- is contained in the administrative provisions of Chapter 1 of the UBC and establishes the process, approvals required, required inspections and special inspections by the building official for all construction work for which a permit is required. 2. The types of work inspected by a special inspector include: concrete (taking test specimens and placing of reinforced concrete), bolts installed in concrete (prior to placing and during the placement of concrete around bolts when allowable stress tolerance are specified in the design), special moment -resisting concrete frame requiring continuous inspection of the placement of the reinforcement and concrete, reinforcing steel, structural welding, welding of reinforcing steel and special_moment resisting frames (requiring non- destructive testing as specified in Section 1703 of the Building Code), high strength bolting, special structural masonry (masonry other than fully grouted open-end hollow masonry units, reinforced gypsum concrete (when concrete is being mixed and placed), insulating concrete fill, (during the application of insulating concrete when used as part of the structural system), spray -applied fire resistive materials, piling, drilled piers and caissons (during driving and testing of piles or construction of cast -in-place piles), shotcrete (during taking of test specimens, special earthwork excavations), smoke control systems and other work involving unusual conditions as prescribed by the code official. 3. Survey of surrounding jurisdictions participating in the Los Angeles Regional Uniform Code Program (LARUCP) an association`of 89 cities in the region and all South Bay cities which has promoted uniform code adoption programs for the region including structural observation. 4. As reported by the Building Official, the voluntary program created chaos for many projects because of missed structural deficiencies found after approval by the engineer of record. This resulted in costly corrections and time delays since projects were required to remove covered items and correct deficiencies. This program created an atmosphere of adversity among all parties relating to the role and responsibility of the engineer and confusion about who should have caught deficiencies in the inspection process. The engineers of record were not conducting a complete structural inspection and refused to take 100% responsibility for the structural inspection. Attachments: - 1. Building Code Requirements for Structural Observation 2. City of Manhattan Beach Construction Observation Program. 3. City of Manhattan Beach Public Information Handout- Structural Observation Program, October 2003 P:/Structural Observation I 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 21'5 221 • "Noncombustible" does not apply to surface finish materials. Material required to be noncombustible for reduced clearances to flues, heating appliances or other sources of high temperature shall refer to material conforming to Item 1. No material shall be classed as noncombustible, which is subject to increase in com- bustibility or flame -spread rating, beyond the limits herein estab- lished, through the effects of age, moisture or other atmospheric condition. Flame -spread rating as used herein refers to rating obtained ac- cording to tests conducted as specified in UBC Standard 8-1. SECTION 216 — O OCCUPANCY is the purpose for that a building, or part there- of, is used or intended to be used. ORIEL WINDOW is a window that projects from the main line of an enclosing wall of a building and is carried on brackets or corbels. OWNER is any person, agent, firm or corporation having a legal or equitable interest in the property. SECTION 217 — P PANIC HARDWARE. See Section 1002. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY is a walkway used exclusively as a pedestrian trafficway. PERMIT is an official document or certificate issued by the building official authorizing performance of a specified activity. PERSON is a natural person, heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, and includes a firm, partnership or corporation, its or their successors or assigns, or the agent of any of the aforesaid. PHOTOLUMINESCENT is the property of emitting light as the result of absorption of visible or invisible light, which contin- ues for a length of time after excitation. PLASTIC MATERIALS, APPROVED, other than foam plastics regulated under Sections 601.5.5 and 2602, are those plas- tic materials having a self -ignition temperature of 650°F (343°C) or greater as determined in accordance with UBC Standard 26-6, and a smoke -density rating not greater than 450 when tested in ac- cordance with UBC Standard 8-1, in the way intended for use, or a smoke -density rating not greater than 75 when tested in accord- ance with UBC Standard 26-5 in the thickness intended for use. Approved plastics shall be classified as either CC1 or CC2 in ac- cordance with UBC Standard 26-7. See also "foam plastic insula- tion." PLATFORM. See -Section 405.1.2. PLUMBING CODE is the Plumbing Code, as adopted by this jurisdiction.' PROTECTIVE MEMBRANE is a surface material that forms the required outer layer or layers of a fire -resistive assembly con- taining concealed spaces. PUBLIC WAY. See Section 1002. SECTION 218 — No definitions. • SECTION 219 — R REPAIR is the reconstruction or renewal of any part of an exist- ing building for the purpose of its maintenance. SECTION 220 — S SELF -LUMINOUS means powered continuously by a self- contained power source other than a battery or batteries, such as radioactive tritium gas. A self -luminous sign is independent of external power supplies or other energy for its operation. SENSITIZER is a chemical that causes a substantial propor- tion of exposed people or animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to the chemical. SERVICE CORRIDOR is a fully enclosed passage used for transporting hazardous production materials and for purposes other than required exiting. SHAFT is an interior space, enclosed by walls or construction,, extending through one or more stories or basements that connects openings in successive floors, or floors and roof, to accommodate elevators, dumbwaiters, mechanical equipment or similar devices or to transmit light or ventilation air. SHAFT.ENCLOSURE is the walls or construction forming the boundaries of a shaft. SHALL, as used in this code, is mandatory. SMOKE DETECTOR is an approved, listed device that senses visible or invisible particles of combustion. STAGE. See Chapter 4. STORY is that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building in- cluded between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceil- ing or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under -floor space is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet (3658 mm) above grade, as defined herein, at any point, such usable or unused under -floor space shall be considered as a story. STORY, FIRST, is the lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, pro- vided such floor level is not more than 4 feet (1219 mm) below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total pe- rimeter, or not more than 8 feet (2438 mm) below grade, as defined herein, at any point. STREET is any thoroughfare or public way not less than 16 feet (4877 mm) in width that has been dedicated or deeded to the pub- lic for public use. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION means the visual observa- tion of the structural system, for general conformance to the ap- proved plans and specifications, at significant construction stages and at completion of the structural system. Structural observation does not include or waive the responsibility for the inspections re- quired by Section 108, 1701 or other sections of this code. STRUCTURE is that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. SURGICAL AREA is the preoperating, operating, recovery and similar rooms within an outpatient health-care center. SECTION 221 — T TRAVEL DISTANCE. See Section 1004.2.5. F F F F F • I EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 170 than No. 5 bars used for embedments, provided the materials, qualifi- cations of welding procedures and welders are verified prior to the start of work; periodic inspections are made of work in progress; and a visual inspection of all welds is made prior to completion or prior to shipment of shop welding. 6. High-strength bolting. The inspection of high-strength A 325 and A 490 bolts shall be in accordance with approved nationally recognized standards and the requirements of this sec- tion. While the work is in progress, the special inspector shall deter- mine that the requirements for bolts, nuts, washers and paint; bolted parts; and installation and tightening in such standards are met. Such inspections may be performed on a periodic basis in accordance with the requirements of Section 1701.6. The special inspector shall observe the calibration procedures when such pro- cedures are required by the plans or specifications and shall moni- tor the installation of bolts to determine that all plies of connected materials have been drawn together and that the selected proce- dure is properly used to tighten all bolts. 