Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-16 - PC - Regular CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:00 PM Council Chambers 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 COMMISSIONERS Kate Hirsh, Chairperson Stephen Izant, Vice Chairperson Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Greg McNally, Commissioner Alison Becker, Community Development Director AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=OUNTRDNvd2I6TzBpTDIjc2x6bGFwdz09 • Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860• eComment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time.• Supplemental Email: Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Writings distributed to all, or majority of all, of the Commission after the agenda has been posted shall be available for inspection at the Community Development Department located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 during regular business hours. • Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach • YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 • Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda • Cablecast App: Available on supported devices and smart TVs• If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Page 2 of 630 Pages 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.ROLL CALL 4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA This is the time for Planning Commission to discuss any changes to the order of agenda items. 5.PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any items within the Commission's jurisdiction and on items where public comment will not be taken. The public is invited to attend and provide public comment. Public comments are limited to three minutes per speaker from those present in the Council Chambers and via the remote participation option(s) listed on the agenda. This time allotment may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Chair. No action will be taken on matters raised in oral and written communications, except that the Planning Commission may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the Director. Members of the audience will have a future opportunity to speak on items pulled from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion, Public Hearings, and Matters for Commission Consideration when those items are heard. 6.CONSENT CALENDAR The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the Planning Commission. Commissioners may orally register a negative vote on any Consent Calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration before the vote on the Consent Calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner removes an item from the Consent Calendar, either under Approval of the Agenda or under this item before the vote on the Consent Calendar. Items removed for separate discussion will be provided a separate public comment period. Recommendation: To approve the consent calendar. 6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 - 25-CDD-129 6 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission special meeting of September 8, Page 3 of 630 2025. 7.PUBLIC HEARING 7.a PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP24-18), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP24-15), AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84662 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 30-FEET IN HEIGHT, DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS, AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE - 25-CDD-128 11 WITHIN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND COASTAL ZONE. CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 categorical exemption, as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines for new construction. (Assistant Planner DeDe Tran) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP 24-15), Precise Development Plan (24-18) and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 84662 allowing two new residential condominium buildings in the Multiple-Family Residential zone (R-3) and Coast Zone subject to conditions. 2. 7.b RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP24-08) TO ALLOW A NEW 50.5 FOOT-TALL FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT – 25-CDD-082 221 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5, CONDITIONED ON COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines § 15303 (Associate Planner Jake Whitney) Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines § 15303; and 1. Review the application and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Precise Development Plan 24-08 for a new five-unit apartment building at 3415 Palm Drive subject to conditions, 2. Page 4 of 630 including approval of a Coastal Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission. 8.STAFF ITEMS 8.a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT 9.PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission members may briefly respond to public comments, may ask a question for clarification, or make a brief announcement or report on his or her own activities or meetings attended. 10.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Questions from Planning Commission members regarding the status of future agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken. 10.a PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA - 25-CDD- 130 628 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the tentative future agenda for the Planning Commission special meeting of October 13th and regular meeting of October 21st. 11.ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-129 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission special meeting of September 8, 2025. Attachment: Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes 9/8/25 Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Approved: Alison Becker, Community Development Director Page 6 of 630 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes September 8, 2025 Open Session 6:00 PM Council Chambers 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 _____________________________________________________________________ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Chair of the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission called a Special Meeting to take place at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 2025, to consider and take action on only those matters set forth on the agenda below. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hirsh called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairperson Kate Hirsh. 3. ROLL CALL Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado announced a quorum. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion: To approve the agenda. Members Present: Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Greg McNally, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Michael Flaherty Page 7 of 630 2 Moved by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty A voice vote was taken on this item. Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried 5. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: To approve the consent calendar. 6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2025 - 25-CDD-125 Moved by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant Seconded by: Commissioner Greg McNally A voice vote was taken on this item. Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-11), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-12), AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM NO.84586) TO ALLOW TWO NEW 30-FOOT-TALL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS AT 624 1st PLACE IN THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R- 2) ZONE - 25-CDD-124 Assistant Planner DeDe Tran provided a presentation. Public Comment was provided by:  Stacy Straus (in-person)  Christopher J. Tesar (in-person) Motion: To adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP 24- 11), Precise Development Plan (24-12) and Tentative Parcel Map No. 84586 allowing two new residential condominium buildings in the Two Family Residential zone (R-2) subject to conditions; and determine the Page 8 of 630 3 project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant A voice vote was taken on this item. Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Greg McNally, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty Motion Carried 7.b PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REMODEL AND DIVIDE AN EXISTING 4,750-SQUARE-FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING INTO A MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT 700 PCH IN THE GENERAL AND HIGHWAY ZONE AND HOUSING ELEMENT OVERLAY - 25-CDD-117 Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey provided a presentation. Public Comment was provided by:  Pouya Payan (in-person)  Christopher J. Tesar (in-person)  David Grethen (in-person)  Branden McBirney (virtually)  Maurice Refoua (in-person) Motion: To adopt a resolution approving Precise Development Plan (PDP 24-14) for the interior and exterior remodel to divide existing 4,750 square- foot commercial building into a multi-tenant commercial building located at 700 Pacific Coast Highway, subject to conditions of approval; and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty A voice vote was taken on this item. Ayes (4): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Greg McNally, Commissioner Peter Hoffman and Commissioner Michael Flaherty Noes (1): Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant Motion Carried 8. STAFF ITEMS Page 9 of 630 4 8.a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT Community Development Director Alison Becker announced that the Institute for Local Government is hosting a one-hour Lunch and Learn event titled "Unlocking Housing Solutions: How CEQA Reform is Re-Shaping California Development" on September 25th (Thursday) for anyone that is interested in participating. The representative that will be speaking is from Best Best & Krieger LLP. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the meeting. Moved by: Commissioner Greg McNally Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty A voice vote was taken on this item. Ayes (5): Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Vice Chairperson Stephen Izant, Commissioner Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Greg McNally Motion Carried The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Page 10 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 13 Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-128 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-18), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-15), AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84662 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE, WITHIN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 categorical exemption, as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines for new construction. (Assistant Planner DeDe Tran) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP 24-15), Precise Development Plan (24-18) and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 84662 allowing two new residential condominium buildings in the Multiple-Family Residential zone (R-3) and Coast Zone subject to conditions. Executive Summary: The following is a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Precise Development Plan (PDP), and a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (VTPM) that would permit the construction of two detached residential condominium units at 1011 Manhattan Avenue. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested CUP, PDP, and VTPM with conditions of approval and determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment 1). Background: The project site consists of an interior lot with vehicle access on Palm Drive in the Multiple- Family Residential Zone (R-3) within the Coastal Zone (Attachment 2). The City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa) designates the property as High Density Residential with an allowable density range of 25.1- 33.1 dwelling units per acre. The site is located on the west side of Manhattan Avenue and north of 10th Street. The subject parcel is developed with one single-family residence built in 1913 with a significant addition in 1981, which is proposed to be demolished. The proposed project, if approved, would increase the number of residences by one. Protected Units: Page 11 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 13 The Housing Crisis Act’s (HCA), replacement housing requirement, as amended by Senate Bill 8, applies to a housing development that demolishes existing residential units. Additionally, California Government Code § 66300, states protected units are required to be replaced. Pursuant to California Government Code §66300.5(h)(4), protected units include residential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low-income households within the past five years. Per this requirement, the applicant has demonstrated that the prior occupants of the unit proposed to be demolished were not lower or very low-income households within a five-year period via attestations from the prior occupants on forms prescribed by the City. Site Information Table: The following table describes the existing site characteristics. Site Information General Plan High Density (HD) Zoning Multiple-Family Residential Zone (R-3) Lot Size 3,994 square feet Surrounding Zoning North: R-3 East: R-P South: R-3 West: C-2 Surrounding Uses North: Residential East: Residential South: Residential West: Commercial Project Description The project consists of the construction of two detached condominium units within one building on an existing ground lot and the demolition of one existing residence (Attachment 3). The new east-facing residence (Unit 2) would result in 3,000 square feet of living area, while the west- facing residence (Unit 1) would result in 3,084 square feet of living area. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from Palm Avenue via a 9-foot 2-inch wide driveway, which would lead to two-car garages for each unit, as well as a guest parking spaces adjacent to the garage of Unit 2 and another guest parking space parallel to the garage of Unit 1. Also on this level (the basement floor) of Unit 1 there is a laundry room, elevator, and a stairway leading to the first floor. On the basement floor of Unit 2 there is also a laundry room, elevator, and a stairway leading to the first floor as well as a game room and bedroom with attached bathroom. On the first floor of each unit lies the primary bedroom suite and bath, with three additional bedrooms and bathrooms for Unit 1 and two additional bedrooms and bathrooms for Unit 2, as well as the elevators, and stairways for each unit leading to the second floor. On the second floor of both units lie the kitchen, great room, a powder room, and elevator. Page 12 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 13 The project requires the Planning Commission’s review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit, a Precise Development Plan, and a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. The CUP and PDP review aims to promote compatibility, architectural unity, enhance design, and ensure neighborhood compatibility. A Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for condominium purposes is requested so that the units may be sold separately (Attachment 4). Discussion: Development Standards Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Development Standards Criteria Required Provided LOT STANDARDS Minimum Lot Area 1,320 square feet per unit 1,997 square feet per unit Lot Coverage Maximum 65% 65% HEIGHT: 30 ft 30 ft YARDS: Front 2 ft 5 ft Side 4 ft 4 ft Rear 3 ft 5 ft PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: Total Parking Spaces Minimum 5 6 Garage Spaces Minimum 4 4 Guest Space Minimum 1 2 OPEN SPACE: Private Open Space: 600 square feet 729 square feet DESIGN ELEMENTS: Solid Waste Area (Per Unit) (3) 2.5 ft X 2.5 ft bins (3) 2.5 ft X 2.5 ft bins Page 13 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 13 The following summarizes the requirements of condominium construction and maintenance, and the development’s compliance with residential minimum design standards. Historical Assessment A historical resource assessment was prepared for the existing building since it is at least 50 years old and is proposed to be demolished. A historical resource assessment of the structure dated March 19, 2025, was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (Attachment 5). The assessment found that the building would not be eligible for listing as a historic resource as it did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a City of Hermosa Beach landmark. Furthermore, the site was not found to be associated with any historic events or persons. The building was significantly remodeled and altered in 1981 and thus does not retain historic integrity as it no longer an example of any historic architectural style. Project Findings: A Conditional Use Permit may only be approved or conditionally approved when positive findings can be made for all of the findings pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal (HBMC) Code § 17.56.050: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code; The project site is located within the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone. The proposed use for two detached residential units is allowed within the R-3 zone and is compliant with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and all other provisions in the Municipal Code. The project would be developed with two units within 3,994 square feet, which is compliant with the maximum requirement of one unit per 1,320 square feet in the R-3 Zone. The project demonstrates Criteria Required Provided LOT STANDARDS Minimum Lot Width 30’ 40.03 feet DESIGN ELEMENTS: Unit Size 1,600 sf per unit (based on 4 bedrooms) 3,084 sf Unit 1 3,000 sf Unit 2 Private Storage Space 200 cubic feet per unit 200 cubic feet each unit Height 25 ft max along walk streets. Otherwise, base zone standard applies. 30 ft. No walk street YARDS: Front 5 ft 5 ft Page 14 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 13 consistency with applicable criteria of HBMC Section 17.56.040 Criteria for Review of Conditional Use Permits, specifically that the site provides a total of six parking spaces, exceeding the development standard for parking in the R-3 zone as required in Section 17.44.020. Also, the proposed location of the parking and size of the spaces complies with Sections 17.44.090 and 17.44.100 in that the parking spaces are located entirely onsite within two garages with dimensions of 20 feet by 18 feet and with an open guest space which is adjacent to the garage of unit 2 with a dimension of 9 feet 2 inches by 20 feet as well as another guest parking space parallel to the garage of Unit 1 with a length of 22 feet and width of 9 feet. Additionally, the scope of the project is within the anticipated development of the City and the impact to the City’s infrastructure and services will be mitigated through compliance with Building and Safety standards, public right-of-way improvements and assessed initial and ongoing fees to service providers. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; The project site has a High-Density Residential land use designation in the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa). The proposed use is consistent with the High-Density Residential designation and is not a part of any specific plan area. The High Density Residential designation intends to allow for a range of residential housing types to serve the varying living accommodation needs or desires of the community. This designation provides a range of residential building formats including condominiums, duplex/triplex, and apartment buildings. The project site is also located within the Sand Section Neighborhood Character Area of the General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan character areas is to provide guidance on how buildings should interact with the public realm to encourage a coordinated urban realm. The Sand Section Neighborhood Character Area establishes that the area accommodates a range of residential development types, with neighborhood commercial services. It is appropriate to have small-scale apartments adjacent to single-family homes in this area, similar to the two detached residential units proposed at this site. The building’s garages and parking are accessed through the alleyway which is in alignment with the desired building design for this character area. The proposed project would comply with or exceed the minimum front, side, and rear yard areas for the R-3 Zone. The identified density range for the land use designation is 25.1-33 dwelling units per acre pursuant to PLAN Hermosa. The proposed two-unit condominium would have a density of 22 dwelling units per acre, which falls slightly below the designated density range. Additionally, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the General Plan policies and goals. A summary of the most relevant goals and policies is detailed in the table below. General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Page 15 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 13 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high quality of life for residents. Policy 1.6 Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing. The scale of the development is in line with that of the neighborhood and similar development surrounds the subject property. The proposed project is a two- unit condominium development consisting of three levels which is common of new multi- family development in this community. The development fits in seamlessly with the urban context which is made up of two- and three- story buildings and does not contain abrupt changes in scale and massing. Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a diverse range of housing unit types and sizes, within allowed density. The project is located within walking distance to local schools, parks and the beach. Such proximity allows for a diverse choice of recreational activities and hobbies. The proposed project is a two-unit condominium and would contribute to a diverse neighborhood with various housing types and unit sizes for residents of different income levels. Page 16 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 13 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. Goal 6. A pedestrian-focused urban form that creates visual interest and a comfortable outdoor environment. Policy 6.7 Pedestrian oriented design. Eliminate urban form conditions that reduce walkability by discouraging surface parking and parking structures along walkways, long blank walls along walkways, and garage dominated building facades. The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. The building design incorporates windows, balconies, and a pedestrian accessible entrance along the eastern elevation, facing the street. The design features contribute to a pedestrian-focused urban form which creates visual interest. .The proposed project provides setbacks along the front, rear and side of the property to give relief to the site’s relationship to the parkway and allow for a friendly relationship between the development and pedestrians traversing the public right-of-way. Parks & Open Space Element Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced. Policy 5.7 Light pollution. Preserve skyward nighttime views and lessen glare by minimizing lighting levels along the shoreline. The project complies with a maximum height of 30 feet to allow for maintenance of vistas, viewpoints and resources. Nighttime views would be protected by a condition of approval requiring all exterior lighting to be downcast to minimize light pollution. In addition, the project is sufficiently distanced from the shoreline such that the lighting levels will not affect glare. Page 17 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 13 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Housing Element Issue Area 2: Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the need of varying income groups Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote homeownership in the community. The project will support the development of safe, sound, and decent housing. The condominium units built from this project would be made to comply with current building codes which are more robust than the codes used for the existing on- site residences. Furthermore, the project will enhance the public right of way and underground utilities to provide safe, sound, and decent housing. The proposed project contains two condominiums which present the opportunity for home ownership in the community. 3. The proposed use will not be averse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; The proposed condominium development would be similar to other multifamily developments in the vicinity and would not be averse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community or detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The project meets all requirements for the R-3 zone and is consistent with the High-Density Residential land use designation and the Sand Section Neighborhood Character area in PLAN Hermosa. Further, the project will comply with all current building and safety standards to assure safety and reliability in construction. The site provides for residential vehicular access with its provision of compliant driveway width, garage parking and guest parking. The project will not exceed 30 feet in height, the maximum height and such height will be verified at the time of construction per HBMC Section 17.46.015. The project will also maintain all required setbacks per HBMC Section 17.12.020, 5 feet in the front yard (as required), 4 feet in the side yard (as required), and 5 feet in the rear yard (3 feet required). 4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation in the vicinity; and The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed condominium development are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation in the vicinity. The project site is developed with one existing single-family residence. The proposed project design is characteristic of similar multifamily residences in the area and is in a residential zone. The project is also consistent with the High Density Residential land use designation and the Sand Section Neighborhood Character area in Page 18 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 13 PLAN Hermosa. The project use as two detached residences on a single lot is consistent with the surroundings and reasonably foreseeable future land use. 5. The site is physically suitable for the type of the use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. The project site is physically suitable for the type of use being proposed. The project site is developed with one existing single-family residence. The project site is located on a 3,994 square foot lot with existing access to a public street, utilities, and other essential services. The existing lot fronts Manhattan Avenue and has a lot width of 40.03 feet, where a minimum lot width of 29 feet is required for new lots. The proposed subdivision is for condominium purposes of two new detached residential buildings. There are no physical constraints which would prohibit this type of development. Additionally, a Precise Development Plan may only be approved or conditionally approved when positive findings can be made for all of the findings pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal (HBMC) Code § 17.58.040: 1. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with all other applicable provisions of this Title [Title 17, Zoning] and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code; The project site is located within the Multiple-Family Residential Zone (R-3 zone). The design, layout, and physical features of the proposed development comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and all relevant sections of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code including the development standard for height as contained within HBMC Section 17.16.020. As well as HBMC Sections 17.16030 and 17.16.040 for front and side yards. Additionally, HBMC Section 17.16.090 requires that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit be not less than 1,320 square feet, where the site provides 1,997 square feet per unit. The project complies with the maximum lot coverage, which cannot exceed 65 percent of the lot per HBMC Section 17.16.070 and the project provides for 65 percent. Off street parking as required in Section 17.12.030 is accommodated entirely onsite. The development includes four enclosed parking spaces and two guest parking spaces. Vehicle access and parking will be accommodated through a shared 9-foot 2-inch wide driveway, with adequate space for vehicle maneuvering of 25 feet. Additionally, the site will feature a catch basin and cistern to ensure compliance with low-impact development standards. The project provides more than the required open space of 300 square feet per unit (HBMC Section 17.16080) provided for at a second level decks at both units, each exceeding the minimum dimensions of seven feet by seven feet. The project also complies with condominium standards including providing for compliant declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions as found in the conditions of approval and required by Section 17.22.050. The lot is 40.03 feet wide, exceeding the minimum lot width of 29 feet and provides for greater than 1,600 square feet units per Section 17.22.060. 2. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project are consistent with the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan or design guidelines; and The project site has a High Density Residential land use designation in the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa), and is not part of any specific plan area. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project are consistent with the General Plan. The intent of the High Page 19 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 13 Density Residential designation is to allow for a range of residential housing types to serve the varying living accommodation needs or desires of the community. The identified density range for the land use designation is 25.1-33.0 dwelling units per acre pursuant to PLAN Hermosa. The proposed two-unit condominium project complies with these standards and is slightly below the allowable density range at 22 dwelling units per acre. There are no other specific plans or design guidelines required for the project site. 3. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with any design or development standards applicable to the zone, unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Title. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with the design and development standards applicable to the zone and no waivers from these standards are being requested. Finally, approval of a tentative parcel map is required for the creation of two residential condominiums. A subdivision for a tentative parcel map may only be approved or conditionally approved when positive findings can be made pursuant to §16.08.060 of the HBMC. 1. The proposed subdivision would not create lots smaller than a forty (40) foot width and having less than four thousand (4,000) square feet; The proposed subdivision would not alter the sizes of the existing lot but would rather subdivide airspace within the lot for condominium purposes. The existing lot is 40.03 feet and is 3,994 square feet in total. 2. The proposed lots, after being divided, front on public streets and do not front on any alleys; The existing 3,994-square-foot lot fronts on Manhattan Avenue. The proposed subdivision of airspace for condominium purposes would not alter this arrangement. 3. The proposed subdivision will in no way be inconsistent with the prevailing lot pattern or reduce property values in the surrounding neighborhood area; The proposed subdivision of airspace is consistent with the existing lot patterns along Manhattan Avenue and the surrounding area and there are no unique characteristics about this subdivision which would indicate that surrounding property values would be negatively affected as a result of this subdivision. 4. The size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size and lot frontage within the same zone and general plan designation within a three hundred (300) foot radius; provided, however, that all such lots used in the comparison shall be in the same neighborhood area; The size of the lot would not be altered by the proposed subdivision as it pertains to airspace divisions for condominium purposes. There shall be no impact to this lot size standard. The existing lot is 40.03 feet wide, exceeding the minimum lot width of 30 feet and has a total area of 3,994 square feet where a minimum of lot size is required for new lots. 5. The granting of the subdivision would result in the creation of lots that would be of a size Page 20 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 13 and configuration which would be in keeping with the standards of development specified by the zoning ordinance for the land use zone in which it is located; The size of the lots would not be altered by the proposed subdivision as it pertains to airspace divisions for condominium purposes. There shall be no impact to this lot size or configuration standard. 6. The creation of the proposed lots would be in conformity with the intent and purpose of the comprehensive general plan for the city; PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan allows for the creation of new condominium developments within the R-3 zone. Additionally, the proposed subdivision would not alter the size of the existing lot. The subdivision as proposed is compliant with the intent and purpose of the comprehensive general plan for the City. The following table provides a summary of the relevant General Plan goals and policies with which the proposed subdivision conforms. Page 21 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 12 of 13 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high quality of life for residents. Policy 1.6 Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing. The scale of the development is in line with that of the neighborhood and similar development surrounds the subject property. The proposed project is a two- unit condominium development consists of three levels which is common of new multi-family development in this community. The development fits in seamlessly with the urban context which is made up of two- and three-story buildings and does not contain abrupt changes in scale and massing. Housing Element Issue Area 2: Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the need of varying income groups Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote homeownership in the community. The project would support the development of safe, sound, and decent housing. The condominium units built from this project would be made to comply with current building codes which are more robust than the codes used for the existing on- site residences. Furthermore, the condominiums present the opportunity for home ownership in the community. 7. The tentative subdivision map complies with the requirements for approval set forth in the Subdivision Map Act of the state of California. The vesting tentative subdivision map shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with all requirements set forth in the Subdivision Map Act of California. No final map shall be approved by the jurisdiction until such time that the proposed subdivision map has been cleared for compliance. Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption, as defined in §15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, for New Construction as it consists of a multifamily residential structure consisting of no more than four units (Attachment 1). Public Notification: For the September 16, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, a total of 304 public hearing notices were mailed to the applicant, occupants, and property owners of properties within Page 22 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 13 of 13 a 300- foot radius on August 27, 2025. A legal ad was published on September 4, 2025 in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received two notice posters to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC §17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as Attachment 6. As of the writing of the report, the staff have received no public comments. Attachments: 1. Draft PC Resolution 25-15 2. Zoning Map 3. Project Plans 4. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 84662 5. Historic Resource Assessment 6. Public Notification Package Respectfully Submitted by: DeDe Tran, Assistant Planner Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Legal Review: Sarah Locklin, Interim Assistant City Attorney Approved: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director Page 23 of 630 1 PC Resolution 25-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-15), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-18), AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (VTPM NO. 84662) FOR NEW 30-FOOT-TALL RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE IN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE, AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve, and order as follows: WHEREAS, on December 31, 2024, applicant James W. Powers (“applicant”), filed a development application seeking approval of Conditional Use Permit 24-15, Precise Development Plan 24-18, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map TPM No. 84662 (the “project”) for the construction of a two-unit detached condominium project at 1011 Manhattan Avenue in Hermosa Beach (“project site”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the subject application on September 16, 2025, at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in Section 15303(b), Class 3 Exemption, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, because the proposal pertains to construction of limited numbers (two) new, small structures. More specifically, the project is comprised of the construction of two condominium units in an urbanized area, totaling no more than six dwelling units. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines list the exceptions to the exemption and these exceptions to the exemptions define circumstances that override or negate the City’s ability to use a categorical exemption. Specifically, these exceptions to the exemptions are:  The project is located in a sensitive environment such that the project may impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern;  The cumulative effect of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;  The project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances;  The project may damage scenic resources (i.e. trees, historic buildings, or rock outcroppings) within an official state scenic highway;  The project is located on a listed hazardous waste site; or None of the exceptions to the Categorical Exemptions apply, nor will the location of the project impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. The project will not result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The site is not located on a Page 24 of 630 2 hazardous waste site and will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A historical resource assessment was prepared for the existing building since it is at least 50 years old and is proposed to be demolished. A historical resource assessment of the structure dated March 20, 2025, was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan. The assessment found that the building would not be eligible for listing as a historic resource as it did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a City of Hermosa Beach landmark. Furthermore, the site was not found to be associated with any historic events, not does it retain historic integrity as it is no longer an example of any historic architectural style. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for Conditional Use Permit 24-15, pursuant to the review criteria for Conditional Use Permits in Section 17.56.040 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and required findings for Conditional Use Permits in Section 17.56.050 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC): 1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Title and all other titles of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code; The project site is located within the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone. The proposed use for two detached residential units is allowed within the R-3 zone and is compliant with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and all other provisions in the Municipal Code. The project would be developed with two units within 3,994 square feet; which is compliant with the maximum requirement of one unit per 1,320 square feet in the R-3 Zone. The project demonstrates consistency with applicable criteria of HBMC Section 17.56.040 Criteria for Review of Conditional Use Permits, specifically that the site provides a total of six parking spaces, exceeding the development standard for parking in the R-3 zone as required in Section 17.44.020. Also, the proposed location of the parking and size of the spaces complies with Sections 17.44.090 and 17.44.100 in that the parking spaces are located entirely onsite within two garages with dimensions of 20 feet by 18 feet and with an open guest space which is adjacent to the garage of unit 2 with a dimension of 9 feet 2 inches by 20 feet as well as another guest parking space parallel to the garage of Unit 1 with a length of 22 feet and width of 9 feet. Additionally, the scope of the project is within the anticipated development of the City and the impact to the City’s infrastructure and services will be mitigated through compliance with Building and Safety standards, public right-of- way improvements and assessed initial and ongoing fees to service providers. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; The project site has a High-Density Residential land use designation in the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa). The proposed use is consistent with the High-Density Residential designation and is not a part of any specific plan area. The High Density Residential Page 25 of 630 3 designation intends to allow for a range of residential housing types to serve the varying living accommodation needs or desires of the community. This designation provides a range of residential building formats including condominiums, duplex/triplex, and apartment buildings. The project site is also located within the Sand Section Neighborhood Character Area of the General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan character areas is to provide guidance on how buildings should interact with the public realm to encourage a coordinated urban realm. The Sand Section Neighborhood Character Area establishes that the area accommodates a range of residential development types, with neighborhood commercial services. It is appropriate to have small-scale apartments adjacent to single-family homes in this area, similar to the two detached residential units proposed at this site. The building’s garages and parking are accessed through the alleyway which is in alignment with the desired building design for this character area. The proposed project would comply with or exceed the minimum front, side, and rear yard areas for the R-3 Zone. The identified density range for the land use designation is 25.1- 33 dwelling units per acre pursuant to PLAN Hermosa. The proposed two-unit condominium would have a density of 22 dwelling units per acre, which falls slightly below the designated density range. Additionally, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the General Plan policies and goals. A summary of the most relevant goals and policies is detailed in the table below. General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high quality of life for residents. Policy 1.6 Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing. The scale of the development is in line with that of the neighborhood and similar development surrounds the subject property. The proposed project is a two- unit condominium development consisting of three levels which is common of new multi- family development in this community. The development fits in seamlessly with the urban context which is made up of two- and three- story buildings and does not contain abrupt changes in scale and massing. Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. The project is located within walking distance to local schools, parks and the beach. Such proximity allows for a diverse choice of recreational activities and hobbies. Page 26 of 630 4 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Policy 2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a diverse range of housing unit types and sizes, within allowed density. The proposed project is a two-unit condominium and would contribute to a diverse neighborhood with various housing types and unit sizes for residents of different income levels. Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. Goal 6. A pedestrian-focused urban form that creates visual interest and a comfortable outdoor environment. Policy 6.7 Pedestrian oriented design. Eliminate urban form conditions that reduce walkability by discouraging surface parking and parking structures along walkways, long blank walls along walkways, and garage dominated building facades. The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. The building design incorporates windows, balconies, and a pedestrian accessible entrance along the northern elevation, facing the street. The design features contribute to a pedestrian-focused urban form which creates visual interest. The proposed project provides setbacks along the front, rear and side of the property to give relief to the site’s relationship to the parkway and allow for a friendly relationship between the development and pedestrians traversing the public right-of-way. Parks & Open Space Element Page 27 of 630 5 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced. Policy 5.7 Light pollution. Preserve skyward nighttime views and lessen glare by minimizing lighting levels along the shoreline. Nighttime views would be protected by a condition of approval requiring all exterior lighting to be downcast to minimize light pollution. In addition, the project is sufficiently distanced from the shoreline such that the lighting levels will not affect glare. Housing Element Issue Area 2: Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the need of varying income groups Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote homeownership in the community. The project will support the development of safe, sound, and decent housing. The condominium units built from this project would be made to comply with current building codes which are more robust than the codes used for the existing on- site residences. Furthermore, the project will enhance the public right of way and underground utilities to provide safe, sound, and decent housing. The proposed project contains two condominiums which present the opportunity for home ownership in the community. 3. The proposed use will not be averse to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community, nor detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements; The proposed condominium development would be similar to other multifamily developments in the vicinity and would not be averse to the public health, safety, or Page 28 of 630 6 general welfare of the community or detrimental to surrounding properties or improvements. The project meets all requirements for the R-3 zone and is consistent with the High-Density Residential land use designation and the Sand Section Neighborhood Character area in PLAN Hermosa. Further, the project will comply with all current building and safety standards to assure safety and reliability in construction. The site provides for residential vehicular access with its provision of compliant driveway width, garage parking and guest parking. The project will not exceed 30 feet in height, the maximum height and such height will be verified at the time of construction per HBMC Section 17.46.015. The project will also maintain all required setbacks per HBMC Section 17.12.020, 5 feet in the front yard (as required), 4 feet in the side yard (as required), and 5 feet in the rear yard (3 feet required). 4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation in the vicinity; and The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed condominium development are compatible with the existing and reasonably foreseeable future land uses and circulation in the vicinity. The project site is developed with one existing single-family residence. The proposed project design is characteristic of similar multifamily residences in the area and is in a residential zone. The project is also consistent with the High Density Residential land use designation and the Sand Section Neighborhood Character area in PLAN Hermosa. The project use as two detached residences on a single lot is consistent with the surroundings and reasonably foreseeable future land use. 5. The site is physically suitable for the type of the use being proposed, including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints. The project site is physically suitable for the type of use being proposed. The project site is developed with one existing single-family residence. The project site is located on a 3,994 square foot lot with existing access to a public street, utilities, and other essential services. The existing lot fronts Manhattan Avenue and has a lot width of 40.03 feet, where a minimum lot width of 29 feet is required for new lots. The proposed subdivision is for condominium purposes of two new detached residential buildings. There are no physical constraints which would prohibit this type of development. Section 2. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for Precise Development Plan 24-18 pursuant to Section 17.58.040 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 1. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with all other applicable provisions of this Title [Title 17, Zoning] and all other titles of the Page 29 of 630 7 Hermosa Beach Municipal Code; The project site is located within the Multiple-Family Residential Zone (R-3 zone). The design, layout, and physical features of the proposed development comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and all relevant sections of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code including the development standard for height as contained within HBMC Section 17.16.020, and HBMC Sections 17.160.30 and 17.16.040 for front and side yards. Additionally, HBMC Section 17.16.090 requires that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit be not less than 1,320 square feet, while the site provides 1,997 square feet per unit. The project complies with the maximum lot coverage, which cannot exceed 65 percent of the lot per HBMC Section 17.16.070, as the project provides for 65 percent. Off street parking as required in Section 17.12.030 is accommodated entirely onsite. The development includes four enclosed parking spaces and two guest parking spaces. Vehicle access and parking will be accommodated through a shared 9-foot 2-inch wide driveway, with adequate space for vehicle maneuvering of 25 feet. Additionally, the site will feature a catch basin and cistern to ensure compliance with low-impact development standards. The project provides more than the required open space of 300 square feet per unit (HBMC Section 17.16.080) provided for at a second level decks at both units, each exceeding the minimum dimensions of seven feet by seven feet. The project also complies with condominium standards including providing for compliant declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions as found in the conditions of approval and required by Section 17.22.050. The lot is 40.03 feet wide, exceeding the minimum lot width of 29 feet and provides for greater than 1,600 square feet units per Section 17.22.060. 2. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project are consistent with the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan or design guidelines; and The project site has a High Density Residential land use designation in the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa) and is not part of any specific plan area. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project are consistent with the General Plan. The intent of the High Density Residential designation is to allow for a range of residential housing types to serve the varying living accommodation needs or desires of the community. The identified density range for the land use designation is 25.1-33.0 dwelling units per acre pursuant to PLAN Hermosa. The proposed two-unit condominium project complies with these standards and is slightly below the allowable density range at 22 dwelling units per acre. There are no other specific plans or design guidelines required for the project site. 3. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with any design or development standards applicable to the zone, unless waived or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Title. The design, layout, and other physical features of the project comply with the design and development standards applicable to the zone and no waivers from these standards are Page 30 of 630 8 being requested. Section 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 84662 pursuant to Section 16.08.060 of the Municipal Code. 1. The proposed subdivision would not create lots smaller than a forty (40) foot width and having less than four thousand (4,000) square feet; The proposed subdivision would not alter the sizes of the existing lot but would rather subdivide airspace within the lot for condominium purposes. The existing lot is 40.03 feet wide and is 3,994 square feet in total. 2. The proposed lots, after being divided, front on public streets and do not front on any alleys; The existing 3,994-square-foot lot fronts on Manhattan Avenue. The proposed subdivision of airspace for condominium purposes would not alter this arrangement. 3. The proposed subdivision will in no way be inconsistent with the prevailing lot pattern or reduce property values in the surrounding neighborhood area; The proposed subdivision of airspace is consistent with the existing lot patterns along Manhattan Avenue and the surrounding area and there are no unique characteristics about this subdivision which would indicate that surrounding property values would be negatively affected as a result of this subdivision. 4. The size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the prevailing lot size and lot frontage within the same zone and general plan designation within a three hundred (300) foot radius; provided, however, that all such lots used in the comparison shall be in the same neighborhood area; The size of the lot would not be altered by the proposed subdivision as it pertains to airspace divisions for condominium purposes. There shall be no impact to this lot size standard. The existing lot is 40.03 feet wide, exceeding the minimum lot width of 30 feet and has a total area of 3,994 square feet where a minimum of lot size is required for new lots. 5. The granting of the subdivision would result in the creation of lots that would be of a size and configuration which would be in keeping with the standards of development specified by the zoning ordinance for the land use zone in which it is located; The size of the lots would not be altered by the proposed subdivision as it pertains to airspace divisions for condominium purposes. There shall be no impact to this lot size or configuration standard. Page 31 of 630 9 6. The creation of the proposed lots would be in conformity with the intent and purpose of the comprehensive general plan for the city; PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, allows for the creation of new condominium developments within the R-3 zone. Additionally, the proposed subdivision would not alter the size of the existing lot. The subdivision as proposed is compliant with the intent and purpose of the comprehensive general plan for the City. The following table provides a summary of the relevant General Plan goals and policies with which the proposed subdivision conforms. Page 32 of 630 10 General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 1: Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high quality of life for residents. Policy 1.6 Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing. The scale of the development is in line with that of the neighborhood and similar development surrounds the subject property. The proposed project is a two- unit condominium development consists of three levels which is common of new multi-family development in this community. The development fits in seamlessly with the urban context which is made up of two- and three-story buildings and does not contain abrupt changes in scale and massing. Housing Element Issue Area 2: Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the need of varying income groups Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote homeownership in the community. The project would support the development of safe, sound, and decent housing. The condominium units built from this project would be made to comply with current building codes which are more robust than the codes used for the existing on- site residences. Furthermore, the condominiums present the opportunity for home ownership in the community. 7. The tentative subdivision map complies with the requirements for approval set forth in the Subdivision Map Act of the state of California. The vesting tentative subdivision map shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with all requirements set forth in the Subdivision Map Act of California. No final map shall be approved by the jurisdiction until such time that the proposed subdivision map has been cleared for compliance. Page 33 of 630 11 Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Conditional Use Permit 24-15, Precise Development Plans 24-18, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 84662 for the construction of a two-unit detached condominium project at 1011 Manhattan Avenue as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 25-15, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: General: 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans received and reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 16, 2025, revised in accordance with the conditions below. The Community Development Director may approve minor modifications that do not otherwise conflict with the HBMC or requirements of this approval. 2. The project shall fully comply with all requirements of the R-3 Zone as applicable and the Condominium Ordinance in Chapter 17.22 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), including but not limited to: a) Height including required roof deck railings shall fully comply with the 30-foot height limit. Precise building height compliance shall be reviewed at the time of Plan Check, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. b) Design and construction shall comply with HBMC Section 17.22.060 except as specifically stated in this Resolution. c) Conduit to accommodate roof mounted alternative energy equipment for solar energy and solar thermal shall also be supplied per HBMC Section 15.32.140. d) The requirements of HBMC Section 17.22.060(F) and (G) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Division Plan Check. e) A minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage area shall be provided for each unit in accordance with HBMC Section 17.22.060(E). f) Designated, screened solid waste storage areas, a minimum of 2.5’ x 2.5’ (length times width) each, for three solid waste storage bins shall be shown on the site plan compliance with HBMC Chapter 8.12. g) All parking dimensions shall comply with HBMC Chapter 17.44. Roll-up automatic garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings and clearly indicated on floor plans. h) Driveway transitions shall comply with HBMC Section 17.44.120(D). All exterior lighting shall be downcast, fully shielded and illumination shall be contained within the property boundaries. Lighting shall be energy conserving and Page 34 of 630 12 motion detector lighting shall be used for all lighting except low-level (3 feet or less in height) security lighting and porch lights. Lamp bulbs and images shall not be visible from within any onsite or offsite residential unit. Exterior lighting shall not be deemed finally approved until 30 days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming or modification of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant or impacting to nearby properties. i) Any satellite dish antennas and/or similar equipment shall comply with HBMC Section 17.46.240. j) Architectural treatments shall be as shown on building elevations, site and floor plans. 3. The submitted Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Attorney in conformance with HBMC Section 17.22.050 and conditions of this approval prior to Final Map approval. a) Proof of recordation of approved CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. b) Four enclosed (4) garage parking spaces shall be maintained on-site. All parking spaces shall remain available for parking and shall not be used for storage or other purposes. Storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles shall not be allowed. c) The shared off-street guest parking space shall be compliant with the required turning radius, shall remain open and accessible to each unit, rather than being used for storage or any other purposes, and the CC&Rs shall reflect this condition. 4. The project shall comply with all requirements of the Building Division, Public Works Department, Fire Department, and HBMC. 5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures of the General Plan Program EIR (SCH No. 201581009) as adopted by the City Council including: a) Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the following provisions of District Rule 403: i. All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 Page 35 of 630 13 percent. ii. The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. iii. All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv. All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust. v. All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of dust. vi. General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. vii. Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off (MM 4.2-2A). b) In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location (MM 4.2-2b). c) Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings (MM 4.2-2c). For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed at depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits (depths between 15 and 35 feet), a qualified paleontologist shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities (MM 4.4- 3). d) If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before Page 36 of 630 14 construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered (MM 4.4-3). e) For development located at a distance within which acceptable vibration standards pursuant to the Table 4.11-10 of the General Plan Program EIR, included below, the applicant at the time of plan check submittal shall submit a report prepared by a qualified structural engineer demonstrating the following: i. Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would not exceed acceptable levels where damage to structures using vibration levels in Draft EIR Table 4.11-4 as standards. ii. Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration level limits are not exceeded. iii. A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes post‐ construction and post‐ demolition surveys of existing structures that would be impacted. Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or construction include but are not limited to: 1. Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment. 2. Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment. 3. Specifying demolition by non‐impact methods, such as sawing concrete. 4. Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources. 5. Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision- making for subsequent activities (MM 4.11-2). General Plan Program EIR TABLE 4.22-10 Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Vibration Velocity Level at 25 Feet, in/sec Distance from Equipment Within Which Standard is Exceeded Pile driver (impact) 0.158 158 feet Page 37 of 630 15 Equipment Vibration Velocity Level at 25 Feet, in/sec Distance from Equipment Within Which Standard is Exceeded Pile driver (sonic) 0.045 68 feet Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.050 74 feet Hydro mill (slurry wall) 0.002-0.006 9-17 feet Vibratory roller 0.050 74 feet Hoe ram 0.022 43 feet Large bulldozer 0.022 43 feet Caisson drilling 0.022 43 feet Loaded trucks 0.020 40 feet Jackhammer 0.009 24 feet Small bulldozer 0.001 5 feet Building Plans: 6. Two copies of a Final Landscape Plan, consistent with landscape plans approved by the Planning Commission, indicating size, type, quantity, and characteristics of landscape materials shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The Final Plan shall also include the following: a) The applicant shall provide a landscape plan to comply with HBMC Sections 17.22.060(H), 8.60.060, and 8.60.070 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. b) An automatic landscape sprinkler system consistent with HBMC Section 17.22.060(H) shall be provided and shall be shown on plans (Building Permits are required). 7. The plans shall comply with HBMC Section 8.44.095 and install permeable surfaces in the driveway, guest parking space and other non-landscaped areas to the maximum extent feasible. If providing water-permeable surfaces on at least 50% of exterior surface area is not feasible and incorporating measures in 8.44.095 to the extent practicable to infiltrate the volume of runoff produced by an 0.80-inch twenty-four (24) hour rain event, then the applicant shall infiltrate runoff on-site. In the event that subsurface infiltration is required, plans shall designate the exact location of the subsurface infiltration system, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City (prior to Final map approval) for the ongoing infiltration and provide a surety bond to the City to guarantee that on-site, subsurface infiltration is achieved. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Building Division. All other drainage shall be routed to an off-site facility or on-site permeable area approved by Page 38 of 630 16 the City. To the extent possible, a portion of roof drainage shall be routed to on-site permeable areas. No drainage shall flow over any driveway or sidewalk. If the drainage of surface waters onto the property requires a sump pump to discharge said waters onto the street, the property owner(s) shall record an agreement to assume the risk associated with use and operation of said sump pump, release the City from any liability, and indemnify the City regarding receipt of surface waters from the property. The recorded agreement must be filed with the City prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 8. The plans and construction shall comply with all requirements of the Building Code in Title 15 and Green Building Standards in HBMC Chapter 15.48. Water conservation practices set forth in HBMC Section 8.56.070 shall be complied with and noted on construction plans. 9. Two copies of final construction plans, including site, elevation, and floor plans, which are consistent with the conditions of approval of this conditional use permit, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for consistency with Planning Commission approved plans and this Resolution prior to the submittal to the Building Division for Plan Check. 10. The applicant shall submit all required plans and reports to comply with the City’s construction debris recycling program including manifests from both the recycler and County landfill at least 65% of demolition debris associated with demolition of the existing improvements and new construction shall be recycled. 11. The address of each condominium unit shall be conspicuously displayed on the street side of the buildings with externally or internally lit numbers and the method for illumination shall be shown on plans. Address numbering and display shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Department. 12. The applicant shall pay all Parks and Recreation Facilities Area Dedication fees at the time of building permit issuance. Public Works 13. No new walls or foundation footing will be allowed to be constructed on or over the public right-of-way. 14. A Residential Encroachment Permit is required for any non-conforming structures located over or within the public right-of-way. 15. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, an approved civil engineering plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer, and approved by Public Works, addressing grading, undergrounding of all utilities, pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, on-site and off-site drainage (no sheet flow permitted), installation of utility laterals, and all other improvements necessary to comply with the Municipal Code and Public Works specifications, shall be filed with the Community Development Department. Page 39 of 630 17 16. Civil engineering plans shall include adjacent properties/structures, sewer laterals, and storm drain main lines on street. 17. Project construction shall protect private and public property in compliance with HBMC Sections 15.04.070 and 15.04.140. No work in the public right of way shall commence unless and until all necessary permits are attained from the Public Works Department including if required, an approved Residential or Commercial Encroachment Permit. 18. Sewer flow rate for upstream and downstream manhole along with manhole rim/lid elevations must be submitted prior to grading and plan check. Sewer lateral video must be submitted with plan check submittal if the developer plans to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required after review of the sewer lateral video. 19. Sewer manhole/lid elevations must be submitted prior to grading and plan check. 20. Sewer lateral video must be submitted with plan check submittal if the developer plans to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required after review of the sewer lateral video. 21. Sewer main work may be required after review of sewer lateral video. 22. The project must comply with Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations (HBMC Ch. 8.44) and must implement Low Impact Development Standards and submit at time of grading and plan check along with an erosion control plan. Page 40 of 630 18 Construction 23. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, abutting property owners and residents within 100 feet of the project site shall be notified of the anticipated date for commencement of construction. a) The procedures for notification shall be provided by the Building and Safey Division of the Community Development Department. b) Building permits will not be issued until the applicant provides an affidavit certifying mailing of the notice. 24. Project construction shall conform to the Noise Control Ordinance requirements in HBMC Section 8.24.050. Allowed hours of construction shall be printed on the building plans and posted at construction site. 25. Traffic control measures, including flagmen, shall be utilized to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. 26. A construction sign shall be posted conspicuously during the course of construction at the project site. Fire: 27. The project shall provide a public fire flow with 300 GPM at 20 PSI for three hours fire sprinklers. Other: 28. This approval shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at 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 Permits, Precise Development Plans and Parcel Map shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Page 41 of 630 19 29. A verbatim copy of the conditions of approval, along with the applicant and property owners' signatures of acceptance, shall be incorporated into the construction documents before building permit issuance. 30. Approval of these permits shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of California Coastal Commission approval unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided. 31. The Planning Commission may review these Conditional Use Permits and Precise Development Plans 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. 32. 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. 33. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 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 permit. 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. Section 5. 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. Section 6. 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. Page 42 of 630 20 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on the 16th of September, 2025 VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 25-15 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its regular meeting of September 16, 2025. Kate Hirsh, Chairperson Alison Becker, Secretary Date Page 43 of 630 8th StHermosaAve13th St 9th StBeach D r 14th St Palm Dr 11th St 11th St 10th St 11th St BeachDr Ma n h attanAveP i e r A v e Bayview DrMonterey B lvdManhattan Ave Sunset DrTheSt r and9th Ct Loma Dr10th Ct 12th Ct 11th Ct 13th Ct 13th St 14th Ct Pier Plaza Project Zoning MapPlanning Commission September 16, 2025 1011 Manhattan Ave APN: 4187-006-023 Zone: R-3 Multiple Family Residential Precise Development Plan Description Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) -HE Housing Element Overlay 300' Notification Radius Page 44 of 630 1011 MANHATTAN AVEHERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254PROJECT DATANO. OF STORIES: 3NO. OF UNITS: 2ZONING:LEGAL DESCRIPTIONOCCUPANCY AND ZONINGOCCUPANCY:CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-BR-3/UR3A NEW TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUMJIMMY POWERS PROPERTY OWNERSHERMOSA BEACH, CASYMBOL LEGENDNORTHDIFFERENTIAL IN FLOOR ELEVATION, FINISHSURFACE, OR CHANGE IN WALL PLANLIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE FLOORELEVATIONTOP/BOTTOM RISER# OF RISERS UP/DOWNDN. 0 R. @ 0"ROOM NAMELIVING ROOMSLOPE RUN412SLOPE RISEEXTENTS OF REVISIONREVISION NUMBERNORTH ARROW DESIGNATIONSKYLIGHT LETTER DESIGNATIONDOOR NUMBER DESIGNATIONWINDOW LETTER DESIGNATIONSECTION NUMBERSHEET NUMBER1AA-00A1ASURFACE DESCRIPTIONSLOPED SURFACE(ARROW POINTS DOWN SLOPE)ELEVATION DESIGNATIONSHEET NUMBERROOF SLOPE DESCRIPTIONELEVATIONELEVATIONFLOW LINE(ARROW POINTS DOWN SLOPE)SUB FLOOR ELEVATIONSUB-FLOOR ELEVATIONAROOF SLOPE4:12CBA-00D100.00'100.00'12"100.00' S.F.E.LT.WT.S.F.E.CEILING HEIGHT8'-0" FLAT CLG.NORTHAPN: 4187-006-023SHEET INDEXVICINITY MAPDEFERRED SUBMITTALSPROJECT INFORMATIONG.00CONSULTANTSABBREVIATION A.H.A.W.B.O.W.C.H.CLG.CLR.COL.CONC.C.W.DIM.DN.ELEV.F.A.FLR.FX.HORZ.HT.LAND.LT.WT.MAX.MIN.OP.PLINE.REQ.SECT.S.F.E.SHT.SK.SL.T.O.W.ACTUAL HEIGHTAWNING WINDOWBOTTOM OF WALLCRITICAL HEIGHTCEILINGCLEARCOLUMNCONCRETECASEMENT WINDOWDIMENSIONDOWNELEVATIONFROM ABOVEFLOORFIXEDHORIZONTALHEIGHTLANDINGLIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETEMAXIMUMMINIMUMOPERABLEPROPERTY LINEREQUIREDSECTIONSUB FLOOR ELEVATIONSHEETSKEWEDSLOPEDTOP OF WALLCALCULATIONSAREA CALCULATIONSG.00PROJECT SUMMARYDEMO OF EXISTING 2,969 SF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHEXISTING 3 NON COMPLIANT PARKING SPACES ANDCONSTRUCTION OF NEW 6,084 SF TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUMWITH 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE PER UNIT AND 2 GUESTPARKING SPACESA.03A.04A.05FIRST FLOOR PLANSECOND FLOOR PLAN UNIT 1ELEVATIONSA.02BASEMENT FLOOR PLANTITLE 24 CONSULTANTSTRUCTURAL CONSULTANTCOVER A.06ELEVATIONSLOT NO. 24, BLOCK 35550 S HILL STREET, SUITE 1520LOS ANGELES, CA, 90013A.01SITE PLAN/ ENCROACHMENT PLANSURVEYC.01A.00AREA CALCULATIONS/PERMEABLE PLANAPPLICABLE CODESCITY, STATE, NATIONALLY2022 CBC, 2022 CMC, 2022 CPC, 2022 CEC, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE AND THECITY OF REDONDO BEACH, 2022 BEES, 2022 CGBSC, 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODESOILS ENGINEER-FIRE SPRINKLER-SOLAR PANELS-SHORINGSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSSURVEYOREAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING1311 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD #4MANHATTAN BEACH, CA, 92780TEL: (310) 955-8901A.07NORCAL ENGINEERING10641 HUMBOLT STREETLOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720TEL: (562) 799-9469ROOF PLANSECTIONSA.08LANDSCAPE PLANL.01DOOR SCHEDULEA.09WINDOW SCHEDULEA.10A.04.1SECOND FLOOR PLAN UNIT 2FLOOR AREAS UNIT 1:BASEMENT AREA = 412 SQ. FT.FIRST FLOOR AREA = 1504 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOOR AREA = 1168 SQ. FT.GARAGE AREA = 377 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVEABLE= 3,084 SFFLOOR AREAS UNIT 2:BASEMENT AREA = 767 SQ. FT.FIRST FLOOR AREA = 1182 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOOR AREA = 1051 SQ. FT.GARAGE AREA = 377 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVEABLE= 3,000 SFCRITICAL POINTSA.11Page 45 of 630 MANHATTAN AVE.TO S 1 0 4 . 4 1 BO S 1 0 0 . 3 9 TO S 1 0 4 . 9 7 BO S 1 0 4 . 4 4 BO S 9 3 . 8 5 TO S 1 0 0 . 6 4 BO S 1 0 0 . 7 6 TO S 1 0 4 . 5 4 BO S 9 5 . 1 9 TO S 1 0 0 . 6 9 BO S 1 0 1 . 0 0 TO S 1 0 4 . 5 4 TO S 1 0 2 . 4 2 BOS 101.31TW 102.70TW 105.46TW 102.69TW 1 0 7 . 2 4 TW 9 9 . 5 2TW 100.94TW 1 0 2 . 2 8 TW 1 0 7 . 1 6 TW 1 0 6 . 4 2 TW 1 0 6 . 8 6 TF 1 1 0 . 5 7 TF 1 0 9 . 1 9 TW 1 0 2 . 8 3 TF 1 0 3 . 5 1 RH 121.79 RH 119.63 RH 125.68 FF 104.96 GFF 93.87 93.25 94.91 95.05 94.59 93.87 92.83 TC 92.58 FL 92.62 91.91 92.5793.5994.37 94.99 95.52 96 . 4 1 97 . 9 0 99 . 4 1 10 0 . 9 5 10 0 . 7 9 10 1 . 2 2 10 1 . 7 3 10 2 . 4 0 10 2 . 2 1 10 5 . 1 1 100.4710 1 . 8 9 10 1 . 6 7 100.14 99.89 100.30 100.41 101.01 101.44 100.73 100.9710 2 . 5 7 10 2 . 4 8 10 2 . 8 0 10 2 . 7 8 10 2 . 4 7 10 2 . 7 5 10 2 . 4 5 10 2 . 4 2 10 2 . 8 2 10 2 . 8 5 10 1 . 