7. Structural masonry. 7.1 For masonry, other than fully grouted open-end hollow - unit masonry, during preparation and taking of any required prisms or test specimens, placing of all masonry units, placement of reinforcement, inspection of grout space, immediately prior to closing of clean - outs, and during all grouting operations. EXCEPTION: For hollow -unit masonry where the f',,, is no more than 1,500 psi (10.34 MPa) for convete units or 2,600 psi (17.93 MPa) for clay units, special inspection may be performed as required for fully grouted open-end hollow -unit ma?;onry specified in Item 7.2. 7.2 For fully grouted open-end hollow -unit masonry during preparation and taking of any required prisms or test specimens, at the start of laying units, after the place- ment of reinforcing steel, grout space prior to each grouting operation, and during all grouting operations. EXCEPTION: Special inspection as required in Items 7.1 and 7.2 need not be provided when design stresses have been adjusted as speci- fied in Chapter 21 to permit noncontinuous inspection. 8. Reinforced gypsum concrete. When cast -in-place Class B gypsum concrete is being mixed and placed. 9. Insulating concrete fill. During the application of insulating concrete fill when used as part of a structural system. EXCEPTION: The special inspections may be limited to an initial inspection to check the deck surface and placement of reinforcing. The special inspector shall supervise the preparation of compression test specimens during this initial inspection. 10. Spray -applied fire -resistive materials. As required by UBC Standard 7-6. 11. Piling, drilled piers and caissons. During driving and test- ing of piles and construction of cast -in-place drilled piles or cais- sons. See Items 1 and 4 for concrete and reinforcing steel inspection. 12. Shotcrete. During the taking of test specimens and placing of all shotcrete and as required by Sections 1924.10 and 1924.11. EXCEPTION: Shotcrete work fully supported on earth, minor re- pairs and when, in the opinion of the building official, no special hazard exists. 13. Special grading, excavation and filling. During earth -work excavations, grading and filling operations inspection to satisfy requirements of Chapter 18 and Appendix Chapter 33. 14. Smoke -control system. • 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 14.1 During erection of ductwork and prior to conceal- ment for the purposes of leakage testing and record- ing of device location. 14.2 Prior to occupancy and after sufficient completion for the purposes of pressure difference testing, flow measurements, and detection and control verifica- tion. 15. Special cases. Work that, in the opinion of the building offi- cial, involves unusual hazards or conditions. 1701.6 Continuous and Periodic Special Inspection. 1701.6.1 Continuous special inspection. Continuous special inspection means that the special inspector is on the site at all times observing the work requiring special inspection. 1701.6.2 Periodic special inspection. Some inspections may be made on a periodic basis and satisfy the requirements of continu- ous inspection, provided this periodic scheduled inspection is per- formed as outlined in the project plans and specifications and approved by the building official. 1701.7 Approved Fabricators. Special inspections required by this section and elsewhere inthis code are not required where the work is done on the premises of a fabricator registered and ap- proved by the building official to perform such work without spe- cial inspection. The certificate of registration shall be subject to revocation by the building official if it is found that any work done pursuant to the approval is in violation of this code. The approved fabricator shall submit a certificate of compliance that the work was performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifi- cations to the building official and to the engineer or architect of record. The approved fabricator's qualifications shall be contin- gent on compliance with the following: 1. The fabricator has developed and submitted a detailed fabri- cation procedural manual reflecting key quality control proce- dures that will provide a basis for inspection control of workmanship and the fabricator plant. 2. Verification of the fabricator's quality control capabilities, plant and personnel as outlined in the fabrication procedural man- ual shall be by an approved inspection or quality control agency. 3. Periodic plant inspections shall be conducted by an ap- proved inspection or quality control agency to monitor the effec- tiveness of the quality control program. 4. It shall be the responsibility of the inspection or quality con- trol agency to notify the approving authority in writing of any change to the procedural manual. Any fabricator approval may be revoked for just cause. Reapproval of the fabricator shall be con- tingent on compliance with quality control procedures during the past year. /SECTION 1702 - STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION Structural observation shall be provided in Seismic Zone 3 or 4 when one of the following conditions exists: - 1. The structure is defined in Table 16-K as Occupancy Cate- gory 1, 2 or 3, 2. The structure is required to comply with Section 403, 3. The structure is in Seismic Zone 4, Na as set forth in Table 16-S is greater than one, and a lateral design is required for the en- tire structure, EXCEPTION: One- and two-story Group R, Division 3 and Group U Occupancies and one- and two-story Groups B, F, M and S Occupancies. 4. When so designated by the architect or engineer of record, or 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE • 5. When such observation is specifically required by the build- ing official. The owner shall employ the engineer or architect responsible for the structural design, or another engineer or architect desig- nated by the engineer or architect responsible for the structural de- sign, to perform structural observation as defined in Section 220. Observed deficiencies shall be reported in writing to the owner's representative, special inspector, contractor and the building offi- cial. The structural observer shall submit to the building official a written statement that the site visits have been made and identify- ing any reported deficiencies that, to the best of the structural ob- server's knowledge, have not been resolved. SECTION 1703 — NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, welded, fully restrained connections between the primary members of ordinary moment frames and special moment -resisting frames shall be tested by nondestructive methods for compliance with approved standards and job specifi- cations. This testing shall be a part of the special inspection re- quirements of Section 1701.5. A program for this testing shall be established by the person responsible for structural design and as shown on plans and specifications. As a minimum, this program shall include the following: 1.. All complete penetration groove welds contained in joints and splices shall be tested 100 percent either by ultrasonic testing or by radiography. , �. EXCEPTIONS: 1. When approved, the nondestructive testing rate for an individual welder or welding operator may be reduced to 25 percent, provided the reject rate is demonstrated to be 5 percent or less of the welds tested for the welder or welding operator. A sampling of at least 40 completed welds for a job shall be made for such reduction evaluation. Reject rate is defined as the number of welds containing re- jectable defects divided by the number of welds completed. For evaluating the reject rate of continuous welds over 3 feet (914 mm) in length where the effective throat thickness is 1 inch (25 mm) or less, each 12 -inch increment (305 mm) or fraction thereof shall be consid- ered as one weld. For evaluating the reject rate on continuous welds over 3 feet (914 mm) in length where the effective throat thickness is greater than 1 inch (25 mm), each 6 inches (152 mm) of length or frac- tion thereof shall be considered one weld. 2. For complete penetration groove welds on materials less than 5/16 inch (7.9 mm) thick, nondestructive testing is not required; for this welding, continuous inspection is required. 3. When approved by the building official and outlined in the proj- ect plans and specifications, this nondestructive ultrasonic testing may be perfornied in the shop of an approved fabricator utilizing qualified test techniques in the employment of the fabricator. 2. Partial penetration groove welds when used in column splices shall be tested either by ultrasonic testing or radiography when required by the plans and specifications. For partial penetra-w tion groove welds when used in column splices, with an effective throat less than 3/4 inch (19.1 mm) thick, nondestructive testing is not required; for this welding, continuous special inspection is required. 3. Base metal thicker than 11/2 inches (38 mm), when subjected to through -thickness weld shrinkage strains, shall be ultrasoni- cally inspected for discontinuities directly behind such welds after joint completion. • EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 17 Any material discontinuities shall be accepted or rejected on the basis of the defect rating in accordance with the (larger reflector) criteria of approved national standards. SECTION 1704 — PREFABRICATED CONSTRUCTION 1704.1 General. 1704.1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate ma- terials and establish methods of safe construction where any struc- ture or portion thereof is wholly or partially prefabricated. 1704.1.2 Scope. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this sec- tion, all prefabricated construction and all materials used therein shall conform to all the requirements of this code. (See Section 104.2.8.) 1704.1.3 Definition. PREFABRICATED ASSEMBLY is a structural unit, the inte- gral parts of which have been built up or assembled prior to incor- poration in the building. • 1704.2 Tests of Materials. Every approval of a material not spe- cifically mentioned in this code shall incorporate as a proviso the kind and number of tests to be made during prefabrication. 1704.3 Tests of Assemblies. The building official may require special tests to be made on assemblies to determine their durabil- ity and weather resistance. 1704.4 Connections. See Section 1611.11.1 for design require- ments of connections for prefabricated assemblies. 1704.5 Pipes and Conduits. See Section 1611.11.2 for design requirements for removal of material for pipes, conduit and other equipment. 1704.6 Certificate and Inspection. 1704.6.1 Materials. Materials and the assembly thereof shall be inspected to determine compliance with this code. Every material shall be graded, marked or labeled where required elsewhere in this code. 1704.6.2 Certificate. A certificate of approval shall be fur- nished with every prefabricated assembly, except where the as- sembly is readily accessible to inspection at the site. The certificate of approval shall certify that the assembly in question has been inspected and meets all the requirements of this code. When mechanical equipment is installed so that it.cannot be in- spected at the site, the certificate of approval shall certify that such equipment complies with the laws applying thereto. 1704.6.3 Certifying agency. To be acceptable under this code, every certificate of approval shall be made by an approved agency. 1704.6.4 Field erection. Placement of prefabricated assemblies at the building site shall be inspected by the building official to de- termine compliance with this code. 1704.6.5 Continuous inspection. If continuous inspection is re- quired for certain materials where construction takes place on the site, it shall also be required where the same materials are used in prefabricated construction. EXCEPTION: Continuous inspection will not be required during prefabrication if the approved agency certifies to the construction and furnishes evidence of compliance. 1-167 Jurisdiction Logo Here • • City/County of BUILDING DIVISION I LAR UCP) CA 9____-____ T 123/456-7891, F 234/567-8912, E-mail: STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT FORM STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION means the visual observation of the structural system, for general conformance to the approved plans and specifications, at significant construction stages and at completion of the structural system. Structural observation does not include or waive the responsibility for the inspections required by Section 108, 1701 or other sections of the Code. This report includes all construction work through day of Report No. , 20 Page No. of Project Address: Structural Observer of Record (SOR): SOR Phone No.: Building Permit No.: Structural Observation performed by: Observer Professional Lic./Reg. No.: Observer Phone No.: OBSERVED STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS AND THEIR CONNECTIONS FOUNDATION WALL FRAMES FLOOR PORTION OBSERVED, IF NOT WHOLE ❑ Footing, Stem Walls, 0 Concrete 0 Steel Moment Frame 0 Concrete ❑ Mat Foundation 0 Masonry 0 Steel Braced Frame 0 Steel Deck ❑ Caisson, Piles, Grade Beams 0 Wood 0 Concrete Moment Frame 0 Wood ❑ Retaining Foundation Hillside Special Anchors 0 Other: 0 Masonry Wall Frame 0 Others: 0 Others: 0 Others: OBSERVED DEFICIENCIES: I DECLARE THAT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 1. I AM THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT RETAINED BY THE OWNER TO BE IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE FOR THE STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY/COUNTY OF 2. I, OR ANOTHER ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT WHO I HAVE DESIGNATED ABOVE AND IS UNDER MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE, HAS PERFORMED THE REQUIRED SITE VISITS AT EACH SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION STAGE TO VERIFY IF THE STRUCTURE IS IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; 3. ALL DEFICIENCIES WHICH REMAIN TO BE CORRECTED HAVE BEEN INDICATED ABOVE; 4. I RECOMMEND THAT ACCEPTANCE OF THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS BY THE CITY/COUNTY OF BE WITHHELD UNTIL ALL OBSERVED DEFICIENCIES ARE CORRECTED. SIGNATURE DATE STAMP OF STRUCTURAL OBSERVER OF RECORD sorf.doc - LARUCP Structural Observation Report Form (V1.0 - 5/2000) Page 1 of 1 7 STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION The City of Manhattan Beach has amended Section 1702 of the 2001 California Building Code, effective November 1, 2002, as fol- lows: Structural observation shall be required for all pro- posed structural work. Exceptions (structural ob- servation not required): 1. If the building is a sin- gle family dwelling or garage, one or two story wood framed structure, and the m-. posed work does not exceed 1500 sq. ft. 2. One and two story Group B, F, M and S (commercial) occupan- cies, if the occupant load of the area of pro- posed work, addition, etc, does not exceed 10 occupants, and pro- vided the adjacent grade is not steeper than 10%. Please note that the Archi- tect, Engineer of record, or the Building Official may require Structural Observa- tion for some Structural pro- jects even if they meet the exception criteria. The Engineer of record is to designate all the structural elements that need to be observed, including founda- tion, framing, and lateral systems. The owner shall employ the engineer or architect respon- sible for the structural de- sign, or another engineer or architect designated by the engineer or architect of re- cord. Structural observation does not waive regular City build- ing inspector on-site inspec- tions. The structural observation reports shall be submitted to the building inspector at each stage of inspection. The new procedures and forms for Structural Observa- tion are available at the Pub- lic Counter. Inside this issue: Inspection Notes from the Field 2 Condominium Requirements Reminders 3 What's New! 3 Community Development Dept Staff Telephone Nos. 4 • • REGIONAL SURVEY OF STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION PROGRAMS 1 Agoura Hills Tony Falcone Building Official Yes 2 Alhambra Craig Melicher Building Official (Contract) Yes 3 Arcadia Peter Knowleton Contract Building Yes 4 Artesia L.A. County (Roy Itani) Contract Building Yes 5 La Habra Heights Craig Melicher Building Official (Contract) Yes 6 Azusa Robert Keyes Building Inspector Yes 7 Lakewood L.A. County (Roy Itani) Contract Building Yes 8 La Mirada L.A. County " Contract Building Yes 9 Bellflower Carlos Paz Building Official Yes 10 Bell Gardens James M. Guerra Building Official (Contract) Yes 11 Beverly Hills Ronald Clark Director, Dept. of Bldg. & Safety Yes 12 Bradbury James M. Guerra Building Official (Contract) Yes 13 Lakewood L.A. County " Contract Building Yes 14 Calabasas Dan Salas Building Official Yes 15 Carson L.A. County (Roy Itani) Contract Building Yes 16 Cerritos L.A. County " CC Yes 17 City of Commerce L.A. County " CC Yes 18 City Industry L.A. County " CC Yes 19 Claremont Duane Marks, Sr. Building Official Yes 20 Compton Patrick Stuart Building Official Yes 21 Covina Kyle Randall Building Safety Officer Yes 22 Cudahy James M. Guerra Building Official (Contract) Yes 23 Culver City Craig Johnson Building