9 2 98 . 6 3 95 . 5 1 95.0893.7010 4 . 5 9 10 4 . 6 7 10 4 . 5 5 104.51 1 0 4 . 1 6 104.29 104.17104.36 104.51 TX 99.99 BX 99.49 TX 100.93 BX 100.61 TC 99.21 FL 99.15 EG 99.35 FL 99.49 EG 99.66 FL 100.50 EG 100.63 TC 100.52 FL 100.15 EG 100.28 TC 100.18 FL 99.76 EG 99.92 102.92 102.33 101.74101.13 100.60 98 . 5 1 93 . 0 3 TC 100.91 FL 100.86 EG 101.02 LOT NO. 24 2 STORY STRUCTURE LOT NO. 23 2 STORY STRUCTURE LOT NO. 25 2 STORY STRUCTUREDECKPATIO 6.86'4.95'3.84'4.06'2.84'2.93'0.12'0.12'0.62' 0.68' 10.71' 2.23' 2.64'G WWPALM DR.EL = 9 5 . 1 0 ' @ P C EL = 9 3 . 8 5 ' @ P C EL = 1 0 1 . 9 2 ' @ P C EL = 1 0 1 . 4 4 ' @ P C SET L&TAG LS 9806 ON PL PROD. 2.00' W'LY OF PC. EL=94.96' SET L&TAG LS 9806 ON PL PROD. 2.00' W'LY OF PC. EL=93.05' SET L&TAG LS 9806 ON PL PROD. 5.00' E'LY OF PC. EL=100.00' SET L&TAG LS 9806 ON PL PROD. 5.00' E'LY OF PC. EL=100.95' 10TH ST. N 7 7 ° 4 3 ' 2 3 " E 99 . 7 8 ' 99 . 7 8 ' N 7 7 ° 4 3 ' 2 3 " E40.03'N 12°10'14" W40.03'N 12°10'00" WN 12°10'00" WN 12°10'14" W30 . 0 0 ' 30. 0 0 ' 10. 0 0 ' 10 . 0 0 '40.03'40.03'70.03 ' 6 0 ' 30' 30 ' 6 0 ' 30 ' 30' 2 0 ' 10' 10 ' 2 0 ' 10' 10 'GUTTERSIDEWALKSIDEWALKST O N E P A V E R BR I C K P A V E R CATVNOTE THIS SURVEY AND MAP ARE THE PROPERTY OF EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING AND MAY NOT BE MODIFIED, ALTERED, OR CHANGED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL BY E.E. LAND SURVEYING AND THE CLIENT FOR WHOM THE SURVEY WAS PREPARED. THIS PROVISO EXTENDS TO THE RESULTING PLOT OF SAID MAP AND THE COMPUTER DISC OR E-MAIL OF THAT MAP AS PROVIDED TO THE CLIENT. ANY VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISO WILL VOID ANY PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION OR WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, BY EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING AS TO SUCH CHANGED MATERIAL. E.E. LAND SURVEYING BO U N D A R Y / T O P O G R A P H I C S U R V E Y SI T E A D D R E S S :1011 Man h a t t a n A v e , Her m o s a B e a c h , C A 9 0 254 PROJECT NOTES: LOT AREA = 3994.08 S.F. BASIS OF BEARINGS: N 12°10'00" W CENTERLINE OF MANHATTAN AVE. FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH, M.B. 1-56/60 AS FILED IN THE RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY. POWERS 24-197 08/11/24 APN: 4187-006-023 LOT NO. 24, BLK. 35 CLIENT: PROJECT NO. ASSESSORS'S I.D. NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATE: ASSUMED BENCHMARK: L&TAG LS 9806 ON PL PROD. 5.00' E'LY OF PC. EL=100.00', AS SHOWN HEREON. ABBREVATIONS : AB AGGREGATE BASE AC ASPHALT PAVEMENT AD AREA DRAIN BM BENCHMARK BOS BOTTOM OF STAIRS BOW BACK OF WALK BRMP BOTTOM OF RAMP BS BOTTOM OF SLOPE CB CATCH BASIN CBW CONCRETE BLOCK WALL CF CURB FACE CLF CHAIN LINK FENCE CONC CONCRETE E EAST EG EDGE OF GUTTER EL ELEVATION EM ELECTRIC METER EMH ELECTRIC MANHOLE EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT EPB ELECTRIC PULL BOX EV ELECTRIC VAULT EVB ELECTRICAL VENTILATION BOX FF FINISH FLOOR FG FINISH GRADE FH FIRE HYDRANT FL FLOW LINE FND FOUND FOW FACE OF WALK FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK GM GAS METER GV GAS VALVE ICV IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE IE INVERT ELEVATION IP IRON PIPE LP LEAD, TACK & TAG LT LEAD & TACK MP METAL POST N NORTH NG NATURAL GROUND ELEVATION O/S OFFSET OHW OVERHEAD WIRE PB PULL BOX PC PROPERTY CORNER PL PROPERTY LINE PLS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR PLT PARKING LOT LIGHT PM PARKING METER POST PP POWER POLE PROD PRODUCED RCE REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER RW RETAINING WALL S SOUTH SB SPLASH BOX SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SMH SEWER MANHOLE SPB SIGNAL PULL BOX STLT STREET LIGHT SW SPIKE & WASHER TBM TEMPORARY BENCHMARK TC TOP OF CURB TELMH TELEPHONE MANHOLE TG TOP OF GRATE ELEVATION TOS TOP OF STAIRS TR TREE TS TRAFFIC SIGNAL TS TOP OF SLOPE TW TOP OF WALL TX/BX TOP/BOTTOM OF X W WEST WD-FENCE WOOD FENCE WI-FENCE WROUGH IRON FENCE WM WATER METER WV WATER VALVE EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 1311 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD. #4 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 92780 PHONE (310)955 8901 PREPARED BY: DRAFTED BY: MAP ISSUE DATE: M.A.P. 08/13/2024 DA T E O F R E V I S I O N S : # IT E M LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR ALL MAPS, PLATS, REPORTS, DESCRIPTIONS, OR OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE PREPARED UNDER THE RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAND SURVEYING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MICHAEL PROFET, LS 9806, PURSUANT TO THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR'S ACT BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 8700-8805. FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH M.B. 1-59/60 N S W E ELECTRIC BOX ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER AIR CONDITIONER UNIT WATER SERVICE GRATE STORM DRAIN INLET SIGN WATER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT WATER METER SEWER MANHOLE GAS VALVE GAS METER SYMBOLS POWER POLE LIGHT POLE WATER HEATER MAIL BOX ELECTRIC METER BOLLARD TRAFFIC CONTROL BOX TRAFFIC LIGHT DOUBLE GATE SLIDE GATE SINGLE GATE LEGEND & BLOCKS TREE WV W GV S G E T W MB BUILDING HATCHING & LINE TYPE ASPHALT CONCRETE BRICK PAVERS STONE PAVERS TILE PAVERS PLANTER WALL CONCRETE BLOCK WALL BRICK WALL CHAIN LINK FENCE IRON FENCE CENTER LINE VINYL FENCE STONE WALL ROOF LINE WOOD DECK POWER LINE WOOD FENCE RETAINING WALL Gate X X X UNKNOWN UTILITY PROPERTY LINE DRIPLINE Feet 20100 TITLE POLICY NOTE: A TITLE REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND REVIEWED BY EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING AT THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY. UPWARD TITLE COMPANY ORDER NUMBER: 4220124-00840 DATED AS OF JULY 19, 2024 NO PLOTTABLE EASEMENTS PER SAID DOCUMENT LICENS E D L AND SURVEYORSTATEOFC A L IF O R NIA9 8 0 6 MICHA E L A.PROFET08/13/2024 Page 46 of 630 W OPEN SPACEA.00FIRST FLOOR PLAN SF AND OPEN SPACESCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"CALCULATIONS AND AREABASEMENT PLAN SF AND OPEN SPACESCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAMSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"SCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERS SECOND FLOOR PLAN SF AND OPEN SPACE UNIT 1 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"50% PERMEABLE SURFACESCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLAN SF AND OPEN SPACE UNIT 2 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"Page 47 of 630 MANHATTAN AVE. W PALM DR.10TH ST.MANHATTAN AVE.10TH ST.A.01ENCROACHMENTSITE PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"PLANSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSENCROACHMENT PLANSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"SITE/Page 48 of 630 A.00AA.00AA.00CA.00CA.00BA.00BA.02BASEMENT FLOORBASEMENT FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"PLANSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERS 102 CUBIC SF FULLHEIGHT STORAGE120 CUBIC SF FULLHEIGHT STORAGE80 CUBIC SF FULLHEIGHT STORAGE120 CUBIC SF FULLHEIGHT STORAGEPage 49 of 630 A.00AA.00AA.00CA.00CA.00BA.00BA.03FIRST FLOORFIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"PLANSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSPage 50 of 630 A.00AA.00AA.00CA.00CA.00BA.00BA.04SECOND FLOORSECOND FLOOR PLAN UNIT 1SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"PLANSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSPage 51 of 630 A.00AA.00AA.00CA.00CA.00BA.00BA.04.1SECOND FLOORSECOND FLOOR PLAN UNIT 2SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"PLANSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERS UNIT 2Page 52 of 630 A.00AA.00AA.00CA.00CA.00BA.00BA.05ROOFROOF PLANSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"PLANSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSPage 53 of 630 CEILING PLATE LINECEILING PLATE LINE7'-10" TOP OF WINDOW 1'-1"8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"93.87' SLAB8'-0" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±7'-6" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR CEILING PLATE LINE104.45' SUBFLOOR13'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"93.87' SLAB9'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±9'-0" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR ±9'-0" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR 9'-21 4" ROUGH PLATE HT 8'-21 4" ROUGH PLATE HT 93.87'FS93.87'FS93.87'FS2'-9" 8'-0" 23'-91 4" 27'-11"MAX HEIGHT AT PROPERTY CORNERS102.95' SUBFLOOR121.78' ROOF112.36' SUBFLOOR119.03' SUBFLOOR128.22' ROOF1'-0"131.72 MAX 129.08' ACTUALCP3128.53 MAX 128.22' ACTUALCP4124.98 MAX 121.78' ACTUALCP698.51'EXIST. NEIGHB. GRADE101.92'EXIST. NEIGHB. GRADELINE OF NEIGHBORS GRADELINE OF PROPOSED GRADE96.41'EXIST. GRADE97.90'EXIST. GRADE 99.41'EXIST. GRADE 100.79'EXIST. GRADELINE OF EXISTING GRADELINE OF EXISTING GRADE101.73'EXIST. GRADE10 2 . 2 1 'EXIST. GRADELINE OF NEIGHBORS GRADELINE OF EXISTING GRADE128.22 MAX 128.22' ACTUALC P 5 17 8" 35 8" 3'-57 8" 3'-118"INTERPOLATED LINE AT PROPERTY CORNERS93.85'PC 101.92' PC5 8"129.08' ROOF12 9 . 0 8 M A X 1 2 9 . 0 8 ' A C T U A L C P 9 30'-0" 30'-0"104.45' SUBFLOOR13'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT CEILING PLATE LINE119.03' SUBFLOOR1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±9'-41 4" TOP OF WINDOW 9'-21 4" ROUGH PLATE HT103.45' SUBFLOOR13'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT CEILING PLATE LINE119.03' SUBFLOOR1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±9'-41 4" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR 9'-21 4" ROUGH PLATE HT 24'-71 2"129.08' ROOF131.30 MAX 129.08' ACTUAL CP213 1 . 7 2 M A X 1 2 9 . 0 8 ' A C T U A L C P 3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADE101.92' P C 101.44' PCINTERPOLATED LINE AT PROPERTY CORNERSMAX HEIGHT AT PROPERTY CORNERS2'-93 4" 2'-45 8" 30'-0" 30'-0"STONEWOOD SLATSMETAL FASCIASTUCCOMATERIAL LEGENDA.06ELEVATIONSEAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"SCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERS SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"Page 54 of 630 CEILING PLATE LINECEILING PLATE LINE7'-10" TOP OF WINDOW 1'-1" 8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"93.87' SLAB8'-0" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±7'-6" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR CEILING PLATE LINE104.45' SUBFLOOR13'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"93.87' SLAB9'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±9'-0" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR ±9'-0" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR 9'-214" ROUGH PLATE HT 8'-23 8" ROUGH PLATE HT100.59'FS 93.87'FS24'-10" 27'-11"102.95' SUBFLOOR121.78' ROOF112.36' SUBFLOOR119.03' SUBFLOOR128.22' ROOF125.90 MAX 121.78' ACTUALCP7128.40' MAX 128.22' ACTUALCP1131.30 MAX 129.08' ACTUAL CP2 23 8"LINE OF EXISTING GRADELINE OF PROPOSED GRADELINE OF PROPOSED GRADELINE OF PROPOSED GRADE95.51'EXIST. GRADE98 . 6 3 'EXIST. GRADE101.92'EXIST. GRADE102.80'EXIST. GRADE102.50'EXIST. GRADE102.42'EXIST. GRADE95.10'E X I S T . N E I G H B . G R A D E 102.82'E X I S T . N E I G H B . G R A D E102.78'EXIST. NEIGHB. GRADE102.47'EXIST. NEIGHB. GRADE101.01'EXIST. NEIGHB. GRADELINE OF EXISTING GRADELINE OF EXISTING GRADELINE OF NEIGHBORS EXISTING GRADELINE OF NEIGHBORS EXISTING GRADE3'-058" 3'-113 4"INTERPOLATED LINE AT PROPERTY CORNERS101.44'PC 95.10'PCMAX HEIGHT AT PROPERTY CORNERS129.16 MAX 129.08' ACTUAL C P 8 2" 30'-0" 30'-0"CEILING PLATE LINECEILING PLATE LINE7'-10" TOP OF WINDOW 1'-1"8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"93.87' SLAB8'-0" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±7'-6" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR CEILING PLATE LINECEILING PLATE LINE7'-10" TOP OF WINDOW 1'-1" 8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"93.87' SLAB8'-0" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±7'-6" TOP OF WINDOW/GARAGE DOOR 27'-11"102.95' SUBFLOOR121.78' ROOF112.36' SUBFLOOR102.95' SUBFLOOR121.78' ROOF112.36' SUBFLOOR124.98 MAX 121.78' ACTUALCP6125.90 MAX 121.78' ACTUALCP7EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADE12 8 . 2 2 M A X 1 2 8 . 2 2 ' A C T U A LCP5128.40' MAX 128.22' ACTUALCP1128.53 MAX 128.22' ACTUAL C P 4 95 . 1 0 ' P C 93 . 8 5 ' P CINTERPOLATED LINE AT PROPERTY CORNERSMAX HEIGHT AT PROPERTY CORNERSLINE OF BUILDING BEYOND SHOWN DASHED129.08 MAX 129.08' ACTUALCP912 9 . 1 6 M A X 1 2 9 . 0 8 ' A C T U A LCP8 30'-0" 30'-0"STONEWOOD SLATSMETAL FASCIASTUCCOMATERIAL LEGENDA.07ELEVATIONSWEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"SCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERS NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"Page 55 of 630 CEILING PLATE LINECEILING PLATE LINE102.95' SUBFLOOR121.78' ROOF1'-1"8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"93.87' SLAB8'-0" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE112.36' SUBFLOOR8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G8'-0" TOP OF GARAGE DOOR CEILING PLATE LINE104.45' SUBFLOOR13'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"93.87' SLAB9'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE119.03' SUBFLOOR1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G±13'-6" TOP OF TRANSOM 9'-214" ROUGH PLATE HTBEDROOM#2±8'-0" TOP OF GARAGE DOOR 2'-0"7'-2 1/4" 9'-2 1/4" TOTAL WINDOW HT. 9'-21 4" TOP OF WINDOWPOWDERROOMGREATROOMDECKPRIMARYBEDROOMPRIMARYBATHROOMGAMEROOMGARAGEGARAGEDRIVEWAYPRIMARYBEDROOMHALLWAYBEDROOM#2UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 2UNIT 2UNIT 2UNIT 2UNIT 2UNIT 2UNIT 2UNIT 1UNIT 1UNIT 1GREATROOMUNIT 1PRIMARYDECKUNIT 1GREAT RM.DECKUNIT 1±8'-4" TOP OF DOOR 8'-4" TOP OF DOORGLASS RAILINGGLASSRAILINGGLASS RAILING2'-81 2"3'-534"129.08' ROOFCEILING PLATE LINECEILING PLATE LINE1'-1"8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"93.87' SLAB8'-0" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINECEILING PLATE LINE1'-1" 8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"93.87' SLAB8'-0" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE8'-4" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G108.82'T.O.W.99.87'T.O.W.BATHROOM#3UNIT 1HALLWAYUNIT 1HALLWAYUNIT 1DRIVEWAY8'-4" TOP OF WINDOWGREATROOMUNIT 1KITCHENUNIT 1103.45'F.S.93.87'F.S.102.95' SUBFLOOR121.78' ROOF112.36' SUBFLOOR102.95' SUBFLOOR121.78' ROOF112.36' SUBFLOORCEILING PLATE LINE104.45' SUBFLOOR14'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT 1'-1"93.87' SLAB9'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE119.03' SUBFLOOR1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G8'-21 4" ROUGH PLATE HTCEILING PLATE LINE104.45' SUBFLOOR14'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT1'-1"93.87' SLAB9'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT 1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'GCEILING PLATE LINE119.03' SUBFLOOR1'-1"1178" TJIW/ 118" SHT'G8'-214" ROUGH PLATE HT 10 8 . 8 2 'T.O.W.99.87'T.O.W.BEDROOMUNIT 2#2BED. #2UNIT 2CLOSETGAMEROOMUNIT 2BEDROOM#1UNIT 2GREATROOMUNIT 2KITCHENUNIT 210 4 . 4 5 'F.S.93.87'F.S.8'-21 4" TOP OF WINDOW 8'-21 4" TOP OF WINDOWHALLWAY/UNIT 2STAIRWELL128.22' ROOF128.22' ROOFA.08SECTIONS SECTION ASCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"SECTION CSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"SECTION BSCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"SCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSPage 56 of 630 AHEIGHT WIDTHWIDTHHEIGHT WOODLOUVERSHEIGHT WIDTHEQ.EQ.BCHEIGHT WIDTHHEIGHT WIDTH/ROUGH OPENINGEQ.EQ.EQ.VERIFY SLIDINGDIRECTION WITHFLOOR PLANHEIGHT WIDTH/ROUGH OPENINGEQ.EQ.VERIFY SLIDINGDIRECTION WITHFLOOR PLANDEFA.09SYMLOCATIONSTYLETYPEREMARKSTEMP.SIZEWIDTHMATERIALINT.EXT.1GARAGE18'-0"CUSTOM GARAGE SECTIONALDYESDOOR SCHEDULENOTES:1.ALL INTERIOR DOORS TO BE SOLID CORE MAHOGANY STAIN GRADE 1 PANEL DOOR PER ELEVATION DRAWINGS.2.ALL EXTERIOR SLIDING DOORS TO BE TEMPERED DOUBLE GLAZED ENTER BRAND HERE.*EXTERIOR DOORS THAT PROVIDE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE SWIMMING POOL OR SPA SHALL BE SELF CLOSING & SELF LATCHING OR EQUIPPED WITH AN ALARM THAT PRODUCES AN AUDIBLE WARNING WHEN THE DOOR IS OPENED - UNLESS POOL HAS SAFETY COVER OR SPA HAS LISTED SAFETY COVER (PER SECTION AV100.2)DOOR LEGENDDOOR/UNITHEIGHTTHKNS.FINISHINT.EXT.16'-0"1 3/4"FIRST FLOOR 23456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233UNIT 1NOT USEDLAUNDRYGARAGEELEVATORSLAB18'-0"3'-0"1 3/4"8'-0"8'-0"1 3/4"1 3/4"13'-0"13'-0"FULLY LOUVEREDSLABSELF CLOSING, SELF LATCHING SOLID CORE; 20 MIN FIRE ASSEMBLYNOPRIMARY BEDROOMPRIMARY BATHROOMPRIMARY CLOSETPRIMARY BEDROOMBEDROOM #3BATHROOM #3BEDROOM #2BATHROOM #2BEDROOM #1 CLOSETBATHROOM #1BEDROOM #1ELEVATOR8'-0"1 3/4"13'-0"SLABELEVATOR8'-0"1 3/4"13'-0"SLABENTRYFAU ROOMPOWDER ROOMGREAT ROOMUNIT 2WOODSTAINSTAINWOODWOODSTAINSTAINWOODWOODSTAINSTAINWOODWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNONONOALUMALUM/GLANODIZDANODIZDWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNONONONONONONONONONOYESALUMALUM/GLANODIZDANODIZDWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNO8'-5"1 3/4"311'-6"FRENCH SLIDING8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-4"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"13'-0"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-6"1 3/4"312'-0"FRENCH SLIDINGGREAT ROOMYESALUMALUM/GLANODIZDANODIZD8'-6"1 3/4"312'-0"FRENCH SLIDINGGARAGE18'-0"CUSTOM GARAGE SECTIONALD16'-0"1 3/4"NOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODGARAGESLAB18'-0"3'-0"1 3/4"EXTERIOR DOORSLAB18'-0"3'-0"1 3/4"18'-0"3'-0"1 3/4"SLAB18'-0"3'-0"1 3/4"SELF CLOSING, SELF LATCHING SOLID CORE; 20 MIN FIRE ASSEMBLYGARAGELAUNDRYFULLY LOUVEREDELEVATORBEDROOM #1SLAB28'-0"5'-0"1 3/4"8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLABBEDROOM #1 CLOSETBATHROOM #134353637383940414243444546474849NOT USEDNOT USEDNOT USEDENTRY3'-10"9'-0"1 3/4"1SLABTRANSOM ABOVE; SEE WINDOW "GG" ON WINDOW SCHEDULEELEVATOR9'-0"1 3/4"13'-0"SLAB1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB9'-0"9'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB9'-0"9'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB9'-0"9'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB9'-0"9'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB9'-0"HALL CLOSETBEDROOM #1BATHROOM #1PRIMARY BEDROOMPRIMARY CLOSETPRIMARY BATHROOMBEDROOM #2BATHROOM #2BEDROOM #2 CLOSETELEVATOR8'-0"1 3/4"13'-0"SLABPOWDER ROOM8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLABPOWDER ROOM8'-0"1 3/4"12'-6"SLAB50GREAT ROOMGREAT ROOM29'-0"1 3/4"9'-9"FRENCH SLIDING29'-0"1 3/4"9'-9"FRENCH SLIDINGFIRST FLOOR BASEMENTBASEMENTSECOND FLOORSECOND FLOORYESALUMALUM/GLANODIZDANODIZDYESALUMALUM/GLANODIZDANODIZD8'-0"1 3/4"13'-0"SLABNONOT USED51NOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNOWOODSTAINSTAINWOODNONONONONONONONONONONONONONONOACACBFFFEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADOOR SCHEDULESCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSPage 57 of 630 WIDTH1SEE ELEV. HEIGHT 2SEE ELEV. HEIGHT WIDTHEQ.EQ.SEE ELEV. HEIGHT WIDTHEQ.EQ.EQ.32'-0"WIDTH/ROUGH OPENINGEQ.EQ.6'-11"WIDTH/ROUGH OPENINGEQ.EQ.EQ.DOOR #342'-0"WIDTH/ROUGH OPENINGEQ.EQ.7'-0" 2'-0"9'-0" DOOR HT. SEE ELEV. 2'-0"WIDTHEQ.EQ.3'-0" SEE ELEV. SEE ELEV. SEE ELEV. SEE ELEV. HEIGHT 91011EQ.1"1"1"1"1"1"WIDTH/ROUGH OPENINGEQ.EQ.EQ.1"EQ.EQ.EQ.WIDTH/ROUGH OPENINGEQ.EQ.EQ.1"WIDTH/ROUGH OPENING46781"1"1"2'-0"WIDTH/ROUGH OPENING7'-0" SEE ELEV.1"1"51"EQ.EQ.A.10SYMLOCATIONSTYLETYPEMATERIALREMARKSTEMP.SIZEWIDTHHEIGHTFINISHINT.EXT.ALAUNDRY5'-0"5'-0"CW/CW2ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.YESWINDOW SCHEDULENOTES:1.ALL WINDOWS TO BE DOUBLE GLAZED ENTER BRAND HERE.2.ALL EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENABLE AREA OF 5.7 SQ. FT. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENABLE HEIGHT DIM.SHALL BE 24 IN. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENABLE WIDTH DIM. SHALL BE 20 IN. AND SHALL HAVE A FINISHED SILL HEIGHT NOT MORE THAN44 IN. ABOVE THE FLOOR. SHALL BE TEMPERED DOUBLE GLAZED.WINDOW LEGENDFIRST FLOOR BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVUNIT 1UNIT 2WXYZAABBCCDDEEFFGGHHIIJJKKLLMMNNOOPPQQRRSSTTUUVVWWXXZZYYBSMNTSECOND FLOORSECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR BASEMENT NOT USEDNOT USEDNOT USEDNOT USEDNOT USEDPRIMARY BATHROOM3'-0"PRIMARY BATHROOM3'-0"PRIMARY CLOSET2'-6"BEDROOM #12'-6"BEDROOM #12'-6"STAIRWELL7'-7"BEDROOM #22'-6"BEDROOM #22'-6"BATHROOM #32'-6"BEDROOM #32'-6"BEDROOM #32'-6"PRIMARY BEDROOM2'-6"PRIMARY BEDROOM2'-6"GREAT ROOM6'-0"GREAT ROOM6'-0"STAIRWELL7'-7 14"POWDER ROOM2'-6"KITCHEN2'-6"KITCHEN2'-6"BATHROOM #12'-6"BEDROOM #12'-6"BEDROOM #12'-6"BEDROOM #15'-0"BATHROOM #12'-6"BEDROOM #15'-0"ENTRY±11'-11"STAIRWELL7'-9"STAIRWELL7'-9"BEDROOM #22'-6"BATHROOM #22'-6"PRIMARY BEDROOM2'-6"PRIMARY BEDROOM2'-6"PRIMARY BATHROOM2'-6"GREAT ROOM5'-0"GREAT ROOM5'-0"STAIRWELLSTAIRWELLSTAIRWELL/ABOVE ENTRY1'-8 12"±11'-11"STAIRWELL/ABOVE ENTRYPANTRY4'-10"PANTRY2'-6"KITCHEN2'-6"KITCHEN2'-6"NOOK±10'-9 12"NOOKNOOK±9'-11 58"±10'4 14"5'-0"CASEMENT15'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CW/FIXED/CW35'-0"CW/CW25'-0"CW/CW25'-0"CW/FIXED/CW35'-0"CASEMENT15'-0"CASEMENT15'-0"CASEMENT1ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.ALUMINUMALUM.ALUM.YESNONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONOYESYES5'-0"CASEMENT15'-0"CASEMENT15'-0"CASEMENT15'-0"25'-0"CASEMENT1NONONOYESYESNONOCW/CW5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"CW/CWCASEMENTCASEMENTCASEMENTCASEMENTCASEMENTCW/FIXED/CWCW/FIXED/CWFIXED TRANSOMNONONONONONO233111118YESYESYESYESNONONONONONONONONO5'-0"CW/CW45'-0"CW/CW4FIXED TRANSOM ON TOP; SEE ELEVATIONFIXED TRANSOM ON TOP; SEE ELEVATION7'-9"7'-9"8'-9"FIXED665'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"FIXED GLASSFIXED GLASSFIXED GLASS111095ABOVE DOOR #34; SEE ELEVATIONFIXEDFIXEDFIXED75'-0"CW/CW4CASEMENT1CASEMENT1CASEMENT18'-9"8'-9"8'-9"WINDOW SCHEDULESCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERS U.1KITCHEN5'-0"5'-0"CASEMENT2NONO2VV.1KITCHEN5'-0"CASEMENT5'-0"Page 58 of 630 MANHATTAN AVE. W PALM DR.10TH ST.L.01LANDSCAPELANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"PLANSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSPage 59 of 630 A.11CRITICAL POINTSSCALECLIENT INFORMATION:DATESHEET NO.6.20.251011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA, 90254 STAMPDESIGNER: JESSICA FARINACCI 1815 SPEYER LN, B REDONDO BEACH, CA, 90278 303.478.9303REVISIONS:JIMMY POWERSPage 60 of 630 RH 119.63RH 125.68FF 104.96GFF 93.872.64'GWW 6.86' 4.95' 3.84'4.06' 2.84' 2.93' 0.12' 0.12'0.62'0.68'10.71'2.23'0 13 26 93. 8 7 ' NE I G H XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXX SECOND FLOOR118.53'FIRST FLOOR103.45'BASEMENT93.87'SECOND FLOOR112.98'FIRST FLOOR103.45'BASEMENT93.87'GWGWW APPROACH 5'-0"17'-0" GARAGE SETBACKAND GUEST PARKING DEPTH9'-2" 17'-0" GARAGE SETBACKAND GUEST PARKING DEPTH 9'-0"4'-0"ACT. SETBACK4'-0"ACT. SETBACK 5'-0"SETBACK5'-1"3'-6" 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0"5'-0"4'-0"5'-1"4'-0"5.38'4.64'19.975.38'4.69'19.979.83' DRIVEWAYUP18RNEW RESIDENCEUNIT 1NEW RESIDENCEUNIT 2LINE OF FIRSTFLOOR ABOVELINE OFDECK ABOVETRASH UNIT 2TRASH UNIT 1RAILS AT 42"NEW ELECTRICALPANEL UNIT 1NEW GASMETER UNIT 2NEW GASMETER UNIT 1NEW WATERMETER UNIT 2NEW WATERMETER UNIT 1NEW RETAINING WALLNEW RETAINING WALLNEW ELECTRICALPANEL UNIT 2EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED ABBREVATIONS : PARCEL MAP NO. 84662 IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. MICHAEL PROFET L.S. 9806 SCALE: 1"=13' SHEET 1 OF 1 VESTING TENTATIVE FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LAND SURVEYOR EAGLE EYE LAND SURVEYING 1311 MANHATTAN BEACH BLVD, UNIT 4 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 (562) 452-3519 DATE 10-11-2024 SUBDIVIDER LEGAL DESCRIPTION JOB ADDRESS NOTES: FIRST ADDITION HERMOSA BEACH TRACT LOT 24 M.B. 1 / 59-61 1011 MANHATTAN AVEHERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 1.ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED. 2.ALL UTILITIES ARE LOCATED IN ADJACENT STREETS. 3.THIS IS A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. 4.UTILITY COMPANY INFORMATION: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS SEWER - CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 5.SANITARY SEWER DISPOSAL IS TO AN 8" VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE PUBLIC LINE. THE 6" VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE IS LOCATED IN PALM DR. APPROXIMATE DEPTH = 6.5' + / - 6.SEE SOILS REPORT FOR POTENTIAL CUT/FILL. 7.EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING IS R2B. 8.THERE ARE NO PROTECTED TREES ON THIS SITE. 9.FLOOD ZONE X. FLOOD MAP 06037C1907G, EFFECTIVE DATE 04/21/2021. THE SUBJECT SITE IS IN FEMA FLOOD HAZARD ZONE 'X', NOT SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OR STORM WATER OVERFLOWS. JIMMY POWERS 1011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 310-466-8112 BLOCK 35 APN : 4187-006-023 THERE IS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT AFFECTS SAID LAND PER BOOK 1617 PAGE 47 OF DEEDS EASEMENT NOTES LEGEND: Page 61 of 630 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Historic Resource Evaluation March 20, 2025 Submitted by: Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 David Kaplan, Principal Pam O’Connor, Architectural Historian Page 62 of 630 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Summary of Research and Methodology 1 Regulatory Framework 2 Project Location and Setting 6 Development History of Hermosa Beach and the 1000 block of Manhattan Ave. 8 Building Description and History of 1011 Manhattan Avenue 14 Review of Previous Surveys 18 Evaluation of Eligibility 19 Conclusion 23 References 24 Attachment A: Photographs Attachment B: Maps Attachment C: Building Permits Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Attachment E: DPR Records Attachment F: Resumes Page 63 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kaplan Chen Kaplan conducted a historic resource assessment of the property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach, a single-family dwelling. The dwelling was constructed as a one-story bungalow in 1913, likely a Craftsman style bungalow. The building was significantly remodeled and altered in 1981 almost doubling the building’s square footage including, increasing its lot coverage, and adding a second story, sunroom and workroom and deck and garage. The building does not retain historic integrity as it no longer an example of any historic architectural style. There is no evidence that the property was influential in the development history of the City of Hermosa Beach. No historic persons or events are associated with the property. The findings of this current intensive Historic Resource Assessment found no evidence that the subject building is an eligible historic resource. There is no historic district that includes the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue. The Historic Resources Survey conducted for the City of Hermosa Beach for the City’s General Plan Update in 2013-2014 did not identify the property as an eligible historic resource. This Historic Resource Assessment report conducted by Kaplan Chen Kaplan followed standards and guidelines established by the National Park Service and the California Office of Historic Preservation. The findings of the Historic Resource Assessment are based on research, field observations, evidence, technical guidelines and analysis and evaluation conducted by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications. The property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue does not meet the criteria to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources or as a City of Hermosa Beach Landmark. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY A comprehensive methodology for researching the development history of properties and evaluation of the research to determine potential historic eligibility included conducting the following activities: • Field review in February 2025 • Field review of adjacent area in February 2025 • Photography of subject property and adjacent area • Building Permit Research • Assessor data research • Review of City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Surveys and related materials and documents • Research online databases and sources • Research online library resources • Review of City Directories Page 64 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 2 • Review of aerial and topographic maps • Research online photographic databases • Research historic newspaper databases • Review of technical sources on architectural styles • Evaluation of properties in accordance with federal, state, and local eligibility criteria All the field data and research data were analyzed and evaluated by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Preservation/Architectural Historian and by an architect who meets the Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architect. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The importance of historic resources has been recognized by federal, state, and local governments through programs and legislation that identify and recognize buildings, structures, object, landscapes, and districts that possess historic significance. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considers historical resources part of the environment. A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the significance of an historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment. A property that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, is listed in a local register of historical resources, or has been identified as historically significant in an historic resources survey that meets specific criteria is considered a historical resource under CEQA. To determine if a property is a potential historical resource, it must be evaluated for its eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources and/or as a local historical resource. National Register of Historic Places The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as an authoritative guide “used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and indicate what properties should be afforded protection from destruction or impairment.”1 Buildings, districts, sites and structures may be eligible for listing in the National Register if they possess significance at the national, state or local level in American history, culture, architecture or archeology, and in general, are over 50 years old. Significance is evaluated using established criteria: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high 136 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60. Page 65 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 3 artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Significance of Association National Register Bulletin 32, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, provides guidance on evaluating potential historic association with people who have “made contributions or played a role that can be justified as significant.” For association with leaders or prominent families it is necessary “to explain their significant accomplishments” and they “must be compared to those of others who were active, successful, prosperous, or influential in the same field.” Most properties nominated for associations with significant persons also are nominated for other reasons and a majority of properties nominated under the association criterion are also significant in the area of architecture or for the area in which the individual(s) achieved recognition. National Register Bulletin 32 adds that the fact that we value certain professions or the contributions of certain groups historically does not mean that every property associated with or used by a member of that group is significant. Associations with one or more individuals in a particular profession, economic or social class, or ethnic group will not automatically qualify a property. The contribution must be distinctive: it is not enough to show that an individual has acquired wealth, run a successful business, or held public office, unless any of these accomplishments, or their number or combination, is a significant achievement in the community in comparison with the activities and accomplishments of others. Integrity. Properties may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register as individual resources and/or as contributors to an historic district. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that in addition to meeting at least one of the four criteria, a resource should be evaluated to assess its integrity. For individual resources to qualify for inclusion they must represent an important aspect of an area’s history and possess integrity. An historic district must retain integrity as a whole, “the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished.” Historic Context. A resource must also be significant within an historic context. National Register Bulletin 15 states that an historic context explains “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific…property or site is understood and its meaning…is made clear.” To be determined eligible for listing on the National Register a property must possess significance within a historic context and possess integrity. Historic District. According to National Register Bulletin 15, an historic district derives its importance from being a unified entity whose identity as a district “results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment.” An historic district is “a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, or by documented differences in patterns of historic development or associations...the boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district.”2 2 National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, pp. 5-6, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf Page 66 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 4 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register, based on the National Register, is the “authoritative guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and indicate which property is to be protected.” A building, site, structure, object, or historic district may be eligible for inclusion on the California Register if it meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison states that in addition to meeting one of the criteria of significance, a resource must “retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance” and “integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. ” Historical resources that “have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.” Series 6 Guidance also states, “Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.” Historical resources that do not retain sufficient integrity to qualify for the National Register may still be eligible for listing in the California Register: “a resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.”3 City of Hermosa Beach Landmark Criteria The City of Hermosa Beach’s historic resources preservation program was established in 1998 to encourage property owners of historically significant structures or sites to voluntarily apply for local landmark status. A resource may be designated a City of Hermosa Beach Landmark (Ord. 98-1186 §4, 11/10/98), if it meets one or more of the following criteria: 
 3California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison, p. 3. Page 67 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 5 A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; or 
 B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; or 
 C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or 
 D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; or 
 E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community, or the City. (Ord. 98-1186 §4, 11/10/98) 
 Aspects of Integrity The National Park Service Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, defines seven “aspects of integrity” and provides technical information on their application. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” To “retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects.” For resources that are significant for their association with historic events or persons to be eligible for the National Register the resource must retain “the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person.” For resources that are evaluated historic for their style or construction the “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. For a historic district to retain integrity as a whole, “the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished. In addition, the relationships among the district’s components must be substantially unchanged since the period of significance. When evaluating the impact of intrusions upon the district’s integrity, take into consideration the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the components that do not contribute to the significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment.” The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities associated with integrity that, in various combinations, define integrity: feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials. 1. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved. Page 68 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 6 2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape. For a resource to be evaluated as significant for its design, a “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.” 3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. 4. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. 5. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. A property must retain key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. 6. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. 7. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and it is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship. PROJECT LOCATION The property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue is in the southwest quadrant of the City in Sand Section Neighborhood which lies to the east of the Walk Street Neighborhood and the Pacific Ocean. The Sand Section Neighborhood is a long, narrow section of the City described as accommodating “a range of residential development types, with neighborhood commercial services.”4 4 City of Hermosa Beach Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, 2017. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9872/637001018228830000 Page 69 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 7 Location Map (From Plan Hermosa) The Sand Section Neighborhood The subject property is on the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue. Manhattan Avenue is a north-south street running most of the length of the City of Hermosa Beach from 1st Street, near the south border of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach to the north border of the City with Manhattan Beach. Manhattan Avenue is to the east of and generally parallels Hermosa Avenue. The street is a wide residential street with one travel lane in each direction and one parking lane on each side of the street. The 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue is bounded on the north by the east-west curving Pier Avenue, originally called Santa Fe Avenue and on the south is bounded by 10th Street. Manhattan Avenue is bounded by Monterey Boulevard on the east and Hermosa Avenue on the west. The 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue is densely developed with residential buildings that take up most of the area of each parcel. The front buildings that face Manhattan Avenue have little to no setback. The Assessor Parcel Number for 1011 Manhattan Avenue is 4187-006-023. Page 70 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 8 Location Map (Google Maps, 2024) Satellite view (Google Maps, 2024) DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE 1000 BLOCK OF MANHATTAN AVENUE Hermosa Beach was originally part of an 1837 Mexican land grant known as Rancho Sausal Redondo, granted to Antonio Ygnacio Avila by then- governor Juan Alvarado. The 22,458-acre property included the areas today known as Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. In 1855, the United States government recognized Avila as the rightful owner of the property. Upon his death in 1858 the property was sold to Scottish native Robert Burnett, who owned the Rancho Aguaje de la Centinela land grant. Burnett raised sheep and cattle on the land. In 1873 Burnett leased a portion of the land to Daniel Freeman and 12 years later Freeman bought the land and over the next 15 years divided the property selling it to various real estate developers. The land continued to change hands and eventually 1,500 acres were sold to developers, Moses Hazeltine Sherman and Eli Clark who had controlling interest of the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. At the turn of the 20th Century Hermosa Beach was primarily used for ranching and farming. The first land survey in Hermosa Beach was conducted 1901 and the Hermosa Beach Tract was subdivided and recorded in September of that year for the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company by its owners, E. P. Clark, its President and E.V. Baker, its Secretary. The Tract was a narrow strip of land that paralleled the coast of the Pacific Ocean and contained hundreds of parcels for both residential and commercial development. In 1901 the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company added another tract, the First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, to the east of Hermosa Avenue to Summit Avenue (later Monterey Boulevard). In 1902 the Second Addition to Hermosa Beach was recorded by the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. In the early 20th Century Hermosa Beach built a boardwalk along the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean. It consisted of wood planks (and was originally known as the Esplanade) and ran for two-miles. In 1914 most of this boardwalk, by then known as The Strand, was constructed in cement with the final portion at the north end completed in 1926. Page 71 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 9 Hermosa Beach’s first pier was built in 1904 by the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. The deck and pilings were wood and the Pier extended five hundred feet out into the ocean. In 1913 the pier was partly washed away and a new pier was eventually constructed. The City of Hermosa Beach was incorporated in 1907. The new City acquired ownership of the two-mile stretch of ocean frontage, which was included in an original deed to the City from the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. Two hundred ten feet on each side of the pier were dedicated in perpetuity as an area for recreation, free from commerce, and for the benefit of the public. The first decade of the 20th Century saw the beginning of the development of Hermosa Beach into a city. The population in 1910 was 679 and grew to 2,327 by 1920. The first hotels, the Pioneer and Berth hotels were constructed. A City Hall, police and fire Departments, Post Office, schools, and library were all established. The Santa Fe Railway and the Los Angeles Railway connected Hermosa Beach to the region and nation. Vacant parcels continued to be developed over the decades as evidenced by the population growth. Between 1920 and 1940 the population grew by around 5,000 to 7,197. Between 1940 and 1950 the population grew by another 5,000 to 11,826. Again, the population grew by around 5,000 between 1950 and 1960 to 16,115. After that, over the 60 years between 1960 and 2020, the population crew by around only 3,500 to 19,728. The subject property is in the First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract which was recorded in December 1901 for the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. The Tract is long and narrow but bulbs out at its north end. To the north the Tract starts around todays 26th Street and as it goes south it bulbs out to create a semi-circular area that was designated to be a park. The park was never realized and while the alignment of the streets remains, that area listed as “park” was later subdivided into residential parcels. Another semi-circular street was laid out to the south and named Summit Avenue (now Monterey Boulevard). Summit Avenue started out running east-west for two blocks and then curved south. To the west of the curve was a semi-circular street, called Circle Avenue (now Circle Drive). The legs of Circle Avenue ended at La Clede Avenue, now known as Manhattan Avenue. La Clede Avenue then ran southward to near the City’s south border with Redondo Beach. The subject property is located on the former Le Clede Avenue, now known as Manhattan Avenue at the south end of the 1000 block, on the second parcel on the west side of the street, north of 10th Street. Page 72 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 10 First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Page 1 5 Page 2 First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract, Page 3 There were 12 east-west oriented parcels on the west side of the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue and 17 on the east side. Except for the northernmost parcels 5 Larger images in Attachments Page 73 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 11 adjacent to the curvilinear street, all the other parcels are 40 feet wide by 100 feet deep, including the subject parcel. The 1912 Sanborn Map shows that there was limited development on the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue since the Tract’s recordation in 1901. In the eleven intervening years only one parcel on the west side of the street had been developed with modest sized dwellings and six parcels on the east side. 1912 Sanborn Map excerpt 1927 Sanborn Map excerpt Page 74 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 12 The pattern of development of the block varied little between 1912 and 1960 with some modest sized single-family dwellings and some duplexes. Some parcels had one building at the front and others had the building set back at the rear of their lot. Other parcels had both front and rear buildings. There were some vacant parcels on the 1927 and 1946 Sanborn Maps and most of those were developed by 1960. The trend of adding buildings to the parcels that is shown on the Sanborn Maps continued in the last half of the 20th Century and early 21st Century with larger buildings that cover most of the parcels’ land area being constructed. 1946 Sanborn Map excerpt Page 75 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 13 1960 Sanborn Map excerpt Satellite View of 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue (Google Earth, c2024) Views along 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue Page 76 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 14 Views along 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE Plan view of 1011 Manhattan Avenue parcel (Google Earth, 2024) In 1913 a building permit was issued to build a 34 foot by 48 foot (1,632 square feet) one-story dwelling on the 4,000 square foot parcel known as Lot 24, Block 35 of the First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. The owner was G..S. Thatcher who is listed as the architect and J.F. Cramer is listed as contractor. In 1924 and 1929 permits were taken out for unspecified alterations by owner G.S. Thatcher. In 1981 the dwelling was significantly enlarged and altered. The original one-story building of 1,632 square feet was increased by 1,292 square feet and lot coverage increased by more than 40% to 71.7%. A second story with deck was added to the building as well as a sunroom and shop area on the rear. The project was initially denied by the City, but owner Thomas Wayman appealed that decision to the City Council. In his appeal letter Wayman stated that the “house was constructed many years ago in a rambling bungalow style with the living areas away from the view.” His appeal was granted and the house was enlarged and remodeled. A permit for a front encroachment was applied for in 1994 for 150 square feet in the front of the building. It consisted of an “area paved with brick, a 36” high block wall and 5 decorative brick pillars. Next to the brick wall are 6 large round planters and 5 smaller ones, planted with various bushes.” Page 77 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 15 The following permits for were in the City’s files for 1011 Manhattan Avenue. Permit # Date Description Owner/Contractor 57 5/19/1913 Dwelling G.S.Thatcher/J.F. Cramer 375 11/5/1915 Garage G.S.Thatcher/E.L./ Hudson 211 6/10/1924 Alterations to residence G.S.Thatcher/H. Grimwood 346 3/13/1929 Alterations to residence G.S.Thatcher/Guernsey 3327 10/26/1944 Reroof G.S.Thatcher/P.F. Bennett Letter 11/1/1949 Variance to build northerly wall on side lot line. G.S. Thatcher/Unknown 9748 2/6/1958 Garage Mrs. Grange Thatcher/Schmolle 11174 7/7/1970 Plumbing water piping Steve Bassett/Jack Stephan 10166 4/26/1971 Dryer and service change Vasset (Bassett?)/Al Sabrook 18768 9/18/1981 First and second floor addition Wayman/Triad Design Assoc 18823 11/24/1981 Revision to Permit 18768; Deck over existing kitchen Wayman/ Triad Design Assoc 21639 11-1-1989 New block walls Unknown/unknown 22090 3/27/1991 Reroof Unknown/unknown Letter 12/8/1994 Approved Encroachment Joseph Vogl & Karen McDonough/Unknown 817-00315 7/27/2018 Reroof Arlene Vernon/Ramey Roofing East (front) elevation After the enlargement and remodeling of the building in 1981, the building is not an example of any historic architectural style. Based on its construction date and some extant features, it is likely the building was originally a Craftsman style bungalow. The two added large pillars in front are later additions reminiscent of the Prairie architectural style. Page 78 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 16 The building is two stories and clad in wood shingles. There is a projecting front wing on the north side of the front elevation. This one-story wing has a broad front gable roof. It appears that this wing was originally a porch that has been enclosed. It features a tripartite window with multiple lights and flat wood window surrounds. The front elevation of the main volume of the building, and now the front porch, is reached by several brick steps. A smaller tripartite window with flat wood window surrounds is located on this elevation as is the entry to the dwelling. South end of east elevation Main front wing of east elevation The front of the building has a low concrete and brick wall with planter areas which was added in 1994. The second floor rises behind the projecting front wing. It has a small projecting wing on its north end. This wing has a front gable roof with eave but no fenestration. Behind it, the second story addition has a broad front gable roof with eaves. A latticework fence is in front of the second story addition. East (front) elevation East (front) elevation Page 79 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 17 East (front) elevation window North (side) elevation On the north side the second story slightly overhangs the first story. Windows are arranged along the first story to support interior functions. The rear elevation of the second story of the building is like that of the front elevation in its form with a small projecting wing with front gable in front of the main area of the second level. There are tripartite windows with flat wood surrounds on the elevations of the wing and main building. A deck with wood fencing is located on this west elevation which looks out to the nearby Pacific Ocean. West (rear) elevation Upper level of west (rear) elevation Garage and deck on Palm Drive A garage with two vehicular doors is located at the rear of the parcel, facing the alley known as Palm Drive. The deck is located above the flat-roofed garage. Page 80 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 18 Occupant History City Directories were reviewed including online City Directories at Ancestry.com and City Directory Records provided by EDR. The City Directories were for Redondo Beach which included sections for the cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach. The original owner of the building and its architect was Grange S. Thatcher. He was born in 1890 in Albany, New York Thatcher moved to Southern California around 1903 and resided in Ocean Park and graduated from Santa Monica High School in 1906. After graduation he worked for the Farmers and Merchants Bank in Los Angeles starting out as a messenger. In 1913 Thatcher took out a building permit to construct the house at 1011 Manhattan Avenue where he lived with his wife, Hazel. In the 1915 City Directory Thatcher’s occupation was as a “banker” with no institution listed. In 1920 Thatcher married his second wife, Margaret. The 1921 City Directory lists Thatcher as Cashier and Secretary of the First National Bank of hermosa Beach which he helped organize. In the 1931 City Directory he was listed as Vice-President and Cashier of the institution. In the 1930s Thatcher was a member of the Federal Housing Underwriters Division. In addition to his work in finance, Thatcher was active in civic affairs. He was affiliated with the Rotary Club and Chamber of Commerce and he served as a Trustee on the Redondo High School Board of Education for 12 years. Thatcher and his wife Margaret lived in the house at 1011 Manhattan Avenue until his death in 1957. Other occupants of the house included T.L. Luddon in 1964, Stephen Bassett in 1970, Thomas Wayman in 1981, Joseph Vogl and Karen McDonough in 1994, and Arlene Vernon in 2005. No occupations or biographical information was found for any of these owner/occupants of 1011 Manhattan Avenue. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS SURVEYS The City of Hermosa Beach commissioned PCR Services Corporation to conduct a historic resources survey for the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), published in August 2017, for the “Plan Hermosa” General Plan Update. The Survey findings were included in Appendix C. The survey consisted of an initial Windshield Survey of the entire City conducted by PCR architectural historians along with members of the Hermosa Beach Historical Society. This was followed by a City-wide reconnaissance survey by PCR staff of “all potentially historic buildings within the survey area, including previously recorded resources as well as all unevaluated properties containing buildings 45 years of age or older.”6 The subject property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue was not identified as an eligible historic resource. 6 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Update EIR, Existing Conditions Report, p. 7-2. Page 81 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 19 A records search was also conducted as part of the 2013-14 historic resources survey. The subject property was not identified in the records search. \ Source: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Draft EIR EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY Broad patterns of history, historic events criteria. -Hermosa Beach Criterion A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. -Hermosa Beach Criterion B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history -National Register Criterion A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history -California Register Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Page 82 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 20 The property is in the First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract which was recorded in 1901. The subject single-family dwelling was constructed in 1913, a dozen years after the Tract was recorded and six years after the incorporation of the City. Sanborn Maps show that by 1927 the block had been developed with modest sized single-family and duplex dwellings. There is no evidence that the subject dwelling was influential in stimulating the development of the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue or the City of Hermosa Beach. The subject property does not reflect any special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. There is no evidence that any local historic events are associated with the properties and 1011 Manhattan Avenue. The property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue does not meet the criteria related to broad patterns of history or association with historic events. Association with historic persons: -Hermosa Beach Criterion B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. -National Register Criterion B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. -California Register Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. The dwelling was built by Grange S. Thatcher who lived at the one-story bungalow from its construction in 1913 until his death in 1957. Thatcher had a full career in the finance and banking business working in numerous banks in the South Bay area. Thatcher was also active in civic affairs. However, there is no evidence that Thatcher, when compared to other bankers and civic participants, rose to the level of achieving historic significance. A review of City Directories did not provide any evidence that any historic persons were associated with the subject property. No biographical information was found regarding any of the other occupants or owners of the property. As none of the occupants or owners achieved historic significance the property is not associated with the lives of any historic persons. The property ate 1011 Manhattan Avenue does not meet the criteria related to association with historic persons. Significant historic design, work of a master architect or craftsman -Hermosa Beach Criterion C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. -Hermosa Beach Criterion D: It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect. -National Register Criterion C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high Page 83 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 21 artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. -California Register Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. The building is not an intact or excellent example of any historic architectural style. From evidence from primary documents such as Sanborn Maps and correspondence (in the City’s permit records) from an owner the original design of the house was as a one-story bungalow. Based on the date of construction and remaining architectural influences, it was likely a Craftsman style bungalow. In 1981 a remodeling project enlarged the house by almost doubling its square footage by expanding the building’s footprint and adding a second story. The design of the remodel also added some Prairie style influences. As a result, the building is not representative of any historic architectural styles. The building does not possess any historic artistic values. The building was not designed by a master architect. The workmanship is reflective of the 1980s when the building was remodeled – not reflective of the building’s historic provenance. The property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue does not meet the criteria as an example of any historic architectural style or property type and does not possess excellence of architectural design or craftsmanship. Nor is it an intact example or representative example of any historic architectural style. The building is not associated with a master architect. Potential to yield information related to pre-history or history -National Register Criterion D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history -California Register Criterion 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The property was initially developed in the early 20th Century and building techniques and methods of that period are well documented. In the early 1980s it was significantly remodeled. There is no unknown information about construction techniques or engineering that would be provided by this building. This report does not evaluate archeological resources. The property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue does not meet the criteria to yield historic information about the building. Familiar visual feature -Hermosa Beach Criterion E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community, or the City. Page 84 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 22 The subject property is located mid-block on a residential street. The location is not unique nor are there any characteristics of the property or the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue that has evolved as a familiar visual feature or landmark in the neighborhood. The property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue does not meet the criteria to be considered as a familiar visual feature of the Herondo Neighborhood. Historic District There is no concentration of buildings from any period of history, nor of any architectural style or property type to form an historic district. No historic district that includes the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue was identified in the Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Survey. Integrity Analysis Location: The subject buildings are on their original locations. Design: For a resource to be evaluated as significant for its design, a “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.” The subject property has been significantly altered and is not a representative or good example of any historic architectural style. . Setting: Most of the buildings on the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue were constructed in the second half of the 20th Century/early 21st Century. The original setting of modest single-family and duplex dwellings with large back yards has been altered by the construction of buildings that take up most of its parcel. There is no historic district or historic setting along the 1000 block of Manhattan Avenue. Workmanship: The workmanship on the subject building is principally from the 1980s remodel. There is no evidence of skill of construction or of the work of a master craftsman. Materials: The property does not retain key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic construction. Feeling: The property does not communicate any historic aesthetic or sense of a particular period as physical features of the buildings have been significantly altered. Association: There is no association with any historic persons or events. The property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue does not retain historic integrity. Page 85 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 23 CONCLUSION The property at 1011 Manhattan Avenue does not meet any of the criteria for eligibility as a historic resource. The findings of this intensive survey report support the City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Survey initial findings that did not identify the subject building as potential eligible historic resource. The subject property does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources or as a City of Hermosa Beach landmark. Page 86 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 24 REFERENCES Aerial Photographs. EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. California Index, Los Angeles Central Library. City Directories, EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. City Directories for Redondo Beach which include Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach. Ancestry.com Collection. Online collection at Redondo Beach Library. EDR City Directory data. City of Hermosa Beach, Building Permit Records City of Hermosa Beach, General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report, Technical Appendices, 2014. City of Hermosa Beach, Draft EIR for General Plan Update, 2017. City of Hermosa Beach, Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach, http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1351 City of Hermosa Beach, City of Hermosa Beach Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, 2017. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9872/637001018228830000 Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter. Los Angeles: An Architectural Guide. Salt Lake City: Gibbs-Smith. 2003. Gleye, Paul. The Architecture of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Rosebud Press. 1981. Hermosa Beach Historical Society, http://www.hermosabeachhistoricalsociety.org Hermosa Beach Review. “Private Life of Banker Tells All,” October 22, 1931. Los Angeles County Assessor Records McAllister, Virginia and Lee McAllister. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1984 Redondo Reflex. Obituary, Grange S. Thatcher December 20, 1957. Page 87 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 19, 2025 Attachment A: Photographs (w/dates of construction) West Side of 1000 Block of Manhattan Avenue 1. 131 10 Street; Manhattan Avenue elevation (1937/1943) 2. 1011 Manhattan Avenue (1913/1930) Page 88 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 19, 2025 3. 1021 Manhattan Avenue (1964/1966) 4. 1025 Manhattan Avenue (1912/1930) Page 89 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 19, 2025 5. 1035 Manhattan Avenue (1939/1945) 6. 1045 Manhattan Avenue (2000) Page 90 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 19, 2025 7. 1105 Manhattan Avenue (2006) and 1111 Manhattan Avenue (1999) East Side of 1000 Block of Manhattan Avenue 8. 1002 Manhattan Avenue (1978) Page 91 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan v March 19, 2025 9. 1012 Manhattan Avenue (1949/1950) 10. 1022 Manhattan Avenue (1962) and 1028 Manhattan Avenue (1970) Page 92 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi March 19, 2025 11. 1040 Manhattan Avenue (1906/1925) 12. 1048 Manhattan Avenue (1949) Page 93 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii March 19, 2025 1011 Manhattan Avenue 13. East elevation 14. East elevation, center section and upper level Page 94 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii March 19, 2025 15. East elevation, center section and upper level 16. Entry stairway on east elevation Page 95 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix March 19, 2025 17. Entry stairway and porch on east elevation 18. Window detail on east elevation Page 96 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan x March 19, 2025 19. Wall and planting area along east elevation 20. North elevation, looking east Page 97 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi March 19, 2025 21. North elevation, looking west 22. West elevation along Palm Drive Page 98 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii March 19, 2025 23. West elevation along Palm Drive 24. Upper level of west elevation at Palm Drive Page 99 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 19, 2025 Attachment B: Maps Aerial photograph (ca. 2022) Los Angeles County Assessor's Map Page 100 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 19, 2025 Original Tract Map (Page 1) Page 101 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 19, 2025 Original Tract Map (Page 2) Page 102 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 19, 2025 Original Tract Map (Page 3) Page 103 of 630 Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 ATTACHMENT C: Building Permits Page 104 of 630 i, IE G3 x Application for Building Permit djk.-- Hermosa Beach,.Cal.,_;,_-_=- 191_) 7UII L I herewith make application for a permit to Construct, Repair or Remove a building covered by the following description:. D s------.. 1"; Location: Lot No. Block No. Removal Location: From Lot No. Block No. to Lot No. --------------, Block No. ---- r , A7 Size: — by.__ - - feet Number of Stories, ___—.-_._•_.____..__ height, .= feet MClass, --- - -- - =- -= Cost, $______ -- Nameof Owner,__. '_ -`_ Name of Architect, Name of Contractor, _...._ _— . ' f The Permit Fee of$ accompanies this Application. Plans and Specifications covering proposed work are submitted herewith General remarks: _---------_.--------__.-. = - I t il°E e 11 Owner"or Contractor Application approved this__—_____ dayy of_ r 191_2___ and permit issued.d i' w. e , • r Y , ', Building Inspector Page 105 of 630 4 I , ^ t• ac •41141 O. • - ' , i. tH Application for Building Permit 74 Hermosa Beach, Cal.,_2ll /7 191._%..) 1, I herewith make application for a permit-to Construct, Repair or Remove a building covered by the following description:AD t l 2-d. Location: Lot No. r Block No. Removal Location: From Lot No. Block No._ to Lot No. Block No. 4.1-Size: _ `•••' by feet Number of Stories, _____/____ height, •r feet Class, Cost, $ .2`' 6 ° 0 'Th Name of Owner, Name of Architect, f-,,,,....k...... Name of Contractor, 1_ si-' -.1_ - -(0- --a-t-/--c-e---7" 11 , The Permit Fee of$ Ke.-- Y------• accompanies this Application. Plans and Specifications covering promed work are submitted herewith General remarks: r\-1 4-Q-C.--1-- I....1,1-dte - 0 • 1 re,, Owner or Contractor t:v1,,,,,4 4, Application approved this 9,„ ,day of_,,". /••191 _, and permit issued. 2-171 , ‘,"1 1. e" kf..., C---7 1 f--- Building Inspector 1 r SPage 106 of 630 4 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH , CA 90254 BUILDING PERMIT Permit #: B17-00315 Job Address: 1011 MANHATTAN AV HB Status: ISSUED Location: 1011 Manhattan Avenue Issued: 07/27/2017 Parcel No: 4187-006-023 - Completed: Expires: 01/23/2018 Appl Type: ROOF-RES Census Class:ADD/ALTER DWELLING Description: Re-Roof Single Family Residence Type Const: occupancy: undgrnd util Req: Lot Size: Park Covered: 0 Uncovered: 0 Units: 1 Bldgs: 1 Stories: 1 valuation: 11,500.00 use Zone: OWNER VERNON,ARLENE M 07/27/2017 Phone: 01011 MANHATTAN AVE HERMOSA BEACH CA 902540000 License: CONTRACTOR RAMEY ROOFING INC 07/27/2017 Phone: License: 558797 Permit Fee 346.24 Quimby Fee 0.00 Other Bldg Fee. . : 0.00 Park & Recreation 0.00 Occupant Load. . . : 0.00 General Plan Maint • 0.00 Plan Check Fee. . : 0.00 C-Sheet Plan Ck (PW) . . : 0.00 Addl Plan Check. : 0.00 Landscape Plan Check. . : 0.00 Other Plan Check: 0.00 Additional Inspections: 0.00 State Seismic. . . : 1.50 violation Fee 0.00 State BSC Admin. : 1.00 TOTAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE: 372.98 Sewer Use Fee. . . : 0.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS: 372.98 Fire Hydrant 0.00 BALANCE DUE: 0.00 Records Technology: 24.24 FOR INSPECTION REQUESTS PLEASE CALL (310) 318-0218 *** I hereby certify that I have read and examined this permit and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. No person shall be allowed to perform work under this permit in violation of the labor code of the state of California. I further state that I am properly licensed as required by Section 7031.5 of the State License Business and Professions Code (or claim exemption under Section 7044). If any subcontractors are employed on this project I understand that I am responsible for submitting a subcontractors list before the project is finaled. S GNATURE OF CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IF OWNER / BUILDER) Page 107 of 630 f!e BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION a \',i1_ CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT__I,b o 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 f,(--\ j,A 310) 318-0235 FAX (310) 937-6235 BUILDING PERMIT NO. DATE JOB ADDRESS: I O t[ v p, la va.APN: PROPERTY OWNER: A ( ( V ey ADDRESS: fv- CITY/STATE/ZIP: TEL: FAX/EMAIL: CONTRACTOR:ADDRESS:` 1 CITY/STATE/ZIP: (TEL:(FAX: STATE LICENSE NO.:5 5 0 CITY BUSINESS LIC.NO.: EMAIL: L`1 ARCHITECT: 0 ADDRESS: 1+ -'j ;`, r' i CITY/STATE/ZIP: TEL: FAX: EMAIL:STATE LICENSE NO. ENGINEER: ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: TEL: FAX: CLASS OF WORK: 0 NEW 0 ADDITION ALTERATION El REPAIR El DEMOLITION DESCRIPTION OF WORK: ^-. of lOr ` kw) ( :EA cot( 1/1 VA, v64., CL«S USE OF EXISTING BUILDING/NO.OF STORIES: VALUATION OF WORKS: fill coo ACCEPTED BY PLAN dHK.BY APPROVED BY PLAN CHECK FEE PERMIT FEE STATE SEISMIC FEE SEWER USE FEE i FIRE HYDRANT FEE PARK&RECREATION/QUIMBY FEE NO.DWELLING UNITS DEMO.CREDIT(SQ.FT.) LIVING AREA GARAGE DECK/BALCONY AREA AREA CONST.TYPE OCCUPANCY GROUP LOT SIZE USE ZONE UNDERGROUND OFF STREET PARKING UTILITIES REQ. GARAGE I OPEN DECLARATIONS I . Ihave inquired about the need for a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission and undi:sla.ad that I do/do not[Beed a permit. I have reviewed the attached requirements for geotechnical reports and understand that I do/do notneed to submit a report. 06 I have reviewed Chapter 8.44.of the H.B.M.C.and Storm Water Prevention Guidelines and understand that I clop/do not kneed to submit a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan,and derstand I may need to develop and.cernply with best management or good housekeeping practices. The work in my project is/is notIVA a condominium and I do 0/do not need the approval of my board or association.01 have elected to process my plans concurrently with the Building Division and the Planning Division and understand that any required corrections may result in added plan reviews by each of these Divisions and additional plan review cost to me. lunderstand that my project may be subject to Public Works Department requirements and have inquired about them. I 'a." I understand that,per state law and H.B.M.C.Chapter 15.48,a minimum of 65%of construction and demolition debris must be recycled for all newly constructed buildings and demolition in preparation for said new construction,and 50%of construction and demolition debris must be recycled for other projects,and no permit will be issued unless this permit application is accompanied by a Waste Reduction Plan. I further understand that a Waste Reduction Report is required at the completion of construction or demolition,including supporting manifests from the recycling facility showing the tonnage of material recycled,and that,for demolition permits,no subsequent building permit will be issued for the subject property unl ss such a Waste Reduction Report is submitted. Z7SignatureofPermittee:Print Name:J 61n Dater 1r-1 LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under Chapter 9(commencing at Sec.7000)of Div.3 of the Business and Professions Code and my license is in full force and effect. CLICENSECLASS: C. - q . STATE LI NSE NO. 5 C' 7 ' -1 CITY LICENSE NO. CONTRACTOR/AGENT IGNATUR DATE: 1 11.1 10 PRINT NAME: 6 KR MIADDRESSPHONE: WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION/CONTRACTORS I hereby declare that I ha e a certif ate of consent to self-insure or a certificate of Worker's Compensation Insur nce or a certified copy thereof(Labor Code Section 3800). POLICY NO. 61.611-'2,0(1ICOMPANY: 5 , tcAA CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE This section need not be completed if permit is for two hundred dollars($200.00)of less I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued,I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Worker's Compensation Laws of California. CONTRACTOR'S SIGNATURE: DATE: NOTICE TO APPLICANT: If after making this certificate of exemption you should become subject to the Worker's Compensation Laws of the Labor Code,you must forthwith comply with such provisions or this permit shall be deemed revoked. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Indicate whether the applicant r future building occupant must comply with the applicable requirements of Sec.25505, 25533 and 25534 of the Health and Safety Code: Yes El or Nol If yes,the following is required: 1)Permit from South Coast AQMD, 2)Clearance from the Fire Dept.Hazardous Materials Specialist. Signature of Permittee:Page 108 of 630 ASBESTOS MATERIALS: To the best of my knowledge there are no asbestos-containing materials on/or within the structures of site. If evidence of asbestos is found, it is my responsibility to notify AQMD at: (818)572-5283. 2,1SignatureofPermittee: C— Date: 7 I 17 RIGHT OF ENTRY(READ CONDITIONS BELOW) The work authorized by this permit is subject to all rules and regulations set forth in the ordinances and amendments of the City of Hermosa Beach,and the laws of the State of California in regard to such work and all amendments thereto. This permit becomes null and void if work is not commenced within one hundred eighty(180)days from date of issuance,or if work is suspended at any time during construction for the same period of time. 1\I , , „r It shall be the responsibility of every general contractor,engineering contractor and owner/buildef•tolrequire:subcontractors under their control or direction to obtain a business license as herein provided before permitting such subcontractor to perform services for such,generalbuilding'or engineering contractor.I agree to furnish the license collector with a list of all subcontractors prior to obtaining inspection of the work performed by such subcontractors. If I employ any person who is not a contractor,or'subcontractor I•agree to furnish proof immediately satisfactory to the license inspector that such person is employed by me and is fully covered with State Workers Compensation Insurance. I certify that I have read this application and statejhat the,above information is correct.I agree to comply with al[City and•applicable County ordinances, and State laws relating to building construction, and hereby authorize representatives of the City to enter upon the abov'e,-mentioned property for the purpose of inspections. r ri L 'C r + C'' " j') +I I Signature of Permitte 77:Date: I 1 7.11it? Print Name QVt ( •'r,WLy OWNER/BUILDER DECLARATION AT}TENTIONIPROPERTY OWNER'' PROPERTY ADDRESS: An"Owner Builder" building permit has been applied for in your name. Please complete the information below. No building permit will be issued until this verification is received. 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. YES NO 2. I [' HAVE HAVE NOT signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm)to provide the proposed construction: NAME: ,t z 7;:'J f ADDRESS: rr.1 PHONE: STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. CITY OF HERMOSA'BEACH BUSINESS LICENSE NO. 4. I will provide some of the work but I have contracted the following persons to provide the work indicated: YES NO If yes, please request a blank Subcontractor's List. e• Yom. T. Please be advised that ANY PERSON SUBCONTRACTED TO PERFORM A JOB or function at the referenced address IS REQUIRED pursuant to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 17-2,TO OBTAIN A BUSINESS LICENSE PRIOR TO PROVIDING SAID SERVICE. OWNER/BUILDER DECLARATIONS: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am exempt from the contractors license law for the following reasons: (Section- 7031.5, Business and Professions Code:Any city or county which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he or she is licensed ' pursuant to the provisions of the contractors state license law(Chapter 9 commencing with Section 7000)of Division 3 of the Business Professions Code)or that he or she is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project(Section 7044, Business Professions Code:the contractors license law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for such project with a contractor(s)licensed pursuant to the contractors license law). Worker's Compensation Insurance NOT required. 