Official Yes 24 Diamond Bar Dennis Tarrango Building Official (Contract) Yes 25 Downey Ron LeVar Building Official Yes 26 Duarte L.A. County " CC Yes 27 El Monte Charles Russel Chief Building Official Yes 28 El Segundo Seimone Jurjis Building Official Yes 29 Gardena Ed Jafari Building & Safety Manager Yes 30 Glendale Stuart Tom Building Official Yes 31 Glendora David A. Davies Building Official Yes 32 Hawaiian Gardens James M. Guerra Building Official (Contract) Yes 33 Hawthorne Don Knechtel Building Official Yes 34 Westlake Village L.A. County " CC Yes 35 Hidden Hills Bob Draper Building Official (Contract) Yes 36 Huntington Park Wes Lind Building Official Yes 37 Inglewood Jose G. Alvarez 38 La Puenta Hector Luna Superintendent of Bldg. & Safety Building Official Yes Yes 39 , La Verne Hal Fredericksen Building Official Yes 40 Manhattan Beach Carol Jacobson Building Official Yes 41 Monrovia Robert Castellano Building Official Yes 42 Montebello Tom Castillo Building Official Yes 43 Norwalk Tony Weimholt Building & Safety Manager Yes 44 Palos Verdes Estates Bob Elkins Building Official Yes 45 Rancho Palos Verdes Mark Campbell Building Official Yes 46 Redondo Beach Steve Huang Building Official Yes 47 48 49 Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates San Dimas L.A. County « L.A County « « Yes Yes Eric Beilstein Superintendent Building & Safety Yes 50 San Fernando Francisco Villalva Building & Safety Supervisor Yes 51 Santa Monica Ben Yuseffe Assistant Director Building/Safety Yes 52 South Pasadena 53 54 Long Beach Rosemead Craig Melicher Billy Gatoff. Building Official (Contract) Yes Supervising Inspector Yes James Donovan Deputy Building Official Yes 55 San Marino Peter Knowleton Contract Building Yes 56 Santa Clarita Ruben Barrera Building Official Yes 57 Pomona Simon Shoo Building Official Yes 58 Sierra Madre Steve Pok Building Official Yes 59 Walnut Raymond Tao Building Official Yes 60 West Hollywood Steve Bailey Building Official Yes * Mandatory structural observation per Building Code and LARUCP, not voluntary and not a substitute for municipal inspection. • December 4, 2003 .Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council • no /G{pro (o{- /° Regular meeting of December 9, 2003 LETTER OF MARGARET DONNELLAN TODD, COUNTY LIBRARIAN, REGARDING SETTING A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE MARCH 2004 BALLOT Recommendation: Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Background: I have attached another letter from the County Librarian regarding placing a measure on the March ballot to add a special tax for library purposes. I have also attached an earlier memo on this subject. Respectfully submitted, Stephen R. Burrell City Manager 7a County of Los Angeles Public.,ibrary 7400 Ease Imperial Hwy.. P.O. Box 701 1 , Downey. CA 90241-70111 (5(32) 940-8461, III TAX (562) 803-3032 cTtM� :L'9�Yd'.raltt t. R•:. e s MARGARET DONNELLAN TODD COUNTY LIBHANIAN December 2, 2003 Mr. Stephen R. Burrell City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Mr. Burrell: • ®ISIZSMEME. ®.yam IAD At the Board of Supervisors' meeting of December 2, 2003, the Board of -Supervisors approved a ten-day extension of the deadline for cities to adopt a resolution requesting the Board to place the County Library's special tax measure on the March 2, 2004 Primary Election ballot within your City. The Board expressed concern that some cities, due to various circumstances, were unable to pass a resolution by the December 2, 2003 Board of Supervisors' meeting and, therefore, provided this extension. As you are aware, the fiscal situation for local government is volatile. Like other County departments, the County Library may face reductions in general fund support. The special tax is a source of funding that cannot be affected by State action and must be used to benefit library service in your City. In my two previous letters, I included information regarding the special tax as well as a sample resolution. I have again included the sample resolution. In order to comply with today's Board action, your City will need to deliver its adopted resolution to the County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Attention: Priscilla Smith, 12400 Imperial Highway, Norwalk 90650, (telephone 562-462-2327) before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 12, 2003. It is also important to inform me or Terri Maguire, my Chief Deputy, at (562) 940-8418, if your City adopts the necessary resolution. Any city that does not adopt the required resolution by that time will not have the special tax measure placed on the ballot. Please contact me or my Chief Deputy, Terri Maguire, should you have any questions or need assistance. In addition, we are available to attend a city council meeting or to meet with you. Sincerely, Margaret"Donnellan Todd County Librarian MDT:rmo Enclosure Oalit Serving the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and the cities of: Agoura Hills a Artesia a Avalon a Baldwin Park a Bell Bell Gardens a Bellflower a Bradbury a Carson a Claremont a Compton a Cudahy a Culver City a Diamond Bar a Duarte a El Monte a Gardena a Hawaiian Gardens a Hawthorne a Hermosa Beach a Hidden Hills a Huntington Park a La Canada Flintridge a La Habra Heights a Lakewood a La Miracle a Lancaster a La Puente a La Verne a Lawndale a Lomita a Lynwood a Malibu a Manhattan Beach a Maywood a Montebello a Norwalk a Paramount a Pico Rivera a Rosemead a San Dimas a San Fernando a San Gabriel a Santa Clarita a South El Monte a South Gate a Temple City a Walnut a West Covina a Wesi Hollywood a Westlake Village • • CITY OF H E R M OSA BEACH MEMORANDUM DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2003 TO: MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: STEPHEN BURRELL, CITY MANAGER RE: LETTER OF MARGARET DONNELLAN TODD, COUNTY LIBRARIAN, REGARDING SETTING A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE MARCH 2004 BALLOT I have attached a letter from the County Librarian expressing the County's desire that the cities in the Library District place a ballot measure to impose a special tax for the library operations. In the even that such a special tax was enacted by the voters, the funds would have to be spent for our library. As it stands now, the property taxes collected in Hermosa Beach generally cover the existing operating costs of the library. In order to place this on the March ballot, the City Council would have to decide this at the November25th meeting so that it could be presented to the Board of Supervisors at its meeting of December 2nd • • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROVIDE FOR A SPECIAL TAX ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF " • WHEREAS, the City of is within the service area of the County of Los Angeles Public Library, which provides library services and facilities to the residents of the City and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofrecognizes that it is necessary and desirable that the County of Los Angeles (the "County") levy a special tax against parcels within the City of ("City") to provide adequate finding for library services and facilities to the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, the revenue collected by the special tax will be used to Hind library services and facilities in the same manner as the revenue that is collected by the special tax levied by the County against parcels in other portions of the service area of the County of Los Angeles Public Library; and . WHEREAS, the City currently has scheduled a general municipal election to be held on March 2, 2004 )41.419113 4,,2003, which election will be conducted by the Los Angeles County Registrar•Recorder/County Clerk; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Section 1. Finds that the public health, safety, and economic welfare of the City will be promoted by participating in the special tax levy and that the territory of the City will benefit from the proposed library services and facilities. Section 2. Requests that the County submit to the qualified voters within the City, at the general municipal election to be held in the City on MarchNea 2bev- x3903, the question of a special tax to be levied by the County against parcels within the City in the same amounts and HOA186168.1 • • :_. `_ 1__�_J by aL� County awl.- wwww�i� iw other MT1'fAT! A* for the same purposes as that sped to iovie4 ►uh age z t pry ci W other �.o t on e the service area of the County of Los Angeles Public Library to raise revenue to fund library services and facilities. Section 3. Requests that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles issue instructions to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to take any and all steps necessary for the submission of the question of the special tax to the qualified voters within March 2, 2004 the City at the 3iewsabsHraga-election. Section 4: Recognizing that additional costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this election, the City agrees to reimburse the County for those additional costs. Section S. Directs the City Clerk to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. 