0 I as owner of the property, or my_employees with wages as their sole compensation,will dothe'work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale(Section 7044 Business and Profession Code;the contractors license lw'does not apply to an owner of the property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or herself or through his or her own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sales. If, however,the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion,the owner/builder will have the burden-that he or'sheedid not build or improve for the;purpose of sale). NWorker's'Compensation Insurance IS required. WARNING: FAILURE TO SECURE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COVERAGE IS UNLAWFUL,,AND SHALLSUBJECT AN 4'1 ;EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL FINES UP TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND'•DOLLARS ($100,000), IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF COMPENSATION, DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3706 OF THE LABOR CODE, INTEREST, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.r •yI r _I i 1 Signature of Owner:Date: Print Name: f:b95\cd\forms-handouts\application\Building Permit-rev 8-10-11.doc Page 109 of 630 101+RECEIPT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING REPORT I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING REPORT PERMIT # s%`-- r i ;/ SIGNA'd 0 - t E "-N" 94* NAME-PLEASE PRIM 2-LOA-- DATE 011 M A14046 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY Page 110 of 630 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1315 Valley Drive, Room 103 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310)318-0235 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING REPORT DATE: 6-12-02 REPORT NO.: X0200187 ADDRESS: 1011 Manhattan Avenue APPROXIMATE AGE: 78 Years OWNER: Joseph Vogl&Karen McDonough BEDROOMS: 3 NO. OF UNITS: One BATHS: 3 LOT: 24 KITCHENS: 1 BLOCK: 35 WET BAR: 0 TRACT: 1st Addition to Hermosa Beach PARKING SPACES ENCLOSED: 2 ZONE: R-3 PARKING SPACES OPEN: 0 USE OF RECORD: Single family residence ASSESSED LAND: $529,287 LOT SIZE: 40 X 100 ASSESSED IMPROVEMENT: $136,989 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Information Provided by Owner/Agent) Errors or omissions in said report shall not bind or stop the City from enforcing any and all building and zoning codes against seller, buyer, and any subsequent owner. Said report does not guarantee the structural stability of any existing building nor does it relieve the owner, his agent, architect or builder from designing and building a structurally stable building meeting the requirements of adopted building,plumbing and electrical codes." (Ordinance No.N.S. 460) PERMIT#:DATE: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: 57 5-19-13 Single family residence 211 6- 10-24 Alterations 346 3-13-29 Alterations 3327 10-26- 44 Re-roof 9748 2- 6-58 Garage 11174 7-7-70 Plumbing 10166 4-26-71 Dryer& service change 18768 9-18-81 First and second floor addition 18823 11-24-81 Revision to permit#18768, deck over existing kitchen 21630 11-1-89 New block walls 22090 3-27-91 Re-roof OTHER: DATE: TYPE OF ACTION: NO. OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED BY PERMIT: One Additional Information and Conditions on Page 2 of this report) Unless otherwise indicated in this report the inspection of the premises HAS NOT included an inspection of the interior of the premises. The permission of the owner of the property is required for the City Inspector to make an inspection of the interior premises. You have the right to require, as a condition of the purchase of the property,that the owner request an inspection by a City Inspector of the interior of the premises. This report cannot offer maximum protection without an inspection of the interior ofthe premises. For further information concerning the nature of this report you should read Chapter 15.44 of the City code ofthe City of Hermosa Beach." (Ordinance No.N.S. 460) I certify that a complete copy of the above report, including Page Two was delivered to me prior to Buyer consummation of the agreement of sale of above described property. Signature Buyer's Address Date THIS REPORT EXPIRES SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE. ONE COPY TO: BUYER, SELLER, FILE COPY (TO BE RETURNED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT). Page 1 of 2 Page 111 of 630 1011 Manhattan Avenue ADDRESS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Smoke Detectors required pursuant to Section 13113.7 of the Health& Safety Code. Exterior Inspection Yes Interior Inspection No This certificate is based upon examination of Building and Zoning records ofthe City and an interior inspection of the property on and I hereby certify that the information contained hereon,together with the attached Page 1, constitutes a complete and accurate record ofthe development and use ofthe property in question. Signature Title This certificate is based upon examination of Building and Zoning records of the City and a visual inspection of the property. Seller did not authorize an interior inspection of the property. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the information contained hereon,together with the attached Page 1, constitutes a complete and accurate report ofthe existing records of the pr• in question. CHARLIE SWART SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR Signature Title This certificate is based upon examination of Building and Zoning records of the City and a visual inspection of the property. I hereby certify that said records are incomplete and do not reflect the above-stated use of the property. It appears that there may have been construction without benefit of permit, or alterations which may be in violation of the Zoning regulations. It is recommended that further investigation be conducted. Signaturenature Title Report does not include any reference to Public Works conditions. Page 2 of 2 f/b95/cd/rbr1011 MANHATTAN Page 112 of 630 i! t ": i, APPLICATION FOR REPORT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING RECORDS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,CALIFORNIA (310) 316 - o a 3qt MAIL OR DELIVER TO: 1315 VALLEY DRIVE,HERMOSA BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90254 i%1 9 81 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLEASE PRINT AND FILL OUT COMPLETELY I PLETE OR ILLEGIBLE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED CHECK ONE: SFR DUPLEX 'CONDO APT.BLDG. 0 NO.OF UNITS: ADDRESS (D i I 01 414 h4*kv A-Y" i1_ ZONE: [ 1- 6 f `( ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: Y1 '1 -O o o 0 c LOT SIZE: ( CI X 0 0 OWNER OS{gk V O `^q I ' ! ('NGV\ V Chr*tO(4` J L'\ BEDROOMS: DATE: 6I I110 BATHROOMS: 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK KITCHENS: 1-- TRACT WETBAR:1 PARKING SPACES: ENCLOSED 3 OPEN AGE: 1 q I I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY INSPECTED THE ABOVE PREMISES AND THAT THE NUM R F INDL DWELLING UNITS LOCATED THEREON IS UNITS. c4 ( t V'(;Cs SIGNA URE OF LISTING AGENT,ADDRESS AND BROKERAGE) p Fta e 11 S"t S , SIGNATURE OF OWNER(IF NO LISTING AGENT) Q I CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUSINESS LICENSE#: v ® l(o MUST BE INCLUDED) IT IS MANDATORY FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERS TO HAVE A BUSINESS LICENSE WITH THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. PERMISSION TO ENTER (OPTIONALI FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE ABOVE STATEMENT,I,OWNER OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY,HEREBY AUTHORIZE AND REQUEST THE CITY TO ENTER ON AND INSPECT THE ABOVE PREMISES,AND FURTHER STATE THAT ALL STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE OF OWNER NOTE: A REPORT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING RECORDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DELIVERED TO THE BUYER PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF A SALE OR TRANSFER OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. ORDINANCE NO.N.S.370,EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 5,1970). A FEE OF$45.00 IS DUE AND P YABLE ITH THIS APPLICATION tgie 146.00 0 FEE RECEIVED: BY: 0 DATE: 20 po- lq RECEIPT# fl.,Z {b REPORT TO BE PICKED UP: XXX REPORT TO BE MAILED OUT: NAME: Jeannie Hunter/Madrona Park Escrow ADDRESS: e TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( f:\b95\cd\applicat\rbrapp Page 113 of 630 gym a liL k?`xA ,,1tiLh CA a: 20 2002 i 2002 49,()0((1 49, 00 l [ i_49,00 Page 114 of 630 at RESIDENTIAL BUILDING REPORT INSPECTION Date to Inspector: 4 _0/0 2. Date property inspected: S/z-//0 7---- APARTMENT DUPLEX OF!) ADDRESS: 1) // 'Ma rt ArY6 h /7Ve-• 1) STRUCTURE VISIBLE FROM: tree Alley Walkway 2) OBSERVATIONS: No. of dwelling units: No. of mailboxes: No. of gas meters: No. of electric meters: No. of addresses: No. of garages attache - etached?) 1-car o car, tc?) No. of open parking spaces: Approximate age of structure: 3) STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: ROOF WALLS (RETAINING) FIREPLACE FOUNDATION ELECTRICAL PLUMBING HEATING VENTS ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION ZONING VIOLATIONS SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS EVIDENCE OF CONVERSION 4) REVIEW MASTER FILE for previous nonconforming project, % of work completed, etc. Comments: f:\b95\cd\rbr l\rbrinsp Page 115 of 630 f J i'M_...F,_-t. .(' 3-.'M_'`4 lK SH*.*S4.:,c,„,,1„+.,.tw`Y. 3..- q"'/w iM1r. ' V't1.' "r 4';(75,'%-a.,,,,' t^ YiR:pre r t-lre...Tl I7 ,, ,. v,.r.,r'z . ,. BUS:G PERMIT A CATIONI ,I C1Tp OF heC]VIOM 3E/fC1 w C•. 3/27/91• DATEs BLDG.PERMIT NO. r o• JOB ADDRESS 1011 Manhattan Avenue LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT DESCR. OWNER Vogel 1011 Manhatta49A'LAWie 9025T CONTRACTOR PHONE Hodne Construction 2 716100CITYLIC.NO. ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. CLASS OF WORK: 0 NEW 0 ADDITION 0 ALTERATION Ll REPAIR 0 MOVE 0 DEMOLITION DESCRIBE WORK: Reroof at above address I USE OF EXISTING BUILDING: Residence LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION I herebyaffirm that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter9(commencingwithSection 7000 of Division 3 of ths.BusinAsKand Professions Code)and my license' fu for and effect USE OF PROPOSED BUILDING: License Class_1 License Number ;'..7Le(QZ.°tS Date__3~Z'7 _Q \ Contractor V-V*A.A.e Con4 A . VALUATION OF WORK: $ 1300 ADDRESS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 13 squares CITY AND ZIP PHONE: CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued(Sec.3097,Civ.C)LENDERS NAME_V..`F-x %,4N. APPLICATION I PLANS CHECKED BY I APPROVED FOR LENDERS ADDRESS ACCEPTED BY I I ISSUANCE BY OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION CS i I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 0 I,asowner of the property,or my employees with wages astheir sole compensation,will dothetPLANCHECKFEEIPERMITFEE /(076/1 STATE SEISMIC work,and the structure is not intended or offered for sale. 114.00 1 FEE$•50 I.as owner of the property,am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to I I V construct the project. I SEWER USE FEE PARK & RECREATION/QUIMBY FEE I am exempt under Sec.__ ,BBPC for this reason_ I TAX Date: OWNER: _ WORKERS'COMPENSATION DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I have a certificate of consent to self-insure,or a certificate of Workers'FIRE HYDRANT FEE DEMOLITION CREDIT: Compensation Insurance,ora certified copy thereof. POLICY NO.TYPE SQUARE FOOTAGE COMPANY__ 0 Certified copy is hereby furnished. DATE EXPIRES: _— LIVING AREA GARAGE AREA TOTAL AREA 0 Certified copy is filed with Building Dept. VERIFIED SQ. FT.) SQ. FT.) SQ. FT.)Date: APPLICANT: CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS'COMPENSATION INSURANCE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ' OCCUPANCY GROUP LOT SIZE This section need not be completed if permit is for$100 or less) I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit isissued,I shall not employ any person inanymanner soastobecome subject to theWorkers'Compensation Lawsof California. USE ZONE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES REQUIRED Date: APPLICANT: I] YES [] NO NOTICE TO APPLICANT: If,after making this Certificate of Exemption,you should become subject to theWorkers'Compensation provisions of the Labor Code,you must forthwith comply NO. DWELLING UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES:with such provisions or this permit shall be deemed revoked. I I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE ABOVE INFORMA- I TION IS CORRECT. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL COUNTY ORDINANCES AND STATE COVERED I UNCOVERED LAWS RELATING TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION,AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE REPRESEN- TATIVES OF THIS CITY TO ENTER UPON THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY FOR APPROVALS REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED COMPLETED INSPECTION PURPOSES. ZONING DEPT. NING , a'— 1 FIRE DEPT. Signature ofApPicantoAgent Date SOILS REPORT PUBLIC WORKS SCHOOL FEES Print Applicants/Agents Name FORM 44-WPI Page 116 of 630 v i6rtY i;;wt. ; , nm #S3 .: + ]` Y ex +. f.•r• iy `e,.. d t ""Y` t mQ ry'''..e. :-,« J9yorirhMt,h%ra•.r®-I,r.iy, ..r t',,r `I" r w ,"'" G-.•krP r .r ._r..*,-e. " t I.BUI IIG PERM IT i CATION CITY, OF 11€1MOSMI 1e611Ch fe.r 11/1/89 s DATE sA .'1, BLDG.PERMIT NOP v U' 4+ *.l_ 21630 JOB ADDRESS 1011 Manhattan Avenue LEGAL LOT NO.BLOCK TRACT DESCR.24 35 1st Addition to H.B. OWNERAIL ADDRESS ZIP Joseph L. Vogl 1011 Manhattan Av. 90254 CONTR6C OR MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE jj CITY LIC.NO. ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. 0/B ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. N/A CLASS OF WORK: C-'PNEW 0 ADDITION 0 ALTERATION 0 REPAIR 0 MOVE 0 DEMOLITION DESCRIBE WORK: New block walls USE OF EXISTING BUILDING:N/A LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9(commencing with Section 7000 A of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code)and my license is in full force and effect USE OF PROPOSED BUILDING: N License Class_ License Number Date__._ Contractor VALUATION OF WORK: $ 600.00 ADDRESS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: CITY AND ZIP PHONE: CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued(Sec.3097,Civ.C)LENDERS NAME LENDERS ADDRESS APPLICATION I PLANS CHECKED BY I APPROVED FOR ACCEPTED BY I I ISSUANCE BY OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION I NK I NK I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: I I D I,as owner of the property,or myemployees with wages as their sole compensation,will dothe PLAN CHECK FEE I PERMIT FEE I STATE SEISMIC work,and the structure is not intended or offered for sale. 18.85 1 29,00 I FEE .50 D I,as owner of the property,am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors toGC! I construct the project. SEWER USE FEE PARK & RECREATION/QUIMBY FEE D I am exempt under Sec.__ ,B&PC for this reason_ TAX Date: OWNER: WORKERS'COMPENSATION DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I have a certificate of consent to self-insure,or a certificate of Workers' FIRE HYDRANT FEE DEMOLITION CREDIT: Compensation Insurance,or a certified copy thereof. POLICY NO.TYPE -- ,x SQUARE'OOTAG COMPANY___ D Certified copy is hereby furnished. DATE EXPIRES: — - LIVING AREA GARAGE AREA TOTAL AREA D Certified copy is filed with Building Dept. VERIFIED SQ. FT.) SQ. FT.) SQ. FT.)Date: APPLICANT: CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS'COMPENSATION INSURANCE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION' OCCUPANCY GROUP LOT SIZE This section need not be completed if permit is for 5100 or less) VN Icertifythat in the performanceof thework for which this permit is issued,I shall notempby any person in any manner^so alto become subject to the Workers'Compensation Laws Of California. i USE ZONE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES REQUIRED Date: I f/f 6" APPLICANT:A NOTICE TO APPLICANT: If,after making this Certificate of Exemption,you shoupYESNO lQbecome subject tothe Workers'CompenaetionprovisbnaoltheLaborCode,youmustforthwit lcompy NO. DWELLING UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES:with such provisions or this permit shall be deemed revoked. I I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE ABOVE INFORMA- 1 3 I TION IS CORRECT. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL COUNTY ORDINANCES AND STATE COVERED I UNCOVERED LAWS RELATING TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION,AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE REPRESEN- TATNES OF THIS CITY TO ENTER UPON THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTY FOR APPROVALS RE WIRED NOT RE WIRED COMPLETED INSPECTION PURPOSES. 61ZONINGI/7/HEALTH DEPT. FIRE DEPT. Scripture ofApplicantaAgent Date SOILS REPORT 1 • 46' .°'' HPUBLICWORKS rVOL SCHOOL FEES Print Applicants/Agents Name FORM 44-WPI Page 117 of 630 9 110 RRf OF RESIDENTIALWB DING ' RECORDS CIVIC CENTER, HERMOSA BEACH 90254, 376-6984 eo CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH tate: February 22 . 1989. Report No. 72758 Address: 1011 Manhattan Avenue Apx. Aap: 49 'PParq owner: Thomas Wayman. Frank Garza No. Rooms: No. of Units: One No. Bedrooms: Lot: 24 No. Baths: 9 7c Nock: 35 q No. Kitchens: rt a Tract: 1st Add to Hermosa Beach wet Bar: Zone: R-P No. pgrking Spaces Enclosed: 9 Use e Record: Single Family Resddence ao. Parking spaces Open: Lot size: 40 x 100 Assessed LL_an : RR nsai General Plan Designation: - High Density Assessed Impr. : i 717 jlnfo. above provided by' owner/agent) Errors or omissions in said report shall not bind or stop the City from enforcing any and all building and zoning codes against seller, buyer, and any subsequent owner. Said report does not guarantee the structural stability of any existing building nor does it relieve the owner, his agent, architect or builder from design- ing and building a structurally stable building meeting the requirements of adopted building, plumbing and electrical codes." (Ordinance No. N.S. 460) PERMITS OF RECORD Building: Permit #Date Construction Approved: 57 5-19-13 Single gamily Residence 211 6-10-24 Alterations 346 3-13-29 Aleerations 3327 10-26-44 Reroof 9748 2-6-58 Garage 11174 7-7-70 Plubb>igg 10166 4-26-71 Dryer & service change 18768 9-18-81 First and Second floor addition 18823 11-2k-8: Revision to permit #18768, deck over existing kitchen Other: Permit #Date Type of Action: Dwelling Units Constructed by Permit: Additional information and conditions on Page 2 of this report. Unless otherwise indicated in this report the inspection of the premises HAS NOT included an inspection of the interior of the premises. The permission of the owner of thero erty is required for the City Inspector to make an inspection of the inter- ior p P for premises. You have the right to require, as a condition of the purchase of the property, that the owner request an inspection by a City Inspector of the interior of the premises. This report cannot offer maximum protection without an inspection of the interior of the premises. For further information concerning the nature of this report you should read Chapter 7, Article VIII of the City Code of the City of Hermosa Beach." (Ordinance No. N.S. 460) I certify that a complete copy of the above PLEASE COMPLETE IN FULL report, including Page Two was delivered to me prior to consummation of the agreement of sale of above described property. buyer) buyer's address) THIS REPORT EXPIRES SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ISSUE. date) Page 1 of Two Pages WHITE -BUYER'S COPY PINK = SELLER'S COPY CANARY - FILE COPY (TO BE RETURNED TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT )GREEN - CONTROL COPY Page 118 of 630 400 101•anttan Avenue Address ADDITIONAL PERMITS OR COMMENTS: Smoke detectors required pursuant to section 13113. 7 of the Health and Safety Code. T Exterior Inspection es Interior Inspection No This certificate is based upon examination of Building and Zoning records of the City and an interior inspection of the property on and I hereby certify that the information contained hereon, together with the attached Page 1 , constitutes a complete and accurate record of the development and use of the property in question. Signature Title This certificate is based upon examination of Building and Zoning records of 1. the City and a visual inspection of the property: Seller did not authorize an interior inspection of the property. I hereby certify that the information con- tained hereon, together with the attached Page 1 , constitutes a complete and accurate report of the existing records of the property in question. 7/ ) fe William Grove, Director Signature Title This certificate is based upon examination of Building and Zoning records of the City and a visual inspection of the property. I hereby certify that said records are incomplete and do not reflect the above-stated use of the property. It appears that there may have been construction without benefit of permit, or alterations which may be in violation of the Zoning regulations. It is recom- mended that further investigation be conducted. Signature Title Page 2 of Two Pages Page 119 of 630 N ADDRESS (I 0( lS 1) Structure visible from: 2)Date of observation :? Street No . of Dwelling Units , Alley Walkway No . of Mailboxes No . of Gas Meters No . of Elect . Metersi No. of Addresses No. of Garages (Usable)Q_ `CCA2-, Approx. age of structure4-0 3) Other Data: Structural Roof Heating VentsWalls (Retaining) Illegal Construction Fireplace Substandard Conditions Foundation Zoning ViolationsElectrical Nonconforming conditionsPlumbing ' Evidence of conversion COMMENTS : Page 120 of 630 4 1:D APPLICATION FOR REPORT OF RESIDENTIAL54pBUILDINGRECORDS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CA MAIL OR DELIVER TO: 1315 VALLEY DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Address : 10\\ M2vka,1\av\ yome_ No: Rooms : Owner :Tom l72 vUtav\ c-racN_rL a No. Bedrooms : 3 No. of Units : 1 l No. Baths : a 3 Lot: No. Kitchens : I Block : 65 Wetbar : Tract: Garages : c Zone :No. Parking paces : Lot Size : 40' X lOO` 220 Elect. Approx. Age :( 3) I declare under penalty of perjury that I have personally inspected the above premises and that the number of individual dwelling units located thereon is units . Signatureer Ag t Date: k_, a,\ ) \g7.9 Listing Office_ 1 c As PERMISSION TO ENTER For the purpose of verifying the above statement. I , owner of the above property, hereby authorize and request the City fo enter on and inspect the above premises , and further state that all statements are tru and correct to the best of my knowledge . Owner NOTE: A Report of Residential Building Records is 40 . 00 fee required to be delivered to the buyer prior received: to the conclusion of a sale or transfer of a residential building (Ordinance No. N.S. BY: 1 370 , effective February 5 , 1970 . ) Date: w Receipt rW A Fee of $40 .00 is due and payable with this application . Report is to be: Picked up at the Building Department Mailed to: Name : Telephone No. Address : Page 121 of 630 00 4 c•r\\--9. 0 t Page 122 of 630 HERMOSA BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Sherria Lawrence, Building Department FROM: Terry Bindman, Public Works SUBJECT: Approved Encroachment at 1011 Manhattan Avenue DATE: December 8, 1994 Attached please find a copy of the Los Angeles County recorded Encroachment Agreement for encroachment adjacent to 1011 Manhattan Avenue, approved plans and site inspection report. The area of encroachment is 150 square feet and consists of an area paved with brick, a 36" high block wall and 5 decorative brick pillars. Next to the brick wall are 6 large round planters and 5 smaller ones, planted with various bushes and all have drip irrigation. If the property is sold, the new owner will be required to apply for an encroachment permit and this requirement shall be noted on the Residential Building Report. encrbld\msw Page 123 of 630 RECORDED/FILED IN 0 IAL RECORDAECOFILEWHENREDRETURNTO: LOS MIKES COUNTY FEE 22CityClerkCA_IFORNIA City of Hermosa Beach 4 MIN. 8 A.M.NOV 1 1994 61315ValleyDrivePAST Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 i'ACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER RESIDENTIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into at Hermosa Beach, California, this 3rd day of December 199 1 , by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corporation in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, hereinafter called the " CITY" and: 7"' Joseph L. Vogl and Karen M. McDonough, Joint Tenants and hereinafter called " OWNER" which parties do agree as follows: SECTION 1. OWNER represents that they are the owner in fee of real property located at Hermosa Beach, legally described as: Lot 24, Block 35, First Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract(1011 Manhattan Avenue) SECTION 2. The parties further agree that an encroachment permit request was presented to the Director of Public Works for the City • requesting permission to encroach in and over a portion of the public street right-of-way adjacent to the property described above in Section 1 described as (address) : the public right-of-way adjacent to sidewalk at 1011 Manhattan Avenue With improvements consisting of the following: an area paved with brick, a 36" high block wall with decorative pillars and three (3) planters to satisfy the 1/3 requirement for landscaping. That a sketch of the proposed improvement and encroachment is on file in the Public Works Department of the CITY and is by reference 1 Page 124 of 630 incorporated herein and made a part hereof; and that permit is hereby granted for that certain encroachment herein requested. SECTION 3. In consideration of the permission granted by the CITY to permit the improvements hereinafter described in SECTION 2, in, upon, or over public right-of-way , the OWNER covenant and agree to the following: a. OWNER shall permit the CITY, its officers, employees and agents to enter upon said real property at any and every place therein for the purpose of repair, maintenance, or replacement of the facilities or properties on or in said public right-of- way, hereby waiving any and all claims for damages or liability in connection therewith for property damages incurred; b. OWNER shall reimburse the CITY for any damages caused to CITY- owned facilities by construction or maintenance of the encroachment over said public right-way by the OWNER, their heirs, successors or assigns; c. OWNER shall remove the encroachment at their own expense upon thirty (30) days written notice by the CITY, to the OWNER, their heirs, successors or assigns, in the event, in the opinion of the CITY, the public right-of -way becomes necessary for a municipal purpose. Should any cost be incurred by the CITY in the removal of the encroachment, such cost shall be a lien upon subject property. d. OWNER shall hold and save the CITY harmless from any action at law whatsoever or at all or from any claim or damage by reason of the maintenance of the encroachment over the right-of-way owned by the CITY. 94 1973176 2 Page 125 of 630 e. This permit is issued to the OWNER only as legal owner of the real property hereinabove described in SECTION 1 of this agreement, which is the herein described contiguous parcel. f. OWNER shall perform al work in accordance with CITY policy, standard specifications, and ordinances. g. OWNER recognizes and understands that this permit may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and, further, OWNER agrees to make payment of any property taxes levied on such interest. h. OWNER shall be responsible for and maintain said encroachment including all associated costs. i. OWNER recognizes and understands that this permit is revocable upon demolition of the property. j . Residential Properties: Upon sale of the above parcel, this • encroachment permit shall not succeed to the new owner except upon review by the CITY and re-issuance to the new owner upon said new owners application. The Residential Building Report prepared on the property will indicate that an encroachment permit is in force and instruct the OWNER to take steps to have the new owner apply for an encroachment permit or it must be abated within fifteen (15) days. In the event that the new owner does not apply for an encroachment permit for the continued use of the hereindescribed land as conditioned by this permit, the undersigned OWNER shall restore the land described herein within fifteen (15) - days of recordation of the sale. SECTION 4 . The OWNER further agrees to maintain liability insurance which provides the designated limits of liability combined single limit coverage against any injury, death, loss or damage arising out of the encroachment in the amount of $500, 000; 3 94 1973176 Page 126 of 630 r of $500, 000 against any injury, death or loss arising out of the encroachment, (2) filing the "City of Hermosa Beach Encroachment Endorsement" duly executed by the OWNER'S insurance carrier, and 3) further agreeing that failure to maintain such insurance policy shall be grounds for cancellation of`this permit. Such insurance is primary for any losses and neither the CITY nor their insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. : SECTION 5. This agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, State of California. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH c 1/v ( Cir Vl Director of Public Works seph L-e rVogl Owner CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1 No.5193 State of FOQIi) ft-CMOPTIONAL SECTIONElmo CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of LOS J C3--tri Though statute does not require the Notary to fill in the data below.doing so may prove l On Ot}".z$ before me, );----0/44 A f7 w all R ! V B Li invalu a to persons relying on the document. DATE NAME,TI E OF OFFICER-Et.,-JANE DOE,NOTT4Y PUBLIC- INDIVIDUAL 41114110030 CORPORATE OFFICER(S) personally appeared M1 NAME(S)OF SIGNER(S) TITLE(S)1 t gpersonally known to me-OR- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence PARTNER(S) LIMITED to be the person(.& whose name(e} is/afe 0 GENERAL subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ATTORNEY IN-FACT knowledged to me that lae/she/414ey executed TRUSTEE(S) the same in .. s/her/.if38k authorized GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR N,,,, - - - - - —q capacity( ee), and that by bis/her/t aic r 7;.`-,-.'\. NAOMA VA' DES signature on the instrument the person(s), OTHER: 0. C:.mrn :; 53147 P C -•_ `_`..::-:'•'•...a:CyC,_:;CRN:A or the entity upon behalf of which thecLC'::•.:Lc:ES C;;;;;ATY L:p CJTIGI e>crce<an.16. 19960 person($acted, executed the instrument. SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: WITN ES my hand an. official seal.NAME OF PERSONS)OR ENTITY(IES) 94 1973176 1, OFes VI • SIGNATURE OF NOTARY I OPTIONAL SECTIO THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT icES1D E D r1 A-L. izotKpPINT- • M 1TTHEDOCUMENTDESCRIBEDATRIGHT: 1 r NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT e-—O3 —9 3 Though the data requested here is not required by law, r( c it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE (O5}4 L.\. L 4 4 M• - t _ LOAMiiit 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 Page 127 of 630 of $500, 000 against any injury, death or loss arising out of the encroachment, (2) filing the "City of Hermosa Beach Encroachment Endorsement" duly executed by the OWNER'S insurance carrier, and 3) further agreeing that failure to maintain such insurance policy shall be grounds for cancellation of this permit. Such insurance is primary for any losses and neither the CITY nor their insurers shall be required to contribute to any such loss. SECTION 5. This agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Los Angeles County, State of California. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Cpm Direct r of Public Works or Yrsepli L. logl Owner Karen McDonough ATTEST:APPROVED AS TO FORM: Al 1 y Clerk City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) On this the day of 19 , before me, the .undersigned Notary Public personally appeared personally known to me to be the Director of Public Works of the City of Hermosa Beach and known to me to be the person who executed within instrument on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach and acknowledged to me that such City of Hermosa Beach executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) 4- 94 1973176 Page 128 of 630 On this/ the day of z19 l/ before me, Lee//c/ce , l': the undersigned Notary Public personally appeared )7,73(-,/7,1L G*)/1L 1j/47h 22c4J I /jpersonallyknowntome W, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidencetobetheperson(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OFFICIAL SEAL iiilde/4;„ lAURICE M. DUKEL7NouryPublic• CMIfnrnlsr' 9: PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN ar 's Signature r!^ A. Mar. 12r. My Come.Exp.Mar.12.1993 SEAL) 94 1973176 5-Page 129 of 630 V C CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE APPROVAL OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS APPLICANT: Joseph Vogl & Karen McDonough-Vogl ADDRESS: 1011 Manhattan Avenue DATE: August 29, 1994 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Description of Proposed Encroachment: The area of encroachment adjacent to 1011 Manhattan Ave. is 150 square feet. It consists of an area paved with brick, a 36" high block wall and 5 .decorative brick pillars. Next to the brick wall are 6 large round planters and 5 smaller ones, planted with various bushes and all have drip irrigation (see revised, ap- proved plans) . Report of Inspection: An inspection was made on August 22, 1994 and the encroachment area was found to be as shown on approved plans. Recommended Conditions: To maintain bushes in planters. Recommendation: XX] Approve the application. Deny the application. Respectfully submitted: Approved: RaAkj Ron Snaps Amy Am rani Engineering Technician Director of Public Works L/Encroach scott/pwadmin Page 130 of 630 i I Tf il • H- F 1 r ri OA/A/F/8s pv,-/ f Z..., kt: ' ,';'-i4.,t1:.,. .-.:.III I. 4 ' ; -, ' ; ! t "' i f 1 ,- • ; . i . ; -T• it ; i • 4:1 , 1 " I i I -; t ; ;t 1 r Kttbe.Q/1- Wc.2).40.evot.qtr 01.2.Wi1ivarr MgA PLAN/0 2 tevasP/A/q 101 I /141-/vHATTAA/ 4v -r. 40/x3/.9.il-- /50 sq,rzr 91 (". x 21= /6.7- --3.(4.--F7r 37-4- 7-8 72. 1 x 3 : : .,=••R. -,Q,I.D .LA4V-Psc,4-P/A/q 0 : 24" be A RA ki 7"a X.1TOTAL : 56 -s(a. FT • APPROVED C21 ti t- . II0it' I — F' A MTER-5 t 17 •1-' •1 , • , t H By: Oate .6- 2' -434 A PPR' U gri:. I:5 l' CI le ec ro R 40 1- i • r ' • / / ' • i / ; Jo...1.4c:: i ' _ r ' i • ' • 1 ; i I : r 111I ' • Ir • ,4 il ' 5/ -•.--.4 3 , : 1 I • I I, - 1 LT ' ., r ' t i; i 1 1 j i r 1"i"I • r 1 f ' 1 . : S 1-.4PE. I DOWAf' ' i 1 1: ' I-I I 1 BpAVCIACCqEA/09911CH HEW- s LOPE I)0101 -! *--.... 1,X. 4 ,,,/I I 11 •. eic - ,'•_si ..P'<', H -H H -H _ F-- I. ---1 -1-1 _ H H I1111111111111 — fp 0711m21 — e . a I 1 a 91IP / Ima PL 1 mk... 10 - . , 11 ,0 El _ _ _ 0 . 1J1 1. colfax...)g , 1 i a3 "il/ H 2, E3. 1Ck. S'i 1 1 _T.1, i : , ;. I Z2 MO ' -, 81,0Ck VALL. 2 B.,e I Cie 6f 3" •BLOCk WALL-.-1 WA0C.,k LL 1)EC044771/ 1STOCC0ICAe_ -. . ! T . i . 1 Pg/M.5(5) • S IDEVAL, (E'xis7-/Afq) - , SLo P --I- I - • fr'-cuZB Doh/A/ 1P, L..... 1 i L.. . . SCALE‘ 2iA-IVILIArre4A/ Av'EA/v - 1 , • . , , • , - 1 , . , Page 131 of 630 1 BUIIG PERMIT A P CATION CITY OF heitiMOSit 13E11CIh, qsc.s0PI rIDENTIFICATION NUMBErt oOD_ DATE S 3 © ° G - Qn C BLDG.PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS CI Ov LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT DESCR. OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS PHONE STATE LIC.NO. CITY LIC.NO. ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. CLASS OF WORK: NEW ADDITION ALTERATION REPAIR MOVEnnnnn n DEMOLITION DESCRIBE WORK: USE OF EXISTING BUILDING: USE OF PROPOSED BUILDING: PLAN CHECK FEE PERMIT FEE VALUATION OF WORK: $ SPECIAL CONDITIONS: PLAN CHECK RECEIPT NO. STATE SEISMIC FEE SEWER USE TAX PARKS&RECREATION TAX TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY GROUP LOT SIZE APPLICATION PLANS CHECKED BY APPROVED FOR ACCEPTED BY ISSUANCE BY SIZE OF BUILDING NO.OF STORIES NO.OF ROOMS Total)Sq.Ft. I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION AND STATE THAT FIRE ZONE USE ZONE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ABOVE INFORMATION IS CORRECT. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIRED OYES ONOCITYORDINANCESANDSTATELAWSRELATINGTOBUILDING CONSTRUCTION. I CERTIFY THAT IN PERFORMANCE OF ABOVE WORK I NO.OF DWELLING UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: SHALL NOT EMPLOY ANY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. COVERED UNCOVERED CONTRACTORS SIGN BELOW APPROVALS REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED COMPLETED I CERTIFY THAT I AM A LICENSED CONTRACTOR WITH MY LICENSE IN ZONING FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. HEALTH DEPT. FIRE DEPT. BY SOIL REPORTCONTRACTORAUTHORIZEDAGENT PUBLIC WORKS OWNER-BUILDER SIGN BELOW I CERTIFY THAT I AM EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9, DIVISION 3, B AND P CODE) CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE LAW) BECAUSE: CHECK ONE) nI AM OWNER OF ABOVE PROPERTY AND WILL PERSONALLY PERFORM ABOVE WORK. I AM OWNER OF ABOVE PROPERTY AND WILL CONTRACT ElTO HAVE ALL ABOVE WORK PERFORMED BY LICENSED CONTRACTORS. OWNER'S SIGNATURE FORM 44-WPI Page 132 of 630 BUIIDMIG PERMIT 1 P ICATION CITY OF 14E11110Si' Y3E4C.1 gwp. DATE Fb\ BLDG.PERMIT NO.tle6N JOB ADDRESS LEGAL LOT NO. BLOCK TRACT DESCR. OWNER MAIL ADDRESS ZIP PHONE CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS PHONE STATE LIC.NO. CITY LIC.NO. ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. ENGINEER MAIL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. CLASS OF WORK: n NEW ADDITION n ALTERATION REPAIR n MOVE n DEMOLITION DESCRIBE WORK: USE OF EXISTING BUILDING: USE OF PROPOSED BUILDING: PLAN CHECK FEE PERMIT FEE VALUATION OF WORK: $ SPECIAL CONDITIONS: PLAN CHECK RECEIPT NO. STATE SEISMIC FEE SEWER USE TAX PARKS&RECREATION TAX TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY GROUP LOT SIZE APPLICATION PLANS CHECKED BY APPROVED FOR ACCEPTED BY ISSUANCE BY SIZE OF BUILDING NO.OF STORIES NO.OF ROOMS Total)Sq.Ft. I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION AND STATE THAT FIRE ZONE USE ZONE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ABOVE INFORMATION IS CORRECT. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIRED OYES ONOCITYORDINANCESANDSTATELAWSRELATINGTOBUILDING CONSTRUCTION. I CERTIFY THAT IN PERFORMANCE OF ABOVE WORK I NO.OF DWELLING UNITS OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: SHALL NOT EMPLOY ANY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE. COVERED UNCOVERED CONTRACTORS SIGN BELOW APPROVALS REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED COMPLETED I CERTIFY THAT I AM A LICENSED CONTRACTOR WITH MY LICENSE IN ZONING FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. HEALTH DEPT. FIRE DEPT. BY SOIL REPORTCONTRACTORAUTHORIZEDAGENT PUBLIC WORKS OWNER-BUILDER SIGN BELOW I CERTIFY THAT I AM EXEMPT FROM PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 9, DIVISION 3, B AND P CODE) CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE LAW) BECAUSE: CHECK ONE) I AM OWNER OF ABOVE PROPERTY AND WILL PERSONALLY PERFORM ABOVE WORK. I AM OWNER OF ABOVE PROPERTY AND WILL CONTRACT nTO HAVE ALL ABOVE WORK PERFORMED BY LICENSED CONTRACTORS. OWNER'S SIGNATURE FORM 44-WPI Page 133 of 630 41, sit CITY OF f (: 87qO CIVIC CENTER HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA 90254 CITY HALL : ( 213 ) 3 76 - 6 984 POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS : 376 - 7981 December 6, 1982 Tom Wayman 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 From: Department of Building and -Safety Re: Expired Permit Permit: #18768 & # 18823 Date Issued: 9/18/81 & 11/24/81 Job Address: 1011 Manhattan Avenue Legal Description: Lot 24, Bicok 35, First Addition to Hermosa Beach Dear Property Owner, Our records indicate that the construction/installation of First and Second Floor Addition and Deck has not progressed since 12/ 18/ 81 wherein your permit is subject to expiration per Section 302 (d) of the Uniform Building Code of the City of Hermosa Beach. In the event that the work has been completed and not inspected, please con- tact this department within ten (10) days from your receipt of this letter so that we may schedule an inspection and record the work. If we do not hear from you within the prescribed time we will have no alternative other than to expire the permit. In order to renew a building permit after expiration you shall be required to pay a new and current full permit fee. Please contact the Department of Building and Safety for any assistance you may need. Sincerely, j//dd / ' Mark Matson Building Official Page 134 of 630 Aft 410 APPLICATION FATI , VENTILATION, AIR CONDI•O/ NING OR REFRIGERATION PERMIT City of Hermosa Beach, California Building Department FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN JOB j ! / V/ PERMIT FEES No. Each Fee ADDRESS V l ( arced-air or Up to Gravity-type 100,000 B.T.U. 4.00 OWNER Furnace incl . Over e teCI ! - ducts and Vents. 100,000 B.T.U. 5.00 1!!!!!!ITR 4 CONTRACTOR.60xqFloorFurnace4.00 ADDRESS CONTRACON ORQat Heater--suspended type 4.00 PHO CITY /'G'c., CITY LIC E S TAT jIE NG Heater--recessed type 4.00 NO. Z WNO. 6-. TYPE OF NUMBER Heater--floor mounted 4.00 BLDG. -- f-"-- OF STORIES NO. OF NO. OF Appliance vent--only 2.00 METERS FAMILIES Up to Up to Boiler, 3 H.P. 100,000 B.T.U.. 4.00 VFW RLf1G. EXIST. BEV,, 3 H.P. 100,001 to Compressor, 15 H.P. 500,000 B.T.U. 7.50 ATE ISSUED: 15 H.P. 500,001 to PERMIT Absorption 30 H.P. 1 ,000,000 B.T.U. 10.00 ISSUED BY: gt2 NO. '''.5-6> 30 H.P. 1 ,000,001 to System 50 H.P. 1 ,750,000 B.T.U. 15.00 REMARKS Over Over 50 H.P. 1 ,750,000 B.T.U. 25. 00 Air Handling Under Unit 10,000 C,F.M. 3.00 Incl . ducts Over 10,000 C.F.M. 5.00 Evaporative cooler I Hereby certify that I have read and non-portable) 3.00 examined this application and know the same .to be true and correct. All pro- Vent fan/single duct 2.00 visions 'of laws and ordinances govern- ing this type of work will be complied Mechanical Vent 3.00 frith whether specified herein or not. Vo person shall be allowed to perform Mechanical exh. hood 3.00 • 4ork under this permit in violation of the labor code of the State of Calif- Domestic type Incinerator 5.00 ornia. I further state that I am prop 2rly licensed as required by Section Comm./Indus. Incinerator 20. 00 7031 .5 of the State Business & Profes- Repair, alter, addition to each sions Code (or claim exemption under heating appy , refrig. unit, comfort Section 7044) . cooling unit, or system incl . controls. 4.00 Any equip. regulated but not incl , above. 3.00_ S NA OF ONTRAC OR AUTHORIZED AGENT PERMIT 3.00 7°o TOTAL FEES SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER-BUILDER)• 4 Page 135 of 630 PPLICATION FOR PLUMBING MI• ity of Hermosa Beach, Carnia Building Department FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN JOB NO, PERMIT FEES AMOUNT <=. ADDRESS/f7//- ,4'/ a A'Ha lta. -,-Z_ A VI Gas System @ $2,00 System over, 5 outlets/ per outlet '$,.50ea //2° c, OWNER Ltki .=/ Repair/alteration of PLUMBING Draina e or vent ' ii + in• @ 2.00 ea. CONTRACTOR CONTRALTO House Sewer @$10.00 ea. ADDRESS Install/alter/repair CONTRACTOR water piping/treating equip@ $2.00 ea. PHONE CITY n. I Water Heaters 1 ,e2 CITY LICENSE STATE LICENSE and/or Vents @ $4.00 eaNO. 0n 2 / 1- 9r NO. Plumbing Piping TYPE OF ' NUMBER w/o fixtures @ $2.00 ea. BLDG. OF STORIES Ind, waste pretreatment NO. .OF NO. OF interceptor, inc.trap/vent @ $2.00 ea, METERS ( FAMILIES Water line acid treatment De-scale @$10.00 ea. NEW BLDG.EXIST. BLDG. Auto. Washers @ $2.00 ea. _ /7 DATE ISSUED: /0 If g I ERMIT Bar Sink @ $2.00 ea. • ISSUED BY: NO. l,5' g Bathtub @ $2.00 ea. id.°r' REMARKS Dishwasher @ $2.00 ea. Floor. drain; r $2.00 ea. Floor sinks @ $2.00 ea. i I Hereby certify that I have read and Garbage Disposal @ $2.00 ea. ,examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All pro- Kitchen Sink 2.00 ea, visions of laws and ordinances govern- ing this type of work will be complied Laundry Trays @ $2.00 ea. with whether specified herein or not. Lavatories @ $2.00 ea. 50, No person shall be allowed to perform 75 work under this permit in violation of the labor code of the State of Calif- Shower Pans p $2.00 ea. o° ornia. I further state that I am prop- erly licensed as required by Section --- Urinals @ $2.00 ea. 7031 .5 of the State Business & Profes- sions Code (or claim exemption under Water closet @ $2.00 ea, Section 7044) . Lawn Sprinkler system on any one meter, inc. backflow protection device @ 13.00 ea. Vac. brkrs. or backflow @ $3.00 SIGNA RE OF CONTRACTOR +R AUTHORIZED protective devices for 5 AGENT Over 5, 50 ea. Septic tank/seepage pit @$_15.00 MISC. SIGNATURE OF OWNER ( IF OWNER-BUILDER PERMIT 3.00' TOTAL FEES 0 f a 9i Ir .f Page 136 of 630 411 APPLICATION FOR ELECTRt RMI• City of Hermosa Beach, California, Building Department FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN JOB ADDRESS Permit Fees No, Each Fee I /V/51A4/9 rr u C' Receptacles ) I/17 n OWNER O 0 mefV Light Outlets )20 leELECTRICAL Switch Outlets)CONTRACTOR "?..e. CLeL}`rr C- Lighting) CONTRACTOR Fixtures) 20 ADDRESS CONTRACTOR Festoon I ights (less PHONE CrTY / than18" apart) NO. Y 6O NO, 377 LICENSE incl .inI wiring 10 9/ ' Rang TYPE OF NUMBER F,A.U. BLDG.OF STORIES Oven NO. OF /NO. OF Dryer METERS ( FAMILIES Dishwasher / NEW BLDG . EXIT. BLDG . 1"- Garbage Disp. / Total 3 1 .00 Fan e7?)DATE ISSUED // r --- Elect . Htrs. EIR'1IT 423//6,477WaterHtrs,ISSUED BY Ceiling Ht. Auto. Mash.REMARKS Other Motors, Transformers, Generators, Etc. Size s Type Rating H ', KW, KVA Over - To U 1 .00 I hereby certify that I have read and 3 1 .50 examined this application and know the- 3 6 2.00 same to be true and correct. All 8 15 3.00 -provisions of laws and ordinances 15 50 5.00 ' governing this type of work will be . 50 200 10.00 complied with whether specified herein Over 200 20.00 or not. No person shall be allowed to TEMP. POWER POLE 2.00 perform work under this permit in SIGN violation of the Labor Code of the 10 limos or less 2.00 State of California. I further state 11 lamps to c5 lamps 3.00 that I am properly licensed as required 26. lamps an over 4.OU by Section 7031 .5 of the State Business I to 4 transformers 2.00 Professions Code (or claim exemption under Section 7014.)Add' 1 < transformers, ea. 50 I i NEWSERVICERVIGE LUO amp. , ca. 2.00 2.0,..- over 00 arnp. , ea. 3,00 SIGNATUR OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT bUU volts or more, ea. b,00 OTHER SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER) FOR 1 .iSUI:1G PERMIT 3.00 "6— TOTAL FEES . 1. 4/G FPage 137 of 630 Cable Address—BANKAMERICA Bank of Ants itu NATIONAL IINMIST ASSOCIATION HERMOSA BEACH BRANCH • 90 PIER AVENUE • HERMOSA BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90254 June 4,1970 City of Hermosa Beach Building Dept City Hall . Civic Center Hermosa Beach, California Re: Escrow 63-12858 Gentlemen: We enclose file copy of Report of Residential Building Records, dated 4/23/70 covering property known as 1011 Manhattan Avenue. Please acknowledge receipt of the above enclosure by signing and returning the copy of this letter. Thank you. Very truly yours, une Houston Escrow Officer FR 43471 Page 138 of 630 s o j. C1,. /03/ f:,,( 0ER s .,-.o21, mom 9 r CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSIONi" ARISTOCRAT D`> , c1L/ \P November 1, 1919 11 itli I ijbt ifiA ef D Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, California Gentlemen :- In view of the communication from the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Housing, which is attached hereto, the Planning Commission respectfully recommends that the petition of Grange S. Thatcher for a zone variance to permit the erection of a northerly wall of proposed building on side lot line, be granted. erty is more particularly described as Lot 24, Bloc .ition to •ermosa Beach. Respectfully, 0. (4°64;t!..) R. E. MATTE , Chairman Planning Commission REM:MD Page 139 of 630 wt- 11140 RESOLUTION BC.N.S. 1031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA GRANTING APPLICATION,OF GRANGE S. THATCHER FOR A ONE VARIANCE AS' HEREINAFTER SET roan. WHERZAS, application hereinafter described hasheretofore been filed in the Office of the City Planning Commission pursutut to the provisions of Section 3.9 of Zoning Ordinance WQ.N.S,B, re- questing that a conditional variance be made from certain provisions. n said ordinance and setting forth the specific reasons therefor, and the circumstances in connection therewith, and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after regular hearing on said application, has recommended that the same be , granted, and the City Council being fully informed in the preai*.a, and it appearing that the granting of said application will in no way detrimentally -effect the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT! OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 3.. That the City Council does hereby find and determine that the exeeptions and varix ass- applied for, as spit forth in"the followir4 described application' filed with the City Planning Commission on the date specified, i*Atoctessary for the ; preservation and enjoyment of substantial ;property rights of applicant and that the granting therefor will not be materially' detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the ..property or improvements in the sone or district wherein the sum is located: Application of ORANGE S. THATCHER for waiver of side yard requirements to permit the erection of the northerly wall of proposed building to be located on Lot 24, Block 35, First Addition to Hermosa Beach, Zone R.-3, on the side lot line subject to the condition that said wall be of concrete block con struction. (Application dated October 20, 1949) . SECTION 2. That pursuant to the prayer of said petitioner, the recommendations 'of the Planning Commission and, the findings of the City Council, the applicant be. 'and he is hereby granted an exception and variance from the provisions of Ordinance No.N.8 8, being the Zoning Ordinance of the Citi Of Hermosa Beadh,.`` Page 140 of 630 and is hereby authorised t© use said property for the purposees in the manner stated in said application, as set forth in 8ectic a 1 hereof. APPROVED 'arid A OP' ED this , 1st, day of ,,,Nntrtoea , ,;,,, 3.949• P ti1DzEr of tVtio ei'ty MAYOrt of the City of Hems* Beech* Caitorznia ATTEST Page 141 of 630 1111 PETIT I O N FOR EXCEPTION TO PROVISIONS OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO.N.S.$ CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH n 49J r` E CITY PLANNING C MMIS iON 3IT1 COUNCIL Inc The undersigned petitioner are, the owners of the follow- ing legally described property:_Lot 24, Block First Addition to ermosa :each i o_ . ermos- :eac a ifornia situated at approx 1010 Palm. Drive, (rear of 1011 Manhattan Ave) Street Address) between ' Pier Ave and 10th Street Street) Street) in Zone R 3 District A plot plan of this propertyxn attached hereto and made apart of this petition . THE PETITIONER s REQUESTAN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.N.S.$ TO PERMIT THE FOLLOWING: Erection of Northerly wall of proposed building on side lot line. Said wall to be of — State fully what is to be done on or with the property. If concrete block construction for fire protection purposes. any building, structures, or improvement is to be erected, constructed, established, ,altered or enlarged, a sketch, plan or accurate description of same shall be attached hereto . NOTE: Obtain instruction as to the preparation of maps, plans, sketches or other data or information pertinent to this particular petition from the office of the City Clerk before ,. filing this petition . Page 142 of 630 y y approx Said property was acquired by petitioner on the day of 191 ._ has property had the folic:wi_ng deed restrictions affecting the use t.' • 'c; f none known if7fT deed restrictions r.a,re expired state what they were originallyT+ will said deed restrictions have expire on 19 THE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING MUST BE MADE COMPLETE AND FULL. I. SUCH EXCEPTION IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT CF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT BECAUSE Building on adjoining lot State in detail wherein is on lot line at this point. Present garage, to be demolished, on the conditions applicable to this property establish the above subject property is on this lot line. statement) . II. SUCH EXCEPTION WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE BOR THE PROPERTY OF OTHER PERSONS LOCATED IN THE VICINITY THEREOF BECAUSE Since existing building on adjoining lot is State in detail wherein the conditions applicable situated on lot line, proposed improvment of petitioner' s lot on _ to this property establish the above statement) . same line is equitable and just. Page 143 of 630 NOTE It is desirable to have the signature of owners of adjacent property certifying that they have no objection to the es- tablish*nent of the usn as applied for in this petition. the undersigned owners of property adjacent to the Property 1.og_i 1v described in this PETITION FOR ZONE EXCEPTION, hereby certify that we do not o':bjec ', to the granting of this petition. SIGNATURE ADDRESS LOT BLOCK TRACT oo 33 s la4":A‘° F Page 144 of 630 4 S . OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT 7T-7 OF HERMOSA BEACH . cc f SF, OF CALIF OPNIii i Grange S. Thatcher and Margaret Ate. Thatcher being duly sworn,, deposes and it I am an owner of property involved in this application and t_la:, the forezoin r at'ements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and ocrect to the best of my knowledge and belief. S i gne d_. 4 6F44447 -4.V-d41 Maii ing Address 411 PHONE NO. Fr 23957 Subscribed and Sworn to before me his yO d. of 194 410:5‘04-14, Totary P .1i - t PETITIONER NOT TO WRITE IN THIS SPACE This is to certify that the foregoing petition has been inspected by me. Filed____ C ' '----- 19 44P Fee $ s' • g° Receipt No. Case N o City Clerk llr 41 1 Page 145 of 630 1111/ h EARL WARREN COMMISSIONERS Governor of California flya PAUL SCHA RENBERG a; J. EARL COOK Director of Department o:ri9j1 Chairman CHARLIE H. SALVERS RT. REV. THOMAS J. O'DWYER Chief of Division Vice Chairman STATE OF CALIFORNIA MATTIE RICHARDS BUTLER J. V. HART DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION OF HOUSING INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BUILDING 965 MISSION STREET, SAN FRANCISCO 3 FORUM BUILDING, SACRAMENTO 14 STATE BUILDING, LOS ANGELES 12 ADDRESS REPLY TO: 402-J State Bldg. Los Angeles, Calif. October 27, 1949 Mr. Ralph. E. Matteson Chairman, Hermosa Beach Planning Commission 1901 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Dear Sir: There is no prohibition in the State Housing Act against the installation of, the wall of a dwelling abutting the- side prdperty line provided that said wall does not have installed therein a required window. We have reference to the proposed dwelling of Mr. G. S. Thatcher that he discussed with the writer over the phone yesterday and to which you referred in your letter of October 26. What may be now standing on the lot adjoining would have no bearing on Mr. Thatchers problem. Very y yours, T. MOTT District Supervise Page 146 of 630 go a411IMO October 26th, 19494. L, T. Mbtti District Superidtendent, Room # 401, State Building, Los Angeles, California!, Dear d0 e geferring -Ito yo'dr: p' telephone conversation with 14r. 0,Sahatcher rogarding, the state law oiTegulation .of side line set back of a building to be constructed: The property adjoining the proposed improvement now has 'a' two storybuilding on it ( garage and living quarters abs) that is built on the side line. of the lottfor a depth of approximately 22 root, the property to be improved also has a garage on its side line (to be removed) and is against the. impraVement already in! We wish to know if the State Rousing Act allows the proposed builder to build on his property line with a concrete block or masonry wall, without openings, and if so would it offset his having to get a variance of the local zoning ordin- dace that calls for side line set back in the A 3- ( ultiple Family ) Zone/7 4 J - The proposed building would be the sang depth as the one on the adjoining property!. With appreciation of your opinion regarding the. above .questions I am, . Yours most sincerely, Chairman, Hermosa Beach PlanniOglommission. Sk‘ Page 147 of 630 ir IIP State of California, Department"of Industrial Relations, 111 • DIVISION OF HOUSING, State Building, t ` -— LOS ANGELES 12, CALIFORNIA. SPECIAL DE' zii Chairman, -_.drinosa Beak_ '_ .4ar.. Commission 1901 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 2. Page 148 of 630 v t Pyl F: .1v O 1IrMw V IhuJ o 11 0: Page 149 of 630 It r O •v O 41041: I 01° 1116 CITY OF ,ilhetiNIONIE 1304C({), CIVIC CENTER H ER M 0 S.A BEACH CALIF 0 R N I A 9 0 2 5 4 to CITY HALL : ( 213 ) 376 . 6984Mll1; l it. 2' ;°,• .,Ai POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS : 3 7 6 - 7 9 8 1 Thomas E. Wayman 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: Appeal - Decision of BZA Dear Mr. Wayman: Thank you for being present during testimony at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach held on April 28, 1981. As you are aware, the action of the Council was to grant your appeal and override the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjust- ments subject to the three conditions outlined in memo dated April 22 , 1981 from the Director of Building and Safety, a copy of which is attached hereto as a part of the administrative record. Said decision was based on the four required findings as outlined in above referenced memo. Should you have any questions please contact Ms. Laurie Duke, Zoning. Supervisor, 376-6984, ext . 237. Very ruly yours , lir-)04-a4eir Anne Arndt , Deputy City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach cc: Bldg. Dept . ier `A 4 Vii.10c, , Cly i L! Page 150 of 630 4 /. illo •0ei9T FO Lc,7A:_,t I, r 41 / le ET Z.i.T rG 0 06r 4. p I PG-E, Zo3lo7 11 /c//2°/000"i/V /e e;GO' j Z 267. 7 ti ZO ' 4;34'• m m 0,33-.- z Z,o' S../457e-E,/„_i0' OvsE N 0 0 N I 0 0 7,03 N 7,p W B0I11 IN 0 0 '0,,.) . IJ t\ o ? N k klv ga.• V7 zs• '.7 J 7---I IN, e„,. ,.... p.,,,:: t.‘, W ti i— AI y/ 1 \C )\(\- \N ---------- 9141-7-' - I J,ZS, j _ oo 6,9 rE 3 7L —:4, _ ' 73.3/ T•t/, f J sETSrfr ; z/•„w- leo,oo- 0 Er.S K/ z-A-5 7io/S PURPOSE: zD T CO/r/v rO,7O DRAWN BY t I I G- \ f EY.DATE: /0//Z/BC, JOB NO. 8O-/OOao OWNER: WAyit 144./ SUBDIVIDER: T JOB SITE: /O// M, ///,4 TT/9, -/ , I/E, ,yEAPMAS.4 ,BEfic / Gig. ILEGAL DESCRIPTION: OT¢, 8 oe,< „g5) /sT4OO/7 'o/./ TOS' /-fO.,9Jy j. TRIAD DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC, BUILDING DESIGN AND ENGINEERINGJACKWOODRCE. 20367 . CIVIL ENGINEERING AND SURVEYJNG .O Fit"R AVENUE , SUITE '.8 . F-4FRNIOSA BEACH , CALIFORNIA . 902.54 213-376-2849 ,f r Page 151 of 630 4 Thomas E. Wayman 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 / 7) April 7, 1981 City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 We wish to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment of April 6, 1981 with regard to denying our request for lot coverage in excess of 65 percent . Thomas E. Wayman Page 152 of 630 111 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS FOR VARIANCE REQUEST - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Thomas E . Wayman, Appellant. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, will on Tuesday, April 28 , 1981, in the Council Chamber, City Hall, hold a public hearing to consider an appeal from the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments denying a variance request to exceed the allowable lot coverage of 65% 73 . 32%) for construction of an addition to a single-family residence (Exception to Section 706 of the Zoning Code) . , property located at 1011 Manhattan Avenue, legally described as Lot 24 , Block 35, 1st. Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. Said decision rendered by the Board of Zoning Adjustments following a public hearing held on April 6 , 1981. ANY AND ALL PERSONS INTERESTED in the above matter are invited to appear and be heard or to submit written testimony to the office of the city manager prior to the hearing. Said hearing will be at 7 :30 p.m. , or as soon thereafter as the :matter may be heard on the date above. GREGORY T. MEYER City Manager Publish Once - Hermosa Review, April 15, 1981) Page 153 of 630 S City of Hermosa Beach Office of the City Manager 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FROM DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS FOR VARIANCE REQUEST - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE. Thomas E. Wayman, Appellant. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, will on Tuesday, April 28 , 1981 , in the Council Chamber, City Hall, hold a public hearing to consider an appeal from the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustments denying a variance request to exceed the allowable lot coverage of 65% (73. 32%) for construction of an addition to a single- family residence (Exception to Section 706 of the Zoning Code) for property located at 1011 Manhattan Avenue, legally described as Lot 24 , Block 35, 1st. Addition to Hermosa Beach Tract. Said decision rendered by the Board of Zoning Adjustments foll- owing a public hearing held on April 6 , 1981. ANY AND ALL PERSONS INTERESTED in the above matter are invited to appear and be 'heard or to submit written tesetimony to the office of the city manager prior to the hearing. Said hearing will be at 7 : 30 p.m. , or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on the date above. GREGORY T. MEYER City Manager City of Hermosa Beach, California DATED: April 15 , 1981 Page 154 of 630 i 1 e Thomas E. Wayman 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 - 4--('-/aq&-e-,. April 7, 1981 City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 We wish to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment of April 6, 1981 with regard to denying our request for lot coverage in excess of 65 percent . Thomas E. Wayman 1 (4)([ j ( V Page 155 of 630 III April 22, 1981 Regular Meeting . of April 28, 1981 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach, City Council APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF VARIANCE 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE Recommendation That City Council grant the appeal with the following conditions: 1. That the area exceeding the lot coverage by 8.32 percent be developed as additional deck space at the living level. 2. That the space under the additional deck space be used only as a workshop or for parking. 3. That the applicant execute a deed restriction pre- pared by the City ; which restriction requires that the property remain single family in use unless and until valid permits are obtained to do otherwise, requires that no plumbing or cooking facilities be installed in the workshop, and also requires that the City be awarded the right of inspection for the purposes of enforcing the deed restriction. Background The applicants requested permission to add more than 40% to a single, family dwelling with nonconforming yards and to increase lot coverage to 73 .32% in lieu of the maximum 65% allowed. The Board of Zoning Adjustments granted the portion of the request relating to the nonconforming yards with findings as set out in the attached minutes. The Board was unable to find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to allow the lot coverage request . Analysis Although the Board has very legitimate concerns about granting excessive lot coverage, in this particular case a large portion of the lot coverage will be in the form of a raised deck, the size of which (1 ,000 sq. ft . +) will be far in excess of the required usable open space (200 sq. ft. ) . If the Council chooses to accept staff ' s recommendation, suggested findings are as follows: Continued - Page 156 of 630 411 City Council Agenda - April 28 , 1981 Appeal from Denial of Variance - 1011 Manhattan Avenue Page 2 . 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property involved in that the topography of the lot and the configuration of the existing dwelling encourage the provision of a large deck at the living level above the garage and workshop. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right pos- sessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question because there are other homes in the area that exceed the maximum lot coverage and a similar variance has been awarded. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because it will enhance the appearance of the property, no objections have been heard from the surrounding property owners and the deck over the workshop provides useful space in lieu of a depression below the living level which would be difficult to maintain. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because density is not affected. Director of Building and Safety Lee Alton Bi// 411411PLaurieDuke, Zo ing Supervisor Concur . Concur:Lee ton 1-16)41. eyer, it Manager Page 157 of 630 4s , S April 22, 1981 Regular Meeting of April 28, 1981 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach .City Council APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF VARIANCE 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE Recommendation That City Council grant the appeal with the following conditions: I 1. That the area exceeding the lot coverage by 8.32 percent be developed as additional deck space at the living level. 2. That the space under the additional deck space be used only as a workshop or for parking. 3. That the applicant execute a deed restriction pre- pared by the City ; which restriction requires that the property remain single family in use unless and until valid permits are obtained to do otherwise, requires that no plumbing or cooking facilities be installed in the workshop, and also requires that the City be awarded the right of inspection for the purposes of en • cing the deed restriction. _ Background The applicants requested permission to add more than 40% to a single family dwelling with nonconforming yards and to increase lot coverage to. 73.32% in lieu of the maximum 65% allowed. The Board of Zoning Adjustments granted the portion of the request relating to the nonconforming yards with findings as set out in the attached minutes. The Board was unable to find exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to allow the lot coverage request. Analysis Although the 'Board has very legitimate concerns about granting excessive lot •coverage, in this particular case a large portion of the lot coverage will be in the form of a raised deck, the size of which (1 ,000 sq. ft.+). will be far in exce sof the re uired usable open space (200 sq. ft. ) . N If the Council chooses to accept staff ' s recommendation, suggested findings. are as follows: Continued - Page 158 of 630 City Council Agenda April 28, 1981 Appeal from Denial of Variance - 1011 Manhattan Avenue Page 2 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the property involved in that the topography of the lot and the configuration of the existing dwelling encourage the provision of a large deck at the living level above the garage and workshop. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right pos- sessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question because there are other homes in the area that exceed the maximum lot coverage and a similar variance has been awarded. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be mater- ially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because it will enhance the appearance of the property, no objections have been heard from the surrounding property owners and the deck over the workshop provides useful space inn lieu of a depression below the living level which would be difficult to maintain . 4. That the granting of th-e—Tiiii-A-Xme will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because density is not affected. Director of Building and Safety Lee Alton 4101) j0(B y Laurie Duke, Zo ing Supervisor Concur • Concur:Lee on Greu.ryl1eyer, ity Manager Page 159 of 630 S. VARIANCE REQUEST B.Z.A. 154-406 DATE: April 6, 1981 APPLICANTS : Thomas Wayman & Frank Garza 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 376-8037/379-6207 PROJECT LOCATION: 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 24, Block 35, 1st Addition to H. B. Tract ZONE: R-P (Residential-Professional) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial LOT SIZE: 40 x 100 LOT AREA: 4,000 sq. ft . EXISTING & PROPOSED LOT DENSITY: 11 du/ac EXISTING LOT COVERAGE : 59. 27% PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 73.32% ANALYSIS Applicants request permission as follows: 1. To add more than 40% (71. 7%) to a single family dwelling with non- conforming northerly sideyard of 4" for a distance of 19' 3" and a sideyard of 2 ' 10"+ for the remainder of the northerly side of the structure in lieu of the 4' required; also the existing garage is 2 ' 82" from the rear property line in lieu of the 3' required. They are asking to maintain the 2 ' 10"+ sideyard on the new addi- tion. (Exception to Section 1309 of the Zoning Code. ) 2. The addition will increase the existing lot coverage from 59.27% to 73.32% in lieu of the maximum 65% allowed. (Exception to Section 706 of the Zoning Code. ) An interior inspection of the premises was made by Building Department staff on April 1 , 1981 , and the floor plan of the existing dwelling was found to be in conformance with plans submitted. REQUIRED FINDINGS 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved because 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question because 3. That the granting of Such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the com- prehensive General Plan because Page 160 of 630 S Uh apf''veal A7 lh u;-es MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS, 4/6/81 PAGE 2 VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-406 - 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE Applicants: Thomas Wayman/Frank Garza Staff report given " by Mrs. Duke. Applicants are requesting (1) to add more than 40% (71 . 7%) to a single family dwelling with noncon- forming northerly sideyard of 4" for a distance of 19' 3" and a side- yard of 2' 10" for the remainder of the northerly side of the structure in lieu of the 4' required; also the existing garage is 2'82" from the rear property line in lieu of the 3 ' required. They are asking to maintain the 2' 10" sideyard on the new addition. (2) The addition will increase the existing lot coverage from 59. 27% to 73 . 32% in lieu of the maximum 65% allowed. It was• also mentioned that raised decks meeting certain dimensions are considered usable open space but also lot coverage. Public hearing opened at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Thomas "Wayman,. 1011 Manhattan Avenue, addressed -the Board. He said the building was constructed in 1913 and is in need or wiring, central heating and updating of the structure itself . They want to construct a deck, a second floor, square off the back of the building to proyide more space, and to relocated a workshop at the rear. Mr. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue #38 , addressed the Board. He said he authored the letter to the Board and gave additional details of con- struction. Comm. Moore stated the workshop adds more square footage than the tool shed being removed and expressed concern about the Fire Department letter regarding 3 trees which are possible fire hazards. He feels the main issue is lot coverage. He added that perhaps the coverage issue could be solved by not constructing the work shop or by some landscaped area connected to the garage. Public hearing closed at 8: 34 p.m. Comm. Ebey felt there were alternatives to the extreme encroachment. Motion by Comm. Toth, seconded by Comm. Merrill , to grant part 1 of the request pertaining to the nonconforming yards. Ayes: Comms. Ebey , Merrill , Toth, Moore Noes: Comm. Williams Absent : Comms. DeBellis, Walker The Commission asked Mr. Wayman about the letter from the Fire Depart- ment . He replied he thinks one tree is his but the other two are on adjacent property. Mr. Wood stated the Fire Department should discuss the tree problem with the people involved. Required Findings: 1. . . . .because they are building on an existing foundation and the serious 4" encroachment has existed for the entire life of the structure - at least 50 years and is only for 19' of the total perimeter of the building.Page 161 of 630 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS, 4/6/81 PAGE 3 2 . because throughout the entire city, buildings have not con- formed to the side yard codes. Continuing the side yard vari- ance allows them to utilize the lot effectively. 3.. ... . . .because. it will not affect the' light and air circulation around the building; also there has been no testimony in opposi- tion from the surrounding neighborhood. 4. . . . .because the project does not change the number of dwelling units on the property. Motion by Comm. Toth, seconded by Comm. Ebey, to adopt the foregoingfindingsforpartoneoftherequest . Ayes: . Comms. Ebey , Merrill , Toth, Moore Noes: Comm. Williams Absent: Comms. DeBellis, Walker Motion by Comm. Ebey, seconded by Comm. Williams, to grant part 2 of the variance request to increase existing lot coverage from. 59.27% to 73. 32% in lieu of the maximum 65% allowed. Ayes: • Comm. Williams Noes: . Comms. Ebey, Merrill , Toth, Moore . Absent : .Comms. DeBellis, Walker Motion failed, request denied. Required Findings 1.' . . . . there are no exceptional- circumstances in that both the deck and the tool shed (work shop) represent new construction where options are still available in order to meet the 65% . 2. . . . . the deck is down three steps and won ' t take away from the enjoyment of the property when they can use the top of the garage. Motion by Comm. Ebey, seconded by Comm. Toth, to adopt the above findings in denying part 2 of the request to• exceed the allowable lot coverage. Ayes: Comms. .Ebey, Merrill , Toth, Williams, Moore Noes: None Absent: Comms. DeBellis, Walker VARIANCE REQUEST BZA 154-408 - 2402 SILVERSTRAND Applicant: Mr. Benjamin Gilmore Staff report given by Mrs. Duke. The applicant is requesting to: 1) To add more than 40% (114%) to a structure with nonconforming yards; (2) To increase encroachments into frnt yard and side yards setbacks; (3) To exceed the allowable lot coverage of 65% (69. 9% requested) ; (4) To have less than the required distance between build- ings; and (5) based on floor plans, garages do not meet minimum depth requirements. Page 162 of 630 April 2, 1981 To: Board of Zoning Adjustments From: Fire Department Joseph Geonetta, Captain Subject: Variance to construct an addition to 1011 Manhattan Avenue . The Fire Department has made an exterior examination of subject premises and notes the following two situations: 1. The existing building at 1011 Manhattan Avenue has a projection from the north wall which is on the property line. This pro- jection is slightly more than 5 feet distant from the existing building on the adjacent property. However, if the adjacent building were ever to be removed or destroyed., it could be rebuilt approximately 4 feet from the projection . 2. There are three Cypress trees on subject property which occlude fire department access. The Fire Department requests that the Board favorably consider the following condition: 1. That a deed restriction be executed which requires that the projection be removed if a building is ever constructed less than 5 feet from said projection. The Fire Department further requests, if the applicant does not object, that the following additional condition be considered: 2. That the 3 existing Cypress trees which occlude Fire Department access e removed. Page 163 of 630 4 Thomas. E . Wayman 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach , CA 90254 City of Hermosa Beach Board` of Zoning Adjustments • Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re : 1011 Manhattan Avenue Job #80-1006 We are requesting to .construct an additional 1 ,'292 square feet to 'our existing building. Our existing. building has several..non-conformities, in that it was constructed many years agb-. ` We propose to square off the back of our build- s. ing, providing us with additional dining facilities . In addition, we propose a new second floor to provide us with the space we need. . We would like to also provide a new deck over the existing patio and garage . Unfortunately by definition , decks. which are above the ground count as coverage . This seems to be a matter of interpretation : If the addition were considered coverage and the deck was -not , we would have only 68% coverage. However, with the new deck, which is being con- structed simply to make the existing garage roof and deck the same level so that we do not require steps up (and it improves our view slightly) , we are proposing total- coverage of 73%. We feel that the request for the new addition and raising .the coverage makes a great deal of sense both for our livability and as an improvement to our property . Also, a variance is requested for a non-conforming sideyard, since we are adding more than 40% to the existing and is less than 3 ' 0" . We, therefore- request that you consider the following informa- . tion when you make your decision concerning the variance . 