2004 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON ,'003. By Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk (SEAL) i • December 3, 2003 City Council Meeting December 9, 2003 Mayor and Members of the City Council _iv e VACANCIES - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PLANNING COMMISSION - UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2004 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Clerk to advertise the Planning Commission vacancy with a newspaper publication and normal posting procedures, as has been standard practice in. the past, inviting applications from persons interested in being appointed to fill the unexpired term ending June.30, 2004. Background: An unscheduled vacancy has arisen on the Planning Commission due to the November 4 election of Peter Tucker as a member of the City Council. The vacancy became official on November 25, when Mr. Tucker was sworn in as a Council member. The special vacancy notice required by State law has been posted tomorrow in the Clerk's office and the Library, as well as in the outdoor display case at City Hall where agendas and other notices are typically posted. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54974, appointment to fill the vacancy may not be made for at least 10 working days after the posting of the notice in the Clerk's office. That Code Section further states that Council "may, if it finds that an emergency exists, fill the unscheduled vacancy immediately. A person appointed to fill the vacancy shall serve only on an acting basis until the final appointment is made pursuant to this section." There appears to be no emergency that requires filling the vacancy immediately. If the Council directs the newspaper advertising, a notice inviting applications will be published twice (December 18 and 25) in the Easy Reader, with a 6 p.m. Wednesday, January 21 deadline for submitting applications. A report will be presented to the Council on January 28 for the scheduling of applicant interviews, with appointment to be made at the February 10 regular meeting. Elaine Doerfling, City Cl�flc 8a • December 3, 2003 tai?!l ate. ect, /A3 A* City Council Meeting December 9, 2003 Mayor and Members of the City Council CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS - DECEMBER 2003 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council update the attached appointment list of committee delegates and alternates to reflect the recent change of Council members and adopt a resolution required to change the delegate for the Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority. Background: The current list of appointed delegates and alternates to the various committees was approved by Council at its meeting of June 24, 2003, as part of the reorganization following the last mayoral change. That list (amended to include the PCH Banner subcommittee, which was established November 12) is attached for Council review. At the last Council meeting, newly elected Peter Tucker was sworn in and seated as a member of the City Council. Mr. Tucker replaces former Councilmember Kathy Dunbabin, who is the listed delegate/alternate for three of the committees (Coordinating Council, Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority (ICLFA), and Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project), and a member of three Council subcommittees (Library, Downtown Noise, and Street Signs). Due to the Council change, it is appropriate at this time to re -appoint at least the above -noted assignments. If additional committee changes are made at this time, please note that the appointed delegate and alternate should be the same for both the South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee and the South Bay Cities Association since their meetings occur back-to-back on the same day and at the same location. Also, two committees --Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority (ICLFA) and Independent Cities Risk Management Association (ICRMA)--require resolutions to change the appointments of delegates and alternates. Attached is a draft resolution for the appointment of a new delegate to the ICLFA, one of the positions that had been held by Ms. Dunbabin. Following any changes to the assignments of delegates and alternates, letters will be sent to the appropriate boards and committees, and the list of newly appointed delegates and alternates will be forwarded to Council. NOTED: /11441.e.%6 Stephen R. Burrell, ity Manager Elaine Doerfling, City Clef / U 8b • • REORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE APPOINTMENTS Beach Cities Committee Delegate Reviczky (as called) Delegate Yoon Coordinating Council Delegate Dunbabin (Kiwanis Club Building, as called) Independent Cities Association Delegate Keegan (Quarterly - dinner meeting) Alternate Yoon Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority Delegate Dunbabin (Annual - in June, as called) Alternate Copeland RESOLUTION NO. 00-6040 Independent Cities Risk Management Association Delegate Alternate Edgerton (2nd Wed. - 10:30 a.m., Huntington Park) Earl (Copeland - substitute) RESOLUTION NO. 97-5886 LAX Committee (formerly called South Bay Corridor Study Steering Committee) (same as South Bay Cities Council of Governments) Delegate Edgerton Alternate Keegan (4th Thursday — 5:45 p.m., Lomita City Hall League of California Cities - Board of Directors Delegate Yoon (1st Thurs. - 7 p.m., Stevens Steak/Seafood House, 5332 Steven's Place, Commerce Alternate Keegan [dark in Julyl) Page 1 Appointments 06-24-03 • • Los Angeles County/City Selection Committee (must appoint alternate separately each time when unable to attend meeting) Mayor Keegan _(as called) Metropolitan Transportation Authority City Selection Committee Delegate Reviczky (as called) Alternate Keegan Sister City Association, Inc. Delegate Reviczky (1st Wed., Community Center, Room 4 Alternate Keegan South Bay Cities Council of Governments (same as LAX Committee) Delegate Edgerton Alternate Keegan (4°i Thursday, 7 p.m., Lomita City Hall) South Bay Cities Sanitation District (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles) (same as (Inglewood Fire Training Authority) Delegate Keegan Alternate Yoon 3rd Wed. - 1:30 p.m., Torrance City Hall) South Bay Youth Project (formerly called South Bay Juvenile Diversion Project) Delegate Yoon Alternate (Quarterly, as called - 6 p.m., Reviczky 320 Knob Hill, Room 4, Redondo Beach Southern California Association of Governments [Added 6/9/98] Delegate Edgerton (Annual, as called) West Basin Water Association Delegate (Quarterly - dinner meeting - 4th Thurs. - Reviczky 6 p.m., Charlie Brown's, Redondo Beach) Alternate Keegan Page 2 Appointments 06-24-03 • • Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Del egate Yoon Alternate Dunbabin TEMPORARY COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEES Beach Cities Health District Councilmember Reviczky Councilmember Airport [Formed 6/24/97] Edgerton Councilmember Reviczky Councilmember Edgerton City -School District Partnership [Formed 5/28/98] Councilmember Edgerton Councilmember Yoon Fiesta [Formed 11/24/98] Councilmember Keegan Councilmember Yoon Library [Formed 8/8/00] Councilmember Reviczky Councilmember Dunbabin Retail Business Development Plan Subcommittee [Formed 5/8/01] Councilmember Keegan Councilmember Reviczky Page 3 Appointments 06-24-03 • • Downtown Noise [Formed 1/22/02] Councilmember Dunbabin Councilmember Edgerton Parking East of PCH [Formed 3/26/02] Councilmember Yoon Councilmember (TO BE APPOINTED) Aviation/PCH Improvements [Formed 7/8/02] Councilmember Keegan Councilmember Reviczky Comedy & Magic Club [Formed 11/12/02] Councilmember Edgerton Councilmember Yoon Downtown Issues [Formed 1/28/03] Councilmember Reviczky Councilmember Yoon Street Signs [Formed 6/10/03] Councilmember Dunbabin Councilmember Edgerton Pacific Coast Highway Banner [Formed 11/12/03] Councilmember Edgerton Councilmember Yoon Page 4 Appointments 06-24-03 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 00-6040 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 89-5256, CHANGING THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIES LEASE FINANCE AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City Council desires to change its representative to the Independent Cities Lease Finance Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-5256 on April 11, 1989, which authorized the execution of the joint powers agreement creating the Authority, approved the City's membership, and appointed a specific Council member as