1 . We feel that this is an extraordinary and unusual circumstance in that our house was constructed many years ago in a rambling bungalow style with the living areas away from the view. We have lived here many years , and we wish to live here our' remaining years . We do, however, feel that we need additional space and we would like to' create a sun room and a shop area on the rear of the building. The sun room will , of course, have a view not afforded the rest of the house as well as a new dining room. The exterior deck is secluded and provides us with outdoor living space which would Page 164 of 630 be most useful to us . By providing a major portion of the addition on the second floor , we have been able to save a substantial portion of the lot for o en- s ace:P P We feel that the coverage requirements which were forced on properties many years after this house was built are not applicable in this case. . We have an existing deck. We are only requesting to raise it slightly to improve our view, and we do not feel that we have aggravated the coverage. It is our property and we should be allowed to provide adeck rather than having• to sit several feet lower on the ground. Open space should not -be- considered -cover"age•. 2. ' We feel that we are being denied a substantial property right in that- others in our area and- zone far exceed - the coverage mandated only recently by the City Council . We further feel that remodels are being allowed and that several variances have been granted- for coverages on the order of 74% within the city limits . We there- - fore would feel that our rights are being denied ifthisvarianceisdenied. 3. The existing non-conforming sideyard that we are. pro- posing to build over is 2 .85 ' , rather than the normal 4 ' 0". which is currently required. The house is very old. At . the time the original house was built , little attention was paid to distance maintained between the property lines and the building setbacks were not strictly enforced. - 4. It is hard to conceive that there is any injury to the general public welfare by allowing us to construct additional facilities on our property . The deck, the shop, the dining room and second floor all seem to beadditionsthatimprovetheproperty , heighten the taxbasisforthecity, and increase the economic life of the existing structure . It would seem to be .in the general public ' s welfare to perform this activityratherthantodenyit . • 5: The plans as proposed conform to the building and zoning codes in the area,• and have no effect on the proposed General Plan as there is no change in use. Signed: V Thomas E. Wayman 4 G, / cP/ Date 2- Page 165 of 630 e"/'S et" 4Qei^l1.*c:r /Tech.:. :49/ tITV OF H EPMOSA 13 CH G G ` n: ', INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO. Laurie:.Duke., .Building Dept.DATE: April 27, 1981. SUBJECT. 1011 Manhattan Avenue FROM. Capt. J. Geonetta, Fire Dept . Per our conversation today , I have again looked at subject property and, after further investigation, feel that the. three trees growing between subject building and the building-to the south will not present an unusual problem as far as Fire Depart- ment access is concerned. Therefore, my request for removal of these trees is hereby withdrawn. Page 166 of 630 Thomas E. Wayman 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California 90254 April 7, 1981 City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, California 90254 We wish to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment of April 6 , 1981 with regard to denying our request for lot coverage in excess of 65 percent . — Thomas E. Wayman Page 167 of 630 Z4, dtges teh? 3.),44;,2614Pieces4111:01‘,44 eip A 0° ITV OF H EPMOSA BEACH kO INTER-OFFICE MEMO TO. Lauri-e=..-Duke,. 'Building Dept.DATE: April 27, 1981 SUBJECT• 1011 Manhattan AvenueFROM• . Capt . J. Geonetta, Fire Dept . Per our conversation today , I have again looked at subject property and, after further investigation, feel that the...three trees growing between subject building;. and the building :to the south will not present an unusual problem as far as Fire Depart- ment access is concerned. Therefore, my request for removal of these trees is hereby withdrawn. RECEIVED SPR 2 81 City Mgr. 8. 19Ottice Page 168 of 630 Thomas E . Wayman 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach , CA 90254 City of Hermosa Beach. Board of Zoning Adjustments Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Re : 1011 Manhattan Avenue Job -#80-1006 We are requesting to construct an additional 1 ,'292 square feet to our existing building. . Our existing.building has• several non-conformities , in that it 'was' constructed many years -ago. We propose to square off the back' of our build- ing, providing us with additional dining facilities . In addition, we propose a new second floor to provide us with the space we need. - We would like to also. provide..a new deck over the existing patio and garage. Unfortunately by definition , decks which are above the ground count as coverage . This seems to be a matter of interpretation . If the addition were considered coverage and the deck was not , we would have only 68% coverage. However , with the new deck, which is being con- structed simply to make the existing garage roof and deck the same level so that we do not require steps up (and it improves our view slightly) , we are proposing total coverage of 73%. We feel that the request for the new addition and raising the coverage makes a great deal of sense both for our livability and as an improvement to our property . Also, a variance is 'requested for a non-conforming sideyard, since we are adding more than 40% to the existing and is less than 3 ' 0" . We therefore request that you consider the following informa- tion when you make your decision concerning the variance . 1 . We feel that this is an extraordinary and unusual circumstance in that our house was constructed many years ago in a rambling bungalow style with the. l.iving areas away from .the view; We have lived here many years, and we wish to live here 'our remaining years . We do, . however, feel that we need additional space and we would like to create a sun room and a shop area on the 'rear of the building. The sun room will , of course, have a view not afforded the rest of the house as well as a new dining room. The exterior deck is secluded and provides us with outdoor living space which- would Page 169 of 630 be most useful to us. By providing a major portion of - the" addition on the second floor, we have been able to I. save a substantial portion -of the lot for open space. We feel that the coverage requirements which were forced on properties many years after this house was built are not applicable in this case . We have an • existing deck. ' We are only requesting to raise it slightly to improve our view, and we do not feel that we have aggravated the coverage. It is our property and we should be allowed to provide a :deck rather than having to -sit several feet lower on the ground. Open space should not be' considered coverage 2. . We feel that we 'are being denied a substantial -property right in that others in our area and zone far exceed the coverage mandated only recently by the City Council . We further feel that remodels are being allowed and that several variances have been granted for coverages on the order of 74% within the city limits . We there- fore would feel that our rights are being denied if this variance' is denied. • 3. The existing non-conforming sideyard that we are pro- posing to build over is 2 . 85 ' , rather than the normal 4 ' 0" which is currently required. The house is very old'. . At the time the original . house was built , ' little attention was paid to distance maintained between the property lines and the building_ setbacks were not strictly enforced. 4. It is hard to conceive that there is any injury to the general public welfare by allowing us to construct additional facilities on our property . The deck, the shop, the dining room and second floor all seem to be additions that improve the property , heighten the tax basis for the city, and increase the economic life 'of the existing structure. It 'would seem to be in the general public ' s welfare to perform this activity rather than to deny it . 5. : The plans as proposed conform to the building and zoning codes in the area, and have no effect on the _ proposed General Plan as there is no change in use. Signed: S - . Thomas E. Wayman 2714/4 AP/ Date 2- Page 170 of 630 411, q s(c.,...r (0,_J PRE ZONE CHECK tCHECKLISTA.S/def2.7L/4 / DATE r g/ • ZONE 2'P 1C-c( zg)J ADDRESS i/N/ /14:714 07 k% FIRE ZONE OWNER , )77,e. . Afr. OCC. k,.J) M . PROJECT / 1 a 1 r 41 J 1. Allowable building height • 3 ft. Proposed building height 30 ft. Allowable number of stories Proposed number of stories 2.7.-/ 1 ,2. Allowable lot coverage AL t_ 371 Existing lot coverage eqe 27 10 e5(1'g.37Proposedlotcoverage 3 Z. 3. Required front yard 2-ft. Existing front yard 2„III/ ft. Proposed front yard Z q ft. if f 4. Required rear yard Cj''O(:7 1(J/`if / ft. t, / Existing rear yard - ft. 9 dol hProposedrearyardJ( j f C;ai ft. 45. Required side yard 41 ft. i Existing side yard .33 ft. i Proposed side yard ;(e,0 ',S lc6( loci ft. 6. Required parking spaces Existing parking spaces 2, Proposed parking spaces 2, 7. Is distance between buildings per code? ves 8. Required usable open space . 200 sq. ft. Existing usable open space e*: sq. ft. Proposed usable open space E' V-._ sq. ft. Page 171 of 630 t 0/1- 7 4 I I 9. Min. dwelling unit size N/A sq. ft. c N/A sq. ft. Proposed. dwelling unit size I 10.' Is min. of one' parking space per unit w/ min. 82' x 18' provided?S 11. Does building have a conforming use for the zone & lot size? 0 No 12. Checked card file & master file Yes' No A) Any action on property Yes No S. 1 B) Any open permits Yes No f C)• Any open complaints Yes No 13. Additional comments ILII .' ' for l I c- r Liu/0 c cidr 4tl3 i7c2 '4 s omC - AKc, cA- F(),c y , 4 , a1;<<1 1 IO11;k:1 n G, less lk7vA , t (Z..8 3 104 GO0Cfu9rf,, 14. Corner vision clearance NI/A-- 15 . Setback on corner lots N /A 16 . Underground Utilities required ' 1/41GS 17. Survey required t.(S r DUU v 18. Are conceptual drawings complete K 19. Trash enclosure. -S' Ace "y-Al a 0a1J ., MC CT),L - . ----• ‘-'3Gclbq X 30.79 Q 3c/:3 . 00 J b,yki Page 172 of 630 IA W 100 OI*7 f/9i-//f?T 7.-. AY 'Y A///.E FOLD/f:;, t' 41 / SET G r7 i pop 11 pi ,P.c.E, zo3lv7 l N/Z /0_00"vY/e 4;co j IR z, 6 PEWp 485.B5' n i9LG ipti Mti s1'rFs ti Zo' y/ Itom, . I. m 03 ?•5 Zo 4\---1\------ SGf GE,'% '-moo' ovsE cf3 o. Ai . ---To..:'_./. 7. •... - ,- - I'‘' N 1' N 0 03 . 10 7,03' N y 70 W N 8 S N N uo m o Z p J 1 e9 i 3 v I64- - I y I ,z5. 7 I 1 l• Cp G/iP96E Iil 0y \ cp 1 5p tkl y- 1o c\ \ .------)1/— ti 49t 0 '- 9.J . ,l iPET ALL w op 609 3 L, 93.3/ Trc% N NN ,z5 1 I ') SErscIA ; ' A//z0/ O, "w 420,00 .t/ SEr.1 e.42g7 9 /4t o /Z/l ,./P/ iB7• Z g: ',oS 37r 90 PURPOSE: -DRAWN BY /L/LOT CO/__N/V/P T4/O DATE: /Z//Z/845.4.(A7/77 JOB NO. 8O-/OOIO OWNER: i.A ,4./4, SUBDIVIDER: JO B SIT E: /O// M/9i1.///,4 TT A-/ , VE, /.-/ A:"/1•110. 34;1 .6 EfiC*' Cr4, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BpT C , gGOC,C 3S, /sT4 /7! A./ TO F P,JO iy TRIAD DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. BUILDING DESIGN AND ENGINEERING JACK WOOD R C.E. 20367 • CIVIL ENGINEERING AWD SURVEYING 200 PIER AVENuE , SUITE 38 • HERMOSA BEACH , CALIFORNIA , 90254 213-376 '-8849 Page 173 of 630 f , A. ar CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Board of Zoning Adjustments 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 LEGAL NOTICE 1011 Manhattan Avenue NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS OF PROPOSED VARIANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Zoning. Adjustments of the City of Hermosa Beach has set a date to consider the request of Thomas E. Wayman and Frank Garza for a variance on property located at 1011 Man- hattan Avenue, legally described as Lot 24, Block 35, 1st Addition to Hermosa 'Beach Tract . APPLICANTS REQUEST PERMISSION to (1) add more than 40% to an existing single family residence with nonconforming yards (Exception to Section • 1309 of the Zoning Code) ; (2) to maintain a nonconforming sideyard less than 3 ft. (2.85' ) with new addition (Exception to Section 1309 of the s ' . : an. -1 ' to exceed the allowable lot coverage of 65% (73 .32%) Exception tQ` Sectio706 of the Zoning Code) .er-2) ATE OF BLIC HEARING to be Monday , April 6, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California. ANY AND ALL PERSONS INTERESTED in the above may appear and be heard at that time. DATE: 3/27/81 Laurie Duke Administrative Assistant & Zoning Supervisor Department of Building and Safety Page 174 of 630 1111 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH APPLICATION FOR ZONE VARIANCE TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS: The applicant (s) Thomas R. W yr,an an.d Frank Garza is (are) the owner (s) of property situated at 1011 Manhattan Avenue ph : 379-6207 Street between Pier Avenue Street and 10th Street Street: the exact legal description of said property being Tint 24, Block 35 1st A.rldztion to H.B. Tract and the present zoning on the property is RP The above-described property was acquired by applicant (s) on the 21st day of November . 19 76. REQUEST: The applicant (s) request (s) :a variance to use the above-described property for the following purposes: (Stated should be exactly what is intended to be done on or with the property which does not conform with existing zoning regula- tions) See attached NOTE: The, Board of Zoning Adjustments is required by law to make a written finding of facts from the showing applicant (s) make(s) that beyond a reasonable doubt the BELOW ENUMERATED CONDITIONS APPLY. Any evidence you desire to submit substantiating these may be attached hereto. 1 . That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the- property is located. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the compre- hensive General Plan. Page 175 of 630 1 APPLICATION FOR ZONE VARIANCE PAGE 2 The applicant (s) shall furnish a plot plan showing boundaries and dimensions of property, location, and size of existing and proposed structures on the site and indicated where exceptions to the ordinance are requested. When necessary, submit floor plan of structures. If applying for lot division, furnish ten (10) copies of California licensed civil engineer's survey showing lot (s) , proposed division and existing structures. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, hereby certify that we have read the foregoing petition and believe the application SHOULD BE GRANTED. (Add additional sheets where necessary. These signatures are desirable, but not nec- essary. ) APPLICANT(S) Frank Garza S GNATURE MAILING ADDRESS i/. TELEPHONE NO. .m CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing application has been inspected by me and has been found to be thorough and complete in every particular and to conform to the rules and regulations of the City Board of Zoning Adjustments governing the filing of such application. FILING FEE RECEIPT NO. DATE RECEIVED 7-0/R/ B or e Boar. .o .ning ' . ustme c .. - Page 176 of 630 Redaction Log Reason Page (# of occurrences)Description no reason 1 (3) 2 (8) 3 (2) 4 (1) 7 (3) 10 (8) 11 (2) 15 (1) 21 (2) 22 (2) 26 (4) 27 (4) 29 (2) 30 (2) 31 (4) 32 (1) 38 (1) 39 (1) 45 (1) 48 (2) 51 (2) 59 (1) 61 (1) 62 (1) 63 (2) 64 (1) 66 (1) 72 (4) --- Page 177 of 630 101.1 Manhattan Ave. lot 24, blk. 35, 1st-add. H. 5'7 sl'?/43 375 it/s-/ice 211 June 10, 1924 alterations to residenceaiZT-owner Gus Thatcher cont. H. Grimwood 346 3/13/1929 alterations to res.-owner Thatcher cont. Guernsey 3327 10/26/44 reroofing - owner G. Thatcher; cont. Percy F. Bennett 9748 2/6/58 garage; owner Mrs. Grange Thatcher cont. John Schmolle OK 3/6/58 RES, p -AORT cE,eT7,76.6 4e— -- 7e - 11174 Plumb; 7/7/70 water piping; Owner-Steve Bassett Contr-Jack Stephan; no access for insp.10166 4/26/71 dryer & ser.change: Vasset-owner:Alsabrook contractor: OK 4/26/71 RE-12. Page 178 of 630 1011 MANHATTAN AVE. , LOT24, BLK. 35, FIRST ADD. TO HERMOSA BEACH\TRACT 18768 - 9/18/ 81 I First & Second Floor add. ; Owner: Waymen; Elect. 13104; Plbg. 15568 Mech 15682; Sewer Use 1036 .OK10/23/87 18823 - 11/24/81 I Revision to Permit # 18768; Deck over 'existing kitchen; :OK 10/23/87 b30 - tt- - : Afe01, kvJpit 3 22090 bldg. , rerf, 3/27/91; finaled; 8/22/91Page 179 of 630 n. 1011 MANHATTAN (R-3) LOT 24, BLOCK 35; 1st AHD to HB Resolution N.S. 1031 11/1/49 Petition Granted Petitioner-Grange S. Thatcher Waiver of sideyard requirements to permit the erection of NLY wall of proposed bldg. to be located on Lot 24, on the side lot line subject to condition that wall be of concrete block construction Page 180 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 19, 2025 Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Historic Aerials Aerial Photo 1928 Page 181 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 1938 Page 182 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 1947 Page 183 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 19, 2025 s Aerial Photo 1953 Page 184 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan v March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 1963 Page 185 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 1972 Page 186 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 1977 Page 187 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 1983 Page 188 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 1989 Page 189 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan x March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 1994 Page 190 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 2002 Page 191 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 2005 Page 192 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 2009 Page 193 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiv March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 2012 Page 194 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xv March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 2016 Page 195 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvi March 19, 2025 Aerial Photo 2020 Page 196 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvii March 19, 2025 Sanborn Insurance Maps Sanborn Insurance Map 1912 Page 197 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xviii March 19, 2025 Sanborn Insurance Map 1927 Page 198 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xix March 19, 2025 Sanborn Insurance Map 1946 Page 199 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan xx March 19, 2025 Sanborn Insurance Map 1960 Page 200 of 630 Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 ATTACHMENT E: DPR Records Page 201 of 630 Page1of 2 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 1011 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA P1. Other Identifier: ____ DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date *P2. Location:Not for PublicationUnrestricted *a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' QuadDateT; R; of of Sec; B.M. c. Address City 1011 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA Zip 90254 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone, mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 4187-006-023 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The building is two stories and clad in wood shingles. There is a projecting front wing on the north side of the front elevation. This one-story wing has a broad front gable roof. It appears that this wing was originally a porch that has been enclosed. It features a tripartite window with multiple lights and flat wood window surrounds. The front elevation of the main volume of the building, and now the front porch, is reached by several brick steps. A smaller tripartite window with flat wood window surrounds is located on this elevation as is the entry to the dwelling. The front of the building has a low concrete and brick wall with planter areas which was added in 1994.The second floor rises behind the projecting front wing. It has a small projecting wing on its north end. This wing has a front gable roof with eave but no fenestration. Behind it, the second story addition has a broad front gable roof with eaves. A latticework fence is in front of the second story addition. On the north side the second story slightly overhangs the first story. Windows are arranged along the first story to support interior functions. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 *P4. Resources Present:X Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) February 2025 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: X Historic Prehistoric Both 1913 *P7. Owner and Address: *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 2526 18thSt., Santa Monica, CA 90405 *P9. Date Recorded: 3/2025 Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Historic Resources Survey, 1011 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 3/2025 *Attachments:NONELocation MapContinuation SheetBuilding, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological RecordDistrict RecordLinear Feature RecordMilling Station RecordRock Art Record Artifact RecordPhotograph Record Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 50400290175040029017 Page 202 of 630 1*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1011 Manhattan Avene, Hermosa Beach, CA *NRHP Status Code: 6Z Page2of2 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) 2100 N Cahuenga Blvd B1Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Single-family dwelling B4. Present Use: Single-family dwelling *B5. Architectural Style: None *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Permit # Date Description Owner/Contractor 57 5/19/1913 Dwelling G.S.Thatcher/J.F. Cramer 375 11/5/1915 Garage G.S.Thatcher/E.L./ Hudson 211 6/10/1924 Alterations to residence G.S.Thatcher/H. Grimwood 346 3/13/1929 Alterations to residence G.S.Thatcher/Guernsey 3327 10/26/1944 Reroof G.S.Thatcher/P.F. Bennett Letter 11/1/1949 Variance to build northerly wall on side lot line. G.S. Thatcher/Unknown 9748 2/6/1958 Garage Mrs. Grange Thatcher/Schmolle 11174 7/7/1970 Plumbing water piping Steve Bassett/Jack Stephan 10166 4/26/1971 Dryer and service change Vasset (Bassett?)/Al Sabrook 18768 9/18/1981 First and second floor addition Wayman/Triad Design Assoc 18823 11/24/1981 Revision to Permit 18768; Deck over existing kitchen Wayman/ Triad Design Assoc 21639 11-1-1989 New block walls Unknown/unknown 22090 3/27/1991 Reroof Unknown/unknown Letter 12/8/1994 Approved Encroachment Joseph Vogl & Karen McDonough/Unknown 817-00315 7/27/2018 Reroof Arlene Vernon/Ramey Roofing *B7. Moved? No Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: Grange Thatcher b. Builder: J.F. Cramer *B10. Significance: Theme Nonel Area: Period of Significance: 1913-1940 Property Type: Single-family dwelling Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity. The building underwent significant alterations when it was enlarged (almost doubled in size) and remodeled in 1981. There are no historic persons or events associated with this property. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Historic Resources Survey, 1011 Manhattan Ave, Hermosa Beach, CA, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 3/2025 B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen Kaplan *Date of Evaluation: 3/2025 Page 203 of 630 Resource Evaluation 1011 Manhattan Avenue Hermosa Beach, California Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 19, 2025 ATTACHMENT F: Resumes/Qualifications Page 204 of 630 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Historic Preservation Kaplan Chen Kaplan is an award-winning architecture and planning firm with a specialty in historic preservation. Historic resources are touchstones to the past that tell the stories of our diverse cultures. Kaplan Chen Kaplan believes that a thoughtful and balanced approach to historic preservation shapes the best designs and enhances communities. For over 20 years KCK has been providing services ranging from identifying historic resources for planning and environmental review to preserving and rehabilitating historic resources to ensure their future as useful, sustainable buildings and places. Historic preservation planning services include historic research and resource assessments, including CEQA level reports for environmental review, on a wide range of property types. Other services include development of historic contexts, HABS documentation, preparation of landmark designation nominations for local, state and federal levels, Mills Act and Federal Tax Act applications, master planning of historic resources, coordination with governmental agencies and reviews including Section 106 compliance. Architectural services include rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic resources. development of concept documents for approvals and fundraising efforts, architectural design and construction documents, specifications for treatment of historic structures and materials, as well as comprehensive construction phase services. We utilize the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Structures and State Historical Building Code to assist in analyzing and preserving original historic design within a safe environment. For construction projects we meet with architects, engineers, conservators and other consultants to develop an overall preservation strategy leading to detailed specifications. We meet frequently with review and plan-checking agencies as well as the State Historic Building and Safety Board. Our extensive experience with historic construction monitoring helps us anticipate and minimize the impact of unknowns Pam O'Connor and David Kaplan have worked together since 1995 on historic preservation issues, originally with Dr. Knox Mellon, former California's State Historic Preservation Officer. David Kaplan, licensed Architect, studied Architecture at University of Pennsylvania and received his graduate degree from UCLA. Pam O’Connor, planner and architectural historian, holds a Master of Science degree in Historic Preservation Planning from Eastern Michigan University. Kaplan Chen Kaplan meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Historic Architect and Architectural Historian. Kaplan Chen Kaplan is identified as qualified for historic architecture and architectural history by the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and as qualified for CEQA level historic resource assessments in the City of Los Angeles. Page 205 of 630 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners Selected Architectural Projects Greystone Mansion (NRHP), Comm'l. Kitchen, HVAC, ADA and Library Restoration, City of Beverly Hills, 2010-2020 Fairfax HS Arts Gallery Project, Historic Resource Impacts Evaluation, 201 Fire Station15 Relocation and Adaptive Re-Use, USC School of Cinema Arts, 2014-2016 Biscuit Lofts (Nabisco Building) Landmark & Mills Act, Maintenance Plan 2007-2020 LAUSD Fort McArthur Naval Station Buildings, Assessment, Relocation & Rehabilitation, 2010-2016, Documentation & Monitor 2013-2014 El Pueblo Siqueiros Mural & Interpretive Center, Historic Architect. 2010–2013 El Palacio & Lotus Apartments, West Hollywood, Mills Act Maintenance Plan update, 2009 Chinese American Museum, Condition Assessment Report, Los Angeles, 2005 LAUSD Armory - Annenberg Science Center, CEQA Monitor, Historic Architect, 2000–2005 LAUSD Ambassador Hotel, Historic Documentation, Supplemental EIR & Monitor, 2006-2009 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Historic CEQA Monitor, 1997-2001, and Historic Architect, Project Restore, Council Chambers & Furniture, 2001 University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Historic Documentation, Construction Monitoring, Seismic Repair: Powell Library, Kerckhoff Hall, Royce Hall, Haines Hall, Kinsey Hall, Men’s Gym, Kaufman Hall (Dance), Mira Hershey Hall, Geffen Playhouse, Chancellor’s Residence, Clark Library, 1995-2007 University of Southern California, Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Seismic Repair: Doheny Memorial Library, Student Union, Mudd Hall, Kerckhoff House, Cockins House, Town & Gown, Physical Education, Business Administration, North Science, Hancock Hall, and Alumni House (Relocation) 1995-2019 Selected Historic Resource Assessment Projects Institutional facility, McLaren Hall, El Monte, Historic Resource Assessment, County of Los Angeles, 2020 Residence, 1711 Tropical Avenue, Beverly Hills, Historic Resource Assessment and Secretary of Interior’s Compliance Evaluation, 2020 Garden apartment complex, Dorset Village, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2020 Mixed use building, Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 College Campus, Los Angele Trade Technical College, Los Angeles, Auditorium Building and Campus, Historic Resource Assessment, 2019 Car wash, 7617 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Office building, 6464 Canoga Avenue, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Historic Context, Cathedral City Historic Context and Resource Report, 2017 Residence, 11100 Chalon Road, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2017 Motel, 15485 Ventura Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Business district, Swarthmore Avenue Historic Resource Assessment and HABS documentation, Pacific Palisades, 2016 Airport, Burbank Bob Hope Airport Historic Resource Evaluations, Burbank, 2014 Historic Resource Assessments for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 40 properties Historic Resource Assessments for West Hollywood properties, approximately 50 properties Page 206 of 630 Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 David Kaplan Principal Historic Architect David Kaplan is a registered architect with 30 years of experience working on historic preservation in Southern California. He brings a wide range of experience working in all phases of historic preservation including evaluations, assessments, documentation, and analysis of potential project impacts through construction monitoring. His knowledge of historic properties is furthered by his firm’s own design and construction documents for historic projects. Mr. Kaplan meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture and Architectural History. His work includes: CEQA level Historic Resource Assessments;; Secretary of Interior’s Standards compliance; HABS documentation, Mills Act submittals and local, state and federal landmark nominations. Selected Projects Greystone Mansion (NRHP), Comm'l. Kitchen, HVAC, ADA and Library Restoration, City of Beverly Hills, 2010-2020 HRA for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 40 properties 2016-2020 HRA for West Hollywood properties, approximately 30 properties, 2016–2019 Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 Residence, Venice Canal District, Historic Resource Assessment, 2020 MLK Jr. Medical Center, CEQA Cultural Resource Assessment & Monitor, 2015- 2020 Fairfax HS Arts Gallery Project, Historic Resource Impacts Evaluation, 2016 7617 Santa Monica Boulevard Carwash – EIR Cultural Resources Review, 2018 Fire Station15 Relocation and Adaptive Re-Use, USC School of Cinema Arts, 2014- 2016 Biscuit Lofts (Nabisco Building) Landmark & Mills Act, Maintenance Plan 2007-2020 LAUSD Fort McArthur Naval Station Buildings, Assessment, Relocation & Rehabilitation, 2010-2016 Sixth & Lucas Adaptive Re-use (1926, 8 story) Cultural Resource Assessment, Historic Documentation & Monitor 2013-2014 El Pueblo Siqueiros Mural & Interpretive Center, Historic Architect. 2010–2013 El Palacio & Lotus Apartments, West Hollywood, Mills Act Maintenance Plan, 2009 Chinese American Museum, Condition Assessment Report, Los Angeles, 2005 LAUSD Armory - Annenberg Science Center, CEQA Monitor, Historic Architect, 2000–2005 LAUSD Ambassador Hotel, CEQA Historic Documentation, Supplemental EIR & Mitigation Monitor, 2006-2009 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Historic CEQA Monitor, 1997-2001, and Historic Architect, Project Restore, Council Chambers & Furniture, 2001 Page 207 of 630 Architects & Planners David Kaplan Principal Historic Architect Page 2 University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Historic Documentation, Construction Monitoring, Seismic Repair: Powell Library, Kerckhoff Hall, Royce Hall, Haines Hall, Kinsey Hall, Men’s Gym, Kaufman Hall (Dance), Mira Hershey Hall, Geffen Playhouse, Chancellor’s Residence, Clark Library, 1995-2007 University of Southern California, Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Seismic Repair: Doheny Memorial Library, Student Union, Mudd Hall, Kerckhoff House, Cockins House, Town & Gown, Physical Education, Business Administration, North Science, Hancock Hall, and Alumni House (Relocation) 1995-2019 Awards California Preservation Foundation, USC Historic Resources Restoration & Maintenance, 2017 Los Angeles Conservancy, American Tropical, Presidents Award, 2013 California Preservation Foundation, UCLA Kaufman Hall Rehabilitation, 2007 Los Angeles Conservancy, Wallis Annenberg Bldg. for Science (Armory), Honor Award, 2006 Los Angeles Conservancy, Geffen Playhouse Rehabilitation, Honor Award, 2006 Los Angeles Conservancy, USC Mudd Hall Seismic Upgrade, Honor Award, 2004 California Preservation Foundation, USC Doheny Library Seismic Renovation, 2002 Governor's Award for Historic Preservation, Powell Library Ceiling Restoration, UCLA, 1997 Additional Qualifications and Experience NPS Qualifications: Historic Architecture, Architecture History CHRIS - Historic Architect & Architectural History Registered Architect, State of California C12875, LEED AP Kaplan Chen Kaplan, Santa Monica, California, Principal, 1987 to present Knox Mellon and Associates, Riverside, California, Consultant, 1994 - 2000 Moore Ruble Yudell Architects and Planners, Santa Monica, Associate, 1986 - 1993 Urban Innovations Group, Los Angeles, California, Designer, 1977 – 1980 Education University of California, Los Angeles, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Master of Architecture, 1979 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Bachelor of Arts in Design of the Environment, honors major, cum laude, 1975 Page 208 of 630 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 Pam O’Connor Preservation Planner and Architectural Historian Pam O’Connor is a preservation planner and architectural historian with 30 years of experience working in California. She brings a multi-disciplinary approach with experience in historic preservation planning, cultural geography, and architectural history as well as experience in planning policy and municipal governance to her work. Ms. O’Connor meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards for Architectural History. Professional Services: Historic Resource Assessments (including CEQA level); Development of Historic Context Statements; Impacts Analyses and Secretary of Interior’s Standards compliance; Historic documentation; Section 106 review; Local, state and federal landmark nominations Property types: Educational facilities and campuses: UCLA, USC, LATTC, CSU Channel Islands, LACC Institutional facilities and medical centers: Mc Laren Hall, MLK Jr. Medical Center Commercial buildings: office, retail, car wash, restaurant, banks, motels/hotels Industrial buildings and facilities: manufacturing, aerospace facilities, airports, automobile dealership Residential: single-family, multi-family, garden apartments, mixed use buildings Education: Master of Science, Planning/Historic Preservation, Eastern Michigan University Master of Liberal Studies, Technology Management, Eastern Michigan University Bachelor Science, Journalism, Southern Illinois University Awards: California Preservation Foundation (CPF) Design Awards: USC Doheny Library, 2002; CSU Channel Islands, 2000; UCLA Royce Hall, 1998; UCLA Powell Library, 1997, CPF Milton Marks Legislator of the Year Award, 1999. LA Conservancy Award, UCLA Royce Hall, 1999. Governor’s Award for Historic Preservation, UCLA Powell Library Ceiling Restoration, 1996. Public Service: Director (Alternate) Metrolink, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (2018-present); State of California Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee (2015-preent); Councilmember, City of Santa Monica (1994-2018; Mayor 1997, 1999, 2005, 2013-14); Director, Los Angeles County Metro (2001-2015); Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council (1996-2017); California Coastal Commission (Alternate, 2010- 2012); President, California Association of Councils of Governments (2015-2017) Page 209 of 630 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners Pam O’Connor Preservation Planner and Architectural Historian Page 2 Select Consulting Projects: Darrow Building by John Lautner, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2022 Los Angeles Daily News, 14539 Sylvan Street, Van Nuys, Historic Resource Assessment, 2021 Dorset Village Garden Apartments, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2021 HRA for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 50 residential properties 2016-2023 HRA for West Hollywood properties, approximately 30 residential properties, 2016–2023 McLaren Hall, El Monte, Historic Resource Assessment, Los Angeles County, 2020 Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 Los Angele Trade Technical College, Los Angeles, Auditorium Building and Campus, Historic Resource Assessment, 2019 Car Wash, 7617 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Aerospace HQ, 6464 Canoga Avenue, Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Motel, 15485 Ventura Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Cathedral City Historic Context and Resource Report, 2017 Swarthmore Avenue Business District, Pacific Palisades, Historic Resource Assessment and HABS documentation, 2016 Martin Luther King Jr. Medical Center, Historic Documentation, 2015 Burbank Bob Hope Airport Historic Resource Evaluations, Burbank, 2014 Aerospace industrial facility, (37 Buildings), San Fernando Road, Burbank, CA, 2013 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Site Monitoring, 1998-2001 Page 210 of 630 Public Notification Packet – 1011 Manhattan Avenue Page 211 of 630 Page 212 of 630 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1. A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d)(5). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES. 2. REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-18), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-15), AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84662 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE, WITHIN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE AND COASTAL ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alison Becker, AICPCommunity Development DirectorEasy Reader Inc/Redondo Beach News/September 4, 2025/HD25-031 City ofHermosa Beach Page 213 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1.A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d)(5). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES. 2.REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-18), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-15), AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84662 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS AT 1011MANHATTAN AVENUE, WITHIN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE AND COASTAL ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYACT GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alison Becker, AICP Community Development Director Page 214 of 630 City News & Press Releases Notice of Public Hearing | Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 2025 Post Date:08/27/2025 6:00 PM City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1.A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d)(5). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES. 2.REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-18), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-15), AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84662 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE, WITHIN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE AND COASTAL ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. Notice of Public Hearing | Planning Commission Meeting September 16... https://www.hermosabeach.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4355/... 1 of 3 8/28/2025, 10:29 AM Page 215 of 630 Return to full list >> PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alison Becker, AICP Community Development Director Legal Notice PC Sept 16 2025 Sign up to receive the latest news from Hermosa Beach Email Address Notice of Public Hearing | Planning Commission Meeting September 16... https://www.hermosabeach.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4355/... 2 of 3 8/28/2025, 10:29 AM Page 216 of 630 1221 7381193053117 1219 1236 1242 1312 1451301808 814 820 42486683725313963801840920 940 2026325058692837449015455900 462434404147591016225260687290361140 1144 1401130 841 825 821 815 121 119810 822 832 844 906 834 925 845 831 823 806 235 221211207816 836 805 824 902 817 1138 1142 1075 1069 1150 1158 2382401215 1201 1137 1123 1103 1113200 1087 1204 1305 1209 1127 1100 1107 1220 333 1214 1136 1223 1053 1038 101510391066 1085322 1079 1026 1059 1061 1076 3351036 1054 3211044 1084 301 865 859 843 828 802 936 944 812 830 850 909334330326917916 827 912 849 838 829 919 852 730 732 740 7335617273338454957711700 621056 1212 1132 1122 1092 1086 1211 1207 1108 1216 403 1104 126 134 734 727 721 707 647 629626 704 710 719726 736 100 634646 747222 745 737 722 713 712 718 738 742208218 644 702 701 637 635 625 623 615 611620 621622 636 638 728 640 720 746750 760 316 618 631 632 645 706 708647065100110311101 1033 1042 1106 1110 1120 1128 1125 10451046 1035 1025 131 1020 10141111 1105 150 931 928 915 907 910934950 947226935 924 921 908 918926 214 1002 1028 1040 1048 1102 1112 1068 1057 1047 1027 1021 1022 1126 1121 1012 1051 10191041 8th S tHermosa Ave 9th S t 11th S t 11th S t 11th S t 10th S t Beach DrManhattanAve Pie r A v e Sunset DrThe St rand 7th S t 8th C t 14th C t 9th C t Loma Dr 10th C t 13th S t 12th C t 11th C t Palm Dr 13th C t Ma n h att anAvePier P l a z a Bayview DrMonterey B lvd 1011 300' RADIUS MAP ADDRESS: 1011 Manhattan Ave, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 r Page 217 of 630 Community Development Department Planning Division, Attn: Jake Whitney City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 1011 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Assessor Parcel Number 4187-006-023 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request described below. REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-18), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-15), AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84662 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE, WITHIN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE AND COASTAL ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860 Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 eComment - Submit an eComment by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items and must be sent to planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item & meeting date in the subject line & must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. As a courtesy, the City will broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only & not guaranteed to be technically feasible. To guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in person. If you experience technical difficulties, please try another viewing platform. View agendas at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254 Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda Alison Becker, AICP Community Development Director Page 218 of 630 Page 219 of 630 8th StHermosaAve13th St 9th StBeach D r 14th St Palm Dr 11th St 11th St 10th St 11th St BeachDr Ma n h attanAveP i e r A v e Bayview DrMonterey B lvdManhattan Ave Sunset DrTheSt r and9th Ct Loma Dr10th Ct 12th Ct 11th Ct 13th Ct 13th St 14th Ct Pier Plaza Project Zoning MapPlanning Commission September 16, 2025 1011 Manhattan Ave APN: 4187-006-023 Zone: R-3 Multiple Family Residential Precise Development Plan Description Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) -HE Housing Element Overlay 300' Notification Radius Page 220 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 15 Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-082 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP24-08) TO ALLOW A NEW 50.5 FOOT-TALL FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT – 25-CDD-082 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5, CONDITIONED ON COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines § 15303 (Associate Planner Jake Whitney) Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines § 15303; and 2. Review the application and adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Precise Development Plan 24-08 for a new five-unit apartment building at 3415 Palm Drive subject to conditions, including approval of a Coastal Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission. Executive Summary: On February 7, 2024, the applicant submitted a “Preliminary Application” in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code § 65941.1) for a five-unit residential development with one affordable unit (20 percent of total). The applicant subsequently filed a timely formal application on June 10, 2024. Then on January 15, 2025, following the passage and effective date of state Assembly Bill (AB) 1893, the applicant submitted a revised plan to eliminate the proposed affordable unit and pursue a market-rate development. The applicant seeks approval of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) to construct a new five-unit apartment building under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5). The Planning Commission considered this request at its March 18, 2025 meeting and continued the item to its May 20, 2025 meeting to give the applicant time to address questions and concerns raised during the meeting. The applicant later requested further continuances, resulting in the hearing being rescheduled to the September 16, 2025, meeting of the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the application and, to comply with state law, conditionally approve the Precise Page 221 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 15 Development Plan and determine that approval of the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines section 15303. Background: The project site is an interior lot located on Hermosa Avenue north of 34th Street. The site has alley access via Palm Drive and is located in the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone (Attachment 2). The General Plan designates the property for High-Density Residential with a residential density range from 25.1 to 33.0 dwelling units per acre. It is also located in the Coastal Zone. The 2,553-square-foot lot is developed with a four-unit apartment building permitted in 1956. The site is developed at a density higher than allowed today under the general plan (currently, the equivalent of 68.2 dwelling units per acre) and is classified as legal non-conforming for that reason. The proposed five-unit project before the Planning Commission would further increase the density of this site to the equivalent of 85.3 dwelling units per acre. On February 7, 2024, the applicant submitted a preliminary application in accordance with Government Code section 65941.1 to demolish the existing four-unit building and construct a five-unit building with one affordable unit (20 percent of total). On June 10, 2024, the applicant filed for a Precise Development Plan for a substantially similar project. Then, following the passage and effective date of state Assembly Bill 1893, the applicant revised the project on January 15, 2025, to eliminate the proposed affordable unit and request approval of a market-rate development since, under amended state law, the project is no longer required to have a certain percentage of affordable units to qualify and proceed under the Builder’s Remedy. On March 18, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the current application, at which time significant public testimony was heard, and project- specific questions from Planning Commissioners remained unanswered. To give the applicant time to address these questions and concerns, the Planning Commission continued the item to its May 20, 2025, meeting. The applicant later requested further continuances, resulting in the hearing being rescheduled to the September 16, 2025, meeting of the Planning Commission. Additionally, the applicant has since provided a conceptual alternative design to staff; but the applicant has made it clear that the provision of the alternative design is not intended as an amendment of the application. Because the applicant has not amended the application, the alternative design is not before the Commission, and staff has not included an evaluation of the alternative design in this report The alternative design is included for reference only if the applicant speaks to it in its presentation. (Attachment 6). Page 222 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 15 Past Board, Commission, and Council Actions Meeting Date Description March 18, 2025 Planning Commission holds a public hearing for a 5-unit apartment building 50.5 ft in height pursuant to CA Government Code § 65589.5, commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy” and continues the matter to an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Assembly Bill 1893 As specified above, since AB 1893 took effect the proposed project is no longer required to provide any affordable housing units. This change in state law created an exemption to the affordable-unit requirement if a project satisfies all of the following: (i) It contains 10 or fewer total units; (ii) it is located on a site smaller than one acre; and (iii) it is proposed at a density that exceeds 10 units per acre. (Attachment 5) Meeting these criteria allows makes the development a project for “mixed-income households,” which itself is now included in the definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.” This classification qualifies the project to proceed under the Builders Remedy as mandated by State law. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subds. (h)(3)(A), (h)(3)(C)(IV), (h)(11)(A).) In addition to meeting state-mandated minimum-density requirements, the project also conforms to the maximum density requirements added through AB 1893, which are summarized below: 1. The density of the project may not exceed the greatest of the following densities: a. Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of § 65583.2. b. Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. c. The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. 2. Notwithstanding the prior clause, the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable above if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: a. One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in § 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. b. A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). c. A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. Page 223 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 15 The project is located in a high resource census tract as defined by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development as well as in a high-density general plan designation under PLAN Hermosa, allowing 33.0 dwelling units per acre — so as a matter of law, the maximum density that the City must allow at this site under AB 1893 is 134 dwelling units per acre. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(11)(C).) The current proposal consists of 85.3 dwelling units per acre. Furthermore, in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (f)(7)(A), if a housing development project application is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, “the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025.” The above listed change to the Builder’s Remedy in AB 1893 allows the developer to abide by the new Builder’s Remedy criteria that took effect in 2025 and thereby eliminate the previously proposed affordable unit, all while simultaneously retaining the applicant’s right to have the project processed under the Builder’s Remedy. Gov. Code §65589.5, “Builder’s Remedy” While inconsistency with the General Plan and Zoning ordinance would typically be grounds for denying such a project, the Housing Accountability Act’s Builder’s Remedy provision greatly limits a local jurisdiction’s ability to disapprove a housing project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households (including mixed-income households, as explained above), as these terms defined by state law. Under California Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d), a local jurisdiction cannot disapprove or condition approval in a manner that renders infeasible a housing development project for the use of very low-, low-, or moderate-income households unless it makes written findings based on a preponderance of evidence in the record as to one of five exceptions. The exceptions are summarized below: (Attachment 4) 1) The Housing Element is certified as compliant and the Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) has been met or exceeded for all income categories proposed for project. 2) The project has a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety (not welfare), and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards. 3) Denial or imposition of conditions on the project is required to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no other feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable. Page 224 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 15 4) The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture, or there are inadequate water or sewer facilities to serve the project. 5) The project is inconsistent with both zoning and general plan land use designation— but a city cannot make this finding if its Housing Element was not certified as compliant when the project application was “deemed complete.” This is the most relevant part of the statute for purposes of this project. As used above, a “specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation….” (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).) “Deemed complete” includes the submittal of a valid preliminary application. Here, the applicant filed its Preliminary Application before the City’s Housing Element was certified as compliant. The filing of the Preliminary Application effectively freezes the regulations in place at the time, including the status of the Housing Element. The applicant then filed a formal application on June 10, 2024, before the statutory 180-day deadline. Subsequently, on August 1, 2024, the City’s Housing Element was certified by the State as being in substantial compliance with state Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). Because the applicant submitted a valid preliminary application before the Housing Element was certified, the applicant’s right to proceed under the Builder’s Remedy vested. “[A] housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (o)(1).) Note though that even under the Builder’s Remedy, the project remains subject to the California Coastal Act, and the project will need to obtain approval (a Coastal Development Permit) from the California Coastal Commission. Any state-mandated approval by the City can, and must, be conditioned on full compliance with the Coastal Act, including issuance of a CDP. Site Information Table: The following table describes the existing site characteristics. Site Information General Plan High-Density Residential (HD) Zoning Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Page 225 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 15 Lot Size 2,553 square feet Surrounding Zoning North: R-3 East: R-3 South: R-3 West: R-1 Surrounding Uses North: Residential East: Residential South: Residential West: Residential Project Description As proposed in the application the project consists of a new 50.5-foot-tall five-unit apartment building (as measured from the highest point of the structure to the interpolated grade line connecting property corners) and the demolition of the four-unit building and four parking spaces that exist at the site currently. (Attachment 3). Unit 1 would result in 600 square feet of living area, Units 2 and 3 would result in 922 square feet of living area each, Unit 4 would result in 673 square feet of living area, and Unit 5 would result in 1,938 square feet of living area. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from both Hermosa Avenue as well as Palm Drive, which would lead to two 2-car garages as well as three guest-parking stalls. Unit 1, located on the entry level, would contain one bedroom, and one bathroom. Outside of the unit on the entry level is an entry lobby, an elevator, a stairwell, a storage/mechanical room, a light well, and access to a two-car garage. Unit 2, located on the first floor, would contain a living area, deck space, two-bedrooms, two-bathrooms, and a kitchen. This unit leads out to lobby space containing the elevator, stairwell, as well as an entrance to another two-car garage and trash receptacle area. Units 3 and 4 would be located on the second floor of the building. Access to each unit is provided via the central elevator and stairwell lobby separating the units. Unit 3 would contain living area space, a deck, two-bedrooms, two-bathrooms, and a kitchen. Unit 4 would contain living area space, a deck, one bedroom, one-bathroom, and a kitchen. Lastly Unit 5, located on the third floor, would be accessed via the central stairway and elevator. The unit would contain a great room, private deck space, two-bedrooms, two- bathrooms, and a kitchen. Unit 5 would also have access to a private rooftop deck and office space via the rooftop level. Page 226 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 15 Landscaping for the site would consist of one Peppermint Willow tree, six Gulf Stream Heavenly Bamboo Plants, four Variegated Bower Vines, three English Lavender Plants as well as Dymondia ground covering. The project requires the Planning Commission’s review, environmental determination, and approval of a Precise Development Plan. As discussed earlier in the staff report, while the project is not consistent with the underlying zoning standards and general plan, the City has no authority to disapprove or to condition approval in a way that renders the project infeasible, without having evidence to support specific, adverse impact findings. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d).) For purposes of this project, the oversight of the Planning Commission is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence of a significant, adverse impact to public health or safety, based on objective, written standards that were in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. To make such a finding, must not only have evidence showing that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety, but it must also demonstrate that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. As stated above, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Based on City staff’s review of the project, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of specific, adverse impact. Again, note that the City’s obligation to approve a Builder’s Remedy project does not diminish the need for the project to comply with the Coastal Act. Here, any state- mandated approval of the project would be conditioned on the project receiving a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission. Discussion: Development Standards The following summarizes the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zone Development Standards. Criteria Required Provided LOT STANDARDS Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit 1,320 per dwelling unit 510.6 per dwelling unit Lot Coverage Maximum 65% maximum 76.8% HEIGHT: 30 ft maximum 46.73 ft- 50.5 ft YARDS: Front 10 ft 1.08 ft Side 3 ft 3.08 ft Page 227 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 15 Rear, abutting alley 1st Floor 3 ft 8.33 ft 2nd Floor 1ft 1.06 ft PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: Total Parking Spaces Minimum 13 spaces 7 spaces Garage Spaces Minimum 10 spaces 4 spaces Guest Space Minimum 3 spaces 3 spaces Driveway Slope Maximum 20% 2% OPEN SPACE: Private Open Space: 1,500 sf (300 sf per unit) 483 countable sf (96.6 sf per unit) DESIGN ELEMENTS: Solid Waste Area (Per Unit) 15 waste bins (3 per unit) 15 waste bins (3 per unit) As discussed in the background section above, the proposed project is inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking, and open space. But these inconsistencies do not rise to the threshold needed to deny this project because the project is eligible for the Builders Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission raised questions and areas of concern requiring additional information in order for the Commission to assess the project’s impacts. The questions raised at the meeting include: Is there sufficient sewer capacity to accommodate the net increase of one additional residential unit? In response to this question, the Public Works Department prepared a memorandum detailing the existing sewer capacity serving the proposed project and confirmed that sewer capacity would be sufficient to accommodate the additional residential unit (Attachment 7). Would the project impact solar access rights? What are the potential impacts of shadows on surrounding residents and property owners? The Solar Rights Act of 1978 (Solar Rights Act), provides for limited protection of photovoltaic installations from shade from vegetation in certain circumstances. This is a narrow protection that does not extend to shade created from new or existing buildings. The Act also permits the voluntary establishment of solar easements between private property owners although it does not mandate their creation. No solar easements were found to exist on the subject property. Page 228 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 15 The applicant prepared a shadow study for the proposed development showing where shadows would be cast at varying times of day and during different seasons. Please refer to (Attachment 8). Nor would intrusion on a solar right be sufficient to find a specific, adverse impact on public health or on public safety. (Impacts on “public welfare” are irrelevant to specific, adverse impact findings under the Builder’s Remedy.) How does the project compare to the adjacent buildings? It would be about 5.25 feet taller. The applicant provided an additional west elevation illustrating the proposed building in relation to adjacent properties to provide the community with additional context. Please see below and refer to (Attachment 9). The adjacent building at 3410 Hermosa Avenue measures 48.5 feet in height as viewed from Hermosa Avenue. Meanwhile 3415 Palm Dr measures 53.75 ft as viewed from Hermosa Avenue. These measurements do not reflect the City procedures for measuring height from the interpolated grade. The official method of measuring building height is done by comparing the highest point of the structure to the interpolated grade line linking the highest property corner elevation to the lowest property corner elevation.) Refer to HBMC 17.46.015 for details. Page 229 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 15 Would the project impact scenic vistas? No, there is no evidence that it would obstruct the public view, but even if there were, it would be irrelevant to specific, adverse impact findings (view is not related to health or safety). The City of Hermosa Beach General Plan establishes locally designated prominent public viewpoints as illustrated in PLAN Hermosa (Figure 5.2, page 167) (Attachment 10). The closest public viewpoint is situated at the extreme northwest corner of the city, within the public right-of-way at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and 35th Street. This viewpoint is “framed by urban development on both sides of the corridor” (Plan Hermosa: Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II: Revised Draft EIR, Page 4.1-5). The proposed project would not obstruct the public view as it would be located on private property abutting the right-of-way. Additionally, there are no private view protections in place. Will Los Angeles County Fire be able to sufficiently serve the site in the case of an emergency fire event? According to LA County Fire, yes. The applicant submitted the project for review to the LA County Fire Department Land Development Unit and was cleared to proceed to public hearing. (Attachment 11). Additional approval will be required Page 230 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 15 from the LA County Fire Engineering Unit if the project is approved. The Fire Department provided three conditions for the project and are listed below: (Attachment 12) 1. In lieu of the required 5 feet firefighter walking access on each side of the apartment building, the installation of a fire sprinkler system in compliance with NFPA 13 standards, LA County Fire Code section 903.3.1.1, is required. 2. The Fire Department recommends changing the building main address from Palm Drive to having the address of Hermosa Avenue as the infrastructure such as an access road and water supply are all located off Hermosa Ave. 3. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located on the street-address side of buildings; facing approved fire apparatus access roads; within 150 feet (via vehicular access) of an accessible public fire hydrant; as close to the street curb face as possible; fully visible; and recognizable from the street, fire apparatus access road or nearest point of fire department vehicle access; or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. FDC shall be located a minimum of 25 feet (7620 mm) from the structure. When this distance cannot be achieved, a minimum 2-hour fire-resistive wall shall be provided for the structure with no openings in the wall, for 25 feet (7620 mm) in either direction from the FDC. The required fire-resistive construction and lack of openings shall extend for the full height of the wall or building as determined by the fire code official. The fire code official may allow sufficiently protected overhead openings. FDC shall be located not less than 24 inches (609.6 mm) nor more than 42 inches (1066.8 mm) above grade. Additionally, Los Angeles County Fire provided supplemental correspondence regarding the Department’s ability to provide adequate resources to serve the project in the case of an emergency event. The correspondence is included as (Attachment 13). No Net Loss Requirement & Protected Housing Under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as amended by SB 8, the applicant is required to ensure that there is no let loss in residential capacity as well as replace all “protected units” on site as defined by state statute. “Protected units” means any of the following: (I) Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years. Page 231 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 12 of 15 (II) Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past five years. (III) Residential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low income households within the past five years. (IV) Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with Chapter 12.75 (commencing with § 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 within the past 10 years. (vii) (I) “Replace” shall have the same meaning as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of §65915. In accordance with these requirements, the City verified that no units are currently subject to a recorded covenant, or law restricting rents on the property within the prior five-year period. The City also verified that none of the units proposed to be demolished were rented by lower or very low-income households within the prior five years via self- attestation on forms furnished by the City from current and prior residents within the past five years. Based on the information collected by the City and provided by the applicant, no units proposed to be demolished are considered to be protected and thus no replacement measure pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of § 65915 are required. Historical Assessment A historical resource assessment was prepared for the existing building since it is at least 50 years old and is proposed to be demolished. A historical resource assessment of structure dated May 16, 2024, was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (Attachment 14). The assessment found that the building would not be eligible for listing as a historic resource as it did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a City of Hermosa Beach landmark. Furthermore, the site was not found to be associated with any historic person or event, nor did the assessment identify any evidence of master-craftsman work. The building is made from unremarkable materials, not representative of any specific historical period, and the materials of not of exceptional quality. Findings: Given that the applicant filed a preliminary application for a housing development project on February 7, 2024, then filed a timely formal application for a substantially similar project on June 10, 2024, the standards that were in place at the time of the submission of the preliminary application remain in effect for the purposes of this review. (Gov. Code §§ 65589.5, subd. (o), 65941.1.) The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was not certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development until August 1, 2024. While the standards for review for a Precise Development Plan have since changed, the applicable findings for a Precise Development Plan as of February 7, 2024 were: Page 232 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 13 of 15 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects; 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; 3. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; 4. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity and safety of streets serving the area; 5. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area; 6. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools; 7. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use; 8. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services; 9. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms; and 10. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. While staff finds some of the above findings can be met for the project, the proposed project is inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking, and open space. However, these inconsistencies do not rise to the threshold needed to deny this project under the Builder’s Remedy because there is no evidence that any of the inconsistencies create a specific, adverse impact to public health or to public safety, under written objective standards that were in effect at the time of submittal. General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a diverse range of housing unit types and sizes, within allowed density. Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. The proposed project is a five-unit apartment building and would contribute to a diverse neighborhood with various housing types and unit sizes for residents of different income levels. However, this would not be done within the allowable density for the property. Under PLAN Hermosa the maximum density allowed at this site would be 33.0 dwelling units per acre, meanwhile the current proposal consists of 85.3 dwelling units per acre Page 233 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 14 of 15 Environmental Determination: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the proposed project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption for new construction as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it consists of a multi-family residential project that has fewer than six units and that is located in an urbanized area. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines list the exceptions to the exemption; these exceptions define circumstances that override the categorical exemption. Specifically, the exceptions to the exemption are:  The project is located in a sensitive environment such that the project may impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern;  The cumulative effect of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;  The project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances;  The project may damage scenic resources (i.e. trees, historic buildings, or rock outcroppings) within an official state scenic highway;  The project is located on a listed hazardous waste site; or  The project may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Based on the evidence that is currently available to the City, none of the above exceptions appears to apply. The project is not located in a sensitive environment such that the project may impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. There is little to no chance of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time because this project is the result of the “builder’s remedy” under the Housing Accountability Act, which is only available if the application is submitted when the City does not have a certified General Plan Housing Element — and the City’s Housing Element is now certified. The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, or have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway as no scenic state highways exist in the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the project would not impact locally designated prominent public viewpoints as established in the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa, Figure 5.2, page 167). The Los Angeles County Fire Department, in a letter dated May 23, 2025, determined that adequate resources are available through County resources and mutual aid agreements with neighboring municipalities. In a memorandum from the Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works dated April 22, 2025 verified that there was no sewer capacity issue in the main on Hermosa Avenue to which Page 234 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 15 of 15 the project would connect. The project is not located on a listed hazardous waste site. Finally, a historical assessment was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on May 16, 2024 and found the existing development was not considered a historical resource. Public Notification: For the September 16, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, a total of 203 public hearing notices were mailed to the applicant, occupants, and property owners of properties within a 300-foot radius on August 27, 2025. A legal ad was published on September 4, 2025, in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC §17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as (Attachment 15). As of the writing of the report, staff has received numerous written public comments for the current meeting (Attachment 16). Public comments from prior hearings on this matter are also included for reference (Attachment 17). Attachments: 1. Draft PC Resolution 25-XX 2. Zoning Map 3. Project Plans 4. Government Code Section 65589.5 5. AB 1893 6. Conceptual Project Alternative 7. Public Works Dept Memo on Sewer Capacity 8. Shade and Shadow Study 9. Elevation Sheet of Adjacent Structures 10. Figure 5.3 Prominent Public Viewpoints 11. Fire Department Cleared Plans 12. Fire Department Conditions 13. Fire Department Supplemental Correspondence 14. Historic Resource Assessment 15. Public Notification Package 16. Public Comments 17. Public Comments from Prior Meetings Respectfully Submitted by: Jake Whitney, Associate Planner Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Legal Review: Sarah Locklin, Interim Assistant City Attorney Approved: Alison Becker, AICP, Community Development Director Page 235 of 630 34th St Hi ghl andAve33rd PlThe S t rand Manhat t an AvePalm D r 33rd St 34th Pl Cr es t Dr35th St BayView D r Hermo sa Ave 3 4 th S tLongfell o w A v e 34th Pl 31st Pl 31st S t 32nd Pl 35th Pl Neptun e A v e 35th S t Project Zoning MapPlanning CommissionSeptember 16, 2025 Description 3415 Palm Drive APN: 4181-033-017 Zone: R-3 Multiple Family Residential 5-unit project, Precise Development Plan Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) 300' Notification Radius Page 236 of 630 1 PC Resolution 25-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08), TO ALLOW A NEW FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5, CONDITIONED ON COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT; AND DETERMINING THAT THE ACTION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES § 15303. The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve, and order as follows: Section 1. Findings. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1.1. A preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 65941.1) was filed on February 7, 2024, by the applicant Tony and Renada Ferraro, for development of the property located at 3415 Palm Drive for a five-unit residential project including one low-income housing unit (20 percent) under the Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy.” 1.2. The City’s Housing Element was not certified until later, on August 1, 2024. 1.3. Under Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (o), paragraph (1), the filing of the Preliminary Application on February 7, 2024, effectively froze the regulations in place at the time of submission including the status of the City’s Housing Element. 1.4. The applicant filed a formal Precise Development Plan application for a substantially similar project before the statutory 180-day deadline (Gov. Code § 65941.1, subd. (e)(1)) and before the Housing Element was certified. The PDP application was deemed determined to be complete on October 3, 2024. 1.5. California Assembly Bill 1893 was signed into law and went into effect on January 1, 2025. Among other things, the new law eliminated previously mandated affordability requirements for certain Builders Remedy projects by amending the definition of a project providing housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subds. (h)(3)(A), (h)(3)(C), (h)(11)(A).) The bill further allowed for a development