the representative to the Authority; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00-6040 on January 11, 2000, which repealed Resolution No. 93-5652 (appointing a previous delegate) and amended Resolution No. 89-5256 by deleting Section 4 and replacing it with appropriate wording to appoint Councilmember Kathy Dunbabin as the representative to the Authority; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Resolution No. 00-6040, appointing Councilmember Kathy Dunbabin as the representative to the Authority, is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. That Resolution No. 89-5256 is hereby amended by deleting the existing Section 4 and replacing it with the new following Section 4, which reads, 'That the City Council hereby appoints , a member of the Council, to serve as the representative of the City on the Authority's Board of Directors, and Viki Copeland, a member of the staff of the City, to serve as the alternative representative of the City on the Authority's Board of Directors. Such appointments shall be effective until the death, resignation, disqualification or subsequent removal by the City Council of such representative." SECTION 3. That this resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution, and shall cause the action of the City Council in adopting same to be entered in the official minutes of said City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2003. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney -2- • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMPLAINT FORM PROCEDURE Form Date: Dec. 1, 2003 1) Complete this Complaint Form. 2) Complaint Submittal: All complaints must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk where it will be logged, stamped and dated as received, and a copy provided to you. The City Clerk will provide a copy of the Complaint to the Employee, Department Manager, City Manager, and each City Council member. If this complaint concerns (A) An Employee of a City Department: If a satisfactory written response from the appropriate Department Manager or City Manager is not received within 4 working days, proceed as prescribed in (C). (B) A City Department Manager: If a satisfactory written response from the City Manager is not received within 1 week, proceed as prescribed in (C). (C) The City Manager, City Attorney, or others reporting directly to the City Council: Ask the City Clerk to submit a Request for Hearing before the City Council within 2 weeks, which will be provided to each member of the City Council. The hearing will be in a closed City Council meeting where all parties will have an opportunity to present their case, question the other concerned parties, or dispute responses. The City Council will provide a written decision within 1 week following the hearing. RESIDENT ADDRESS TELEPHONE E-MAIL SIGNATURE DATE COMPLAINT AGAINST: EMPLOYEE(S) DEPARTMENT No. attached pages: Urgent (Y/N): _ /4011 9C Complaint has been received, and a copy has been provided to the Complainant. COMPLAINANT DATE CITY CLERK DATE REQUEST FOR CLOSED HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COU IL : �} COMPLAINANT DATE 2 CITY CLERK DATE • • CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY Form Date: Dec. 1, 2003 The goal of the City is to ensure that City Management and Staff serve the residents of the City with courtesy, consideration, and respect and in the public interest in accordance with State and local laws enacted for the public welfare. As such City residents are encouraged to complete this CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY to help ensure that this goal is achieved. DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE RATING 1 TO 5: 1 = VERY POOR 2 = POOR 3 = SATISFACTORY 4 = GOOD 5 = EXCELLENT OVERALL EXPERIENCE COURTEOUS HELPFUL TIMELY PROVIDED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (IF APPLICABLE) PROVIDED ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS (IF APPLICABLE) COMPLAINT FILED (YM): COMMENTS A copy of this Customer Satisfaction Survey will be provided upon request. If you wish to file a Complaint, please complete the reverse side of this form. RESIDENT ADDRESS TELEPHONE E-MAIL SIGNATURE DATE 1 94.2' 0, co r co co an 2'-0" 5'-0" -f' 27'-0" 24-0" 646 SF OF COMMON OPEN SPACE 7'-0" 31'-0" 16'-0' 31'-0' SIDE YARD alha ai kaaaSllatnm- twat,1et°s1 ii kiae ��a�� ate' til! � ka f���► �.-t lsari// - MS 41, 1:740411 A t .-• 44 eel B .- ��►1 , � � 0 1 I N�S -11�A,��� 1 BSMNT: 92.75' 92.5' Si�� O I 1 1ST FLR: 101.75' IAteat l 95.75' 2ND FLR: 111.75' ♦ROOF DECK: 121.75 I (WS -am . �■" C } w Ell MIVI UP Q a 0 r 93.0' GUEST PARKING T.O.W.: 97.5' 92.0 •i11 1 ors In 1I J ' S L 5CEO �� F • w 1 a -o' 150'-0" T.O 104. PRIVATE YARD 97.5' do PRIVATE YARD 99.5' A2BSMNT: 94.5' 1ST FLR: 103.5' 2ND FLR: 113.5' ROOF DECK: 123.5' Al BSMNT: 96.5' 1ST FLR: 105.5' 2ND FLR: 115.5' ROOF DECK: 125.5' 3 4 5'-0' SIDE YARD _ei BACK ga esp._ wAre gar 1( 4 ::" • pots 100.2' 9 10 rIN 10 N T.O.W.: m 105.0' GUEST J PARKING 6 t *** 96.0' 'D .. 1 GUEST I I PARKING I I I B 4 es m BSMNT: 92.25' 1ST FLR: 101.25' 2ND FLR: 111.25' ROOF DECK: 121.25' CV CV G) BSMNT: 94.5' 1ST FLR: 103.5' 2ND FLR: 113.5' ROOF DECK: 123.5' BSMNT: 96.5' 1ST FLR: 105.5' 2ND FLR: 115.5' ROOF DECK: 125.5' do PRIVATE FRONT YARD 97.5' .O.W.: 95.0' .W.: 5.5' 96.0' 1 \ 97.23' I\ I \ gis PRIVATE FRONT YARD ZONE: LOT SIZE: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: NUMBER OF UNITS: UNIT A (3 BD / OFFICE / DEN / 3.5 BATH): UNIT B (3 BD / OFFICE / DEN / 3.5 BATH): TOTAL AREA: FOOTPRINT: TOTAL OPEN SPACE: COMMON: PRIVATE: TOTAL: OFF-STREET PARKING: R-2 16,218 SF (0.37 ACRES) 6 UNITS 4 @ 2,591 SF 2 @ 2,568 SF 15,500 SF 6,150 SF (38% COVERAGE) ON -STREET PARKING: CURRENT: 95 LF PROPOSED: 130 LF (ADDITIONAL 35 LF) ADDITIONAL PREVAILING SETBACK ON N. SIDE OF 511H STREET FRONT YARD SETBACK 646 SF 3,017 SF 3,663 SF 12 RESIDENTS 6 GUEST REQ'D / ALLOWED 9.26 UNITS MAX 10,541 SF MAX (65% MAX) 600 SF MIN 600 SF MIN 2,400 SF MIN 5'-0" 27'-0" 4-0" NEW CURB -CUT PER CITY STANDARDS 20'-0' T-0' EXISTING CURB -CUT TO BE REMOVED 31'-0' 10'-0' 18'-0" 31'-0' EXISTING CURB -CUT TO BE REMOVED 5'-0' 2-i0 5th STREET A Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP 1983 W. 190th Street, Suite 200 Torrance, Ca 90504 Tel. (310) 217-8885 Fax (310) 217-0425 2 /UNIT = 12 .5 / UNIT = 3 SITE PLAN ED - 725 FIFTH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT ANDY FISHER 725 Fifth Street, Hermosa Beach, CA tel: (310) 372-2522 R.�e DEC 0 it 2003 COM. DEV. DEPT. JOB NO. A3023.201 NOVEMBER 25, 2003 sheet 1 of 5 0 r II II L 1125.96' actu X124.18' m L 93.2' 124.21' actual 124.75' max. 124.25' acI 124.38' max. / 150'-0" 126.5' actual 127.1' max,J A2 126.5' actual 127.5' max. 126.5' actual 127.6' max. 126.5' actua 126.8' max. A2 126.5' actual 126.8' max. 126.5' actua 127.3' max. / 126.5' actual 127.2' max. 5th STREET L Al 127.59' ab ual 128.76' m 128.5' actual 129.0' max. 1 x 7 128.5' actual 128.9' max. 128.5' actual 129.5' max. 127.3' actua 128.6' max" L 128.5' actual 128.8' max. Al 128.5' actual 129.4' max. J A 128.5' actual 128.8' max. 100.0' Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP 1983 W. 190th Street, Suite 200 Torrance, Ca 90504 Tel. (310) 217-8885 Fax (310) 217-0425 ROOF PLAN 725 FIFTH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT ANDY FISHER 725 Fifth Street, Hermosa Beach, tel: (310) 372-2522 CA JOB NO. A3023.201 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NOVEMBER 25, 2003 sheet 2 of 5 Ilirt* Ws 124.25' acI 124.38' max. / 150'-0" 126.5' actual 127.1' max,J A2 126.5' actual 127.5' max. 126.5' actual 127.6' max. 126.5' actua 126.8' max. A2 126.5' actual 126.8' max. 126.5' actua 127.3' max. / 126.5' actual 127.2' max. 5th STREET L Al 127.59' ab ual 128.76' m 128.5' actual 129.0' max. 1 x 7 128.5' actual 128.9' max. 128.5' actual 129.5' max. 127.3' actua 128.6' max" L 128.5' actual 128.8' max. Al 128.5' actual 129.4' max. J A 128.5' actual 128.8' max. 100.0' Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP 1983 W. 190th Street, Suite 200 Torrance, Ca 90504 Tel. (310) 217-8885 Fax (310) 217-0425 ROOF PLAN 725 FIFTH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT ANDY FISHER 725 Fifth Street, Hermosa Beach, tel: (310) 372-2522 CA JOB NO. A3023.201 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NOVEMBER 25, 2003 sheet 2 of 5 z 0 H Q w J W H CC 0 z 4 -f z 0 W J W H U) Q w .0-8 Ana F- W 1.1.1Z H O U I— 0 LL LISm O NW N- 2 W cn LL Z >— < • 0 z CL0 a aCDNI- J000OCV to- , CO 0 CD YC ._ I- NI - _a; 0 00ves0 � U r r ,n ro C Gm5 0 0 cn 0 C 0 ro 0 m as 0 2 N _ La • N N Cr) co L O �;; N r, JOB NO. A3023.201 Li) 45 co Q) r U) CO 00 T- N II La H L WEST ELEVATION SECTION: A -A CLAY TILE ROOF VINYL WINDOWS STUCCO WROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP 1983 W. 190th Street, Suite 200 Torrance, Ca 90504 Tel. (310) 217-8885 Fax (310) 217-0425 ELEVATIONS 725 FIFTH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT ANDY FISHER 725 Fifth Street, Hermosa Beach, CA tel: (310) 372-2522 JOB NO. A3023.201 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NOVEMBER 25, 2003 sheet 4 of 5 II IIIIIII SECTION: A -A CLAY TILE ROOF VINYL WINDOWS STUCCO WROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP 1983 W. 190th Street, Suite 200 Torrance, Ca 90504 Tel. (310) 217-8885 Fax (310) 217-0425 ELEVATIONS 725 FIFTH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT ANDY FISHER 725 Fifth Street, Hermosa Beach, CA tel: (310) 372-2522 JOB NO. A3023.201 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NOVEMBER 25, 2003 sheet 4 of 5 9 N 9 basement UNITA 3 bedrm, office, den, 3.5 ba. LIVABLE AREA: 2,591 S.F. PRIVATE DECKS: 284 S.F. STORAGE: 156 S.F. / 1,248 C.F. basement UNIT B 3 bedrm, office, den, 3.5 ba. LIVABLE AREA: 2,568 S.F. PRIVATE DECKS: 244 S.F. STORAGE: 158 S.F. / 1,264 C.F. 35'-0" 9 m Tit bedroom 1 11-0' x 11-0' 0 lh 2 office/ xercise room / —coley room 3'-6' X 10-8' s• ue do E W.I.C. master bdrm. bedroom 2 11'-0' X 10'-6' first floor A m. bath X 0 first floor 35'-0" 9 family rm. 1 12-8'X 17-0' dining 12-0' X 10-6' ra LA living 18'-8' X 12-8• second floor 4V-6" patio x'22-0• X_7'-0• X ra LJ LJ dining 16'-2 X 2-0' living L 16'-2' X 12-0' 1 I pwd r. T LJ office 9'-0' X 10'-0' family rm. 141-10' X 141-0' ra LJ second floor 35'-0" L J roof deck 22-0' x 8'-0' roof deck Al 411-6" N J do roof deck, 17'-0' X 11-a roof deck Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP 1983 W. 190th Street, Suite 200 Torrance, Ca 90504 Tel. (310) 217-8885 Fax (310) 217-0425 9 r Al 35'-0" roof deck 12-06x 16'-0' roof deck A2 UNIT PLANS N 725 FIFTH STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT ANDY FISHER 725 Fifth Street, Hermosa Beach, CA tel: (310) 372-2522 JOB NO. A3023.201 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" NOVEMBER 25, 2003 sheet 5 of 5 ONE PARCEL 3,000 S.F. SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS PARCEL VAP \O. 26971 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 13, TRACT NO. 1072, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 17 PAGE 137 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES SUBDIVIDER'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM THE SUBDIVIDER OF THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES, AND I CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID e' +D SUBDIVISION. STEVE LEGARE SUBDIVIDER RECORD OWNER: HARDENBURG FAMILY TRUST ESTABLISHED 4/22/85 W. DALE HARDENBURG AND JEANETTE S. HARDENBURG TRUSTEES, OWNER THIS SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR 2 UNITS WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UNITS OF AIR SPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE COMMON AREAS WHICH WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE THE NECESSARY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ON �ZOb`� BEFORE ME,Ek h 4Vc_{. (?)14,D1.4S-A NOTARY PUBLIC, RSONALLY APPEARED PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME (OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE) TO BE THE PERSON('S) WHOSE NAME( -S) IS/ARE-SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/SST-HE EXECUTED THE i irHn SAME IN HIS/H TTHElf2 AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(4ES) AND THAT BY HIS/rirnTI E SIGNATURE() ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(&), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON(St ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. cor NOTARI( PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE NAME: C MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES - ___ EASEMENT OF WARREN GILLELEN, HIS SUCCESSOR OR ASSIGNS, EASEMENT HOLDER FOR WATER PIPELINES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, PER DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1617, PAGE 47 AND IN BOOK 1605 PAGE 101 BOTH OF DEEDS. SAID EASEMENTS ARE BLANKET IN NATURE. eSfiESS ION O n� 3. ROF. C No. 30826 EXP. 03-31-04 CIVIL CAL IF 4jFESS?p r c No. 020273 0 w w0Ps 2 5 2003 COM. DEV. DEPT ENGINEER'S STATEMENT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND WAS COMPILED FROM RECORD DATA IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF STEVE LEGARE ON 4-24-03 I HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY. GARY J. ROEHL R.C.E. 30826 EXPIRATION: 03-31 -04 RECORD DATA WAS TAKEN FROM TRACT NO. 1072, M.B. 17-137 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITHIN SUBDIVISION OR ANY PART THEREOF IS SUBJECT, AND WHICH MAY BE PAID IN FULL, HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE cc Exp. 9-30- o5 s'r_ C1V11. ��Q f OF CO CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND THAT IT CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP AND ALL APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO CITY RECORDS. JAMES A. NOYES CITY ENGINEER DEPUTY R.C.E. d262.23 e„.s, EXPIRES t\ I 25 /03 DATE COUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP, THAT IT COMPLIES WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP; AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT IN ALL RESPECTS NOT CERTIFIED TO BY THE CITY ENGINEER COUNTY ENGINEER BY DEPUTY DATE RCE NO. EXPIRES CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY MOTION ADOPTED AT ITS SESSION ON THE DAY OF , 20__ APPROVED THE ANNEXED MAP. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE CITY PLANNER'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED MAP CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE DAY OF , 200_ SECRETARY OF PLANNING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE SCALE: 1 " =20' SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS PARCEL VAP \O. 26971 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES • • • INDICATES THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND BEING SUBDIVIDED BY THIS MAP BOULEVARD MONTEREY 40' 40' /FD BRASS DISC IN LIEU OF WELL MON. PER PM NO. 23258 P.M.B. 268- I -2 8 0' N 12°10'00"W 8 0' 40' 40' FD BRASS DISC IN LIEU OF WELL MON PER PM N0. 23258 P.M.B. 268-1-2 8 0 0 N 8TH STREET N 77°50'00"E S'LY LINE OF LOT NO. 14 PER TRACT NO. 1072 M.B. 17-137 N 77°50'00"E 0 0 • • • 100.00' 1 A = 3,000 SO FT 100.00' • • • 1 0 0 rn 4 N 77°50'00"E N'LY LINE OF LOT NO. 12 PER TRACT NO. 1072 M.B. 17-137 6TH STREET N 77°50'00"E 8 N ,W (f) z (r) 2 0' 10' 10' 2 0' 10' 10' W 0 N 12°10'00"W November 26, 2003 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL December 9, 2003 SUBJECT: FINAL MAP NO. 26971 (C.U.P. CON NO. 03-2, PDP NO. 03-2) LOCATION: 736 MONTEREY BOULEVARD APPLICANT(S): STEVE LEGARE REQUEST: TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR A TWO - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Parcel Map No. 26971 which is consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and recommends the City Clerk be directed to endorse the certificate for said map. Background The Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a two unit condominium project and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26971 at their January 21, 2003 meeting. The project is currently under construction. Process Once a map has been tentatively approved by the Planning Commission, copies of the tentatively approved map must be submitted to the L.A. County Engineer, who is contracted by the City, to review the map for its technical correctness (pursuant to Section 66442(a)(4)of the Subdivision Map Act). An applicant has two years from the date of tentative map approval to submit for final map approval. Typically applicants have not submitted for final map approval until projects are near completion and ready to be sold. Final maps must be submitted to the City Council and must be approved by the City Council, "...if it conforms to all the requirements of [Subdivision Map Act] and any local subdivision ordinance applicable at the time of approval or conditional approval of the tentative map and any rulings made thereunder...." pursuant to Section 66458(a) of the Subdivision Map Act. 1 2e Analysis The staff has reviewed the Final Map and found it substantially consistent with the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map approved by the Planning Commission and in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. CONCUR: Blumenf: d, D rector Community 'b evelopment Department Stephen City Manager 1110 • fir) f,e Respectful y submitted, en Ro ertson Senior Planner y/f:fm736monterey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 26971 FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 736 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Council held a meeting on December 9, 2003 and made the following Findings: A. This project will not violate any of the provisions of Sections 66427.1, 66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6 of the Subdivision Map Act; B. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan required by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code, or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of the Government Code; C. The development of the property in the manner set forth on the subject division of land will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any public entity and/or public utility rights-of-way and/or easements within the subject division of land; D. The approval of said map is subject to all conditions outlined in Planning Commission Resolution P.C. No. 03-6 adopted after hearing on January 21, 2003; E. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to 15268(b)(3), "Approval of final subdivision maps", of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to the recommendation of the County Engineer, the City Council does hereby grant final approval of Parcel Map No.26971 in the City of Hermosa Beach, State of California, being a Subdivision of Lot 13, Tract No. 1072, as •recorded in Book 17, Page(s) 137 of Maps in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, for a two -unit condominium project on land commonly known as 736 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2003. PRESIDENT of the City Council and Mayor of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY f: fm736montereyrs ONE PARCEL 6,387 S.F. PARCEL VA j SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS \O. 26773 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 41, DOCTOR DOUGHERTY'S HERMOSA BAY VIEW TRACT, AS PER MAP RECORDED !N BOOK 10, PAGE 140 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES SUBDIVIDER'S STATEMENT I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM THE SUBDIVIDER OF THE LANDS INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN ON THIS MAP WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINES, AND I CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF SAID MAP AND SUBDIVISION. 1 BRUCE R. COOPER SUBDIVIDER RECORD OWNERS: BRUCE R. COOPER AND BARBARA J. COOPER co TR.)STEES LAPP IT 'DATED 5-2(0-422 F/516 THE APER FAMILY TRYST (112-REVoCP LE) . THIS SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT FOR 3 UNITS WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE UNITS OF AIR SPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE COMMON AREAS WHICH WILL, IN TURN, PROVIDE THE NECESSARY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) ON � Gib) Lg÷J BORE ME, PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APPEARED1.(s sgr_2.l1A141., A NOTARY PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME (OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE) TO BE THE PERSON(') WHOSE NAME(/) IS/ACRE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE/ HE -T EXECUTED THE SAME IN HIS/I4ER'TI CID AUTHORIZED CAPACITY( -4E-6). AND THAT BY HIS/HER/TI IEI[? SIGNATURE(i) ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(I), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON() ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. 4662'44 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID STATE NAME: - LtiZAL .!-14,j MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT: 9,2005 N O V 2 5 2003 COM. DEV. DEPT ENGINEER'S STATEMENT THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION AND IS BASED UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF BRUCE R. COOPER ON 5-08-03 Z HEREBY STATE THAT THIS PARCEL MAP SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE APPROVED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, IF ANY; THAT THE MONUMENTS OF THE CHARACTER AND LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN PLACE; THAT SAID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. GARY J. ROEHL R.C.E. 30826 EXPIRATION: 03-3I -04 BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE BEARING N 76°34'00"E OF THE CENTERLINE OF 6TH STRFET AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 52508, M.B. 1245-19-21. EASEMENT OF WARREN GILLELEN, FOR WATER PIPELINES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, PER DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 1617 PAGE 47 OF DEEDS. SAID EASEMENT IS BLANKET IN NATURE. RtJ EASCMENT OF SvurtHERN cp,u Fom I W . DISoN) corn PRNY, A cog?O AT1oN , FUR TOPlX.. _UTILITIES PURPOse5 PER DEED RECORDED /o -02 AS-,TAVST2U/MLN7-N0. Oa-. 50a570,O.R• I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN FILED AND DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT ARE REQUIRED iDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 66492 AND 66493 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. EXECUTIVE OFFICER -CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY /i/25/63 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITHIN SUBDIVISION OR ANY PART THEREOF IS SUBJECT, AND WHICH MAY BE PAID IN FULL, HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP AND THAT IT CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP AND ALL APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT WITH RESPECT TO CITY RECORDS. JAMES A. NOYES CITY ENGINEER o h DEPUTY R.C.E. e Zaz 73 EXPIRES 9 -30 -0,S - COUNTY 30-0S COUNTY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THIS MAP, THAT IT COMPLIES WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP; AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT IN ALL RESPECTS NOT CERTIFIED TO BY THE CITY ENGINEER COUNTY ENGINEER BY DEPUTY DATE RCE NO. EXPIRES CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BY MOTION ADOPTED AT ITS SESSION ON THE DAY OF , 20__ APPROVED THE ANNEXED MAP. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE CITY PLANNER'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED MAP CONFORMS SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE TENTATIVE MAP APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE DAY OF , 200_ SECRETARY OF PLANNING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DATE Ii. SCALE: 1"=30' PARCEL 449'. e (R4)) C/L ESTAB BY RECORD RADIUS (1372.30') PER TR. NO. 52508 M.B. 1245-20-21 FD NAIL (NO REF) FITS C/L TIES "/0' ACCEPTED AS P.R.C. / • c) V AP SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS \0. 26773 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES • • a INDICATES THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND BONG SUBDIVIDED BY THIS MAP 10 SET L&T RCE 30826 a) SET L&T RCE 30826 IN TOP OF CONC. BLOCK WALL * DR. DOUGHERTY'S HERMOSA BAY VIEW TRACT M.B. 10-140 O TWO 3 -FOOT WIDE EASEMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SUPPLY PURPOSES PER DEED RECORDED 10-23-02 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 02-2502570, O.R. NOTHING FD NOTHING SET ESTAB. C/L INTERSECTION PER TIES C.E.F.B.-iO4 6TH STREET N 76'34'00"E 703.93' 3 8345'08 " 203.85' (R.41 p)• N C/L ESTAB HOLDING RECORD RADIUS (588.70') PER* THROUGH P.R.C. "F ry � yF-('1o) C-1 N 76'34'00"E n 2.00' U 30' NOTHING FD NOTHING SET /s. /5' ESTAB BY INTERSECTION c.) 13, DETAIL "A" S'LY LINE OF LOTS 23 THROUGH 27 * INCLUSIVE ESTAB BY PRORATION ALONG THE W'LY LINE OF LOTS Z$ PEND354(AND PARALLEL To (oT H St RE E T. N 76'34'00"E 194.96' NOT A PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION N 76'34'00"E 238.79' F'D S* W PER TR. NO. 5250$ M.B. 1245-19-21 500.08' FD L&T LS 5909 (NO REF) N ACCEPTED AS POINT ON N'LY PROLONGATION OF W'LY LINE OF LOT 28 * 2.00' W'LY LINE OF LOTS 28 A 4 35 * AND E'LY LINE OF P.M. NO. 20132 0 P.M.B. 222-23 AND P.M. NO. 25968 P.M.B. 303-11-12 ESTAB. THROUGH FD MONS 38.62' O 8• . .S • (.1 (PR -e N 7614'00'E O 29.01' � Z r7 N N 7• 6'34'00'E 30'12 W'LY LINE OF LOT 40 * 06 N v ESTAB BY PRORATION 0 1cd N PER SAID TRACT A = 6,387 SQ Fr 0 N N 76'34'90'E N _ 31.43 U, FO . 7i) 0 N Z N 76'34.00'E 32.32' i 75.41' !V fR40 o 94.95' -0 zrri • 0 0 N 2.00' 200.17' NOT A PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION N 76'34'00"E 275.65' 0 N 295.21' 200.24' 0 200.26' ^o .. N 87.22,30 N (RAD) 5TH STREETN CURVE RADIUS TANGENT LENGTH DELTA C-1 573.70' 57.21' 114.04' 11'23'20" C-2 1387.30' 0.25' 0.50' 0'01'14" C-3 1387.30' 58.44' 116.81' 4'49'28" C-4 1387.30' 58.69' 117.31' 4'50'42" C-5 1372.30' 65.99' 131.89' 5'30'23" C-6 588.70' 70.81' 140.95' 13'43'04" C-7 573.70' 16.03' 32.06' 3'12'07" C-8 573.1e 1.56' 3.13' 0'18'45" C-9 573.'7Ol 17.93' 35.85' 3'34'48" C-10 573,'70 f 1.60' 3.20' 0'19'11" C-11 573«./0 19.91' 39.80' 3'58'29" N 76'34'00"E 795.17' C/L 5TH STREET ESTAB PER FD. MON. FD L&T RCE 11284 (NO REF) ACCEPTED AS POINT ON S'LY PROLONGATION OF W'LY LINE LOT 35 * ./r i / N 76'34'00"E / 2.00' /N\ D \ V / •S.1855, 0 � ._40, S)8�O) F N 76'34'00"E 00"E 1 �j -R C 63_. cV 38.62' I N cci 0 0 O 4 1� .....>8.5 4, / o3 R ?syF \ DETAIL OF / \\N. ,,,I," PARCEL 1 DETAIL "A" NOT TO SCALE 1.00' 499.96' • -_� 160.09' 339.87' FD L&T ON C/L PER TR. NO. 26438 M.B. 878-78-79 13'21'28"W 256.41' z z CD I fF- V 0 U FD SPK IN LIEU OF L&T PER TR. NO. 26438 M.B. 878-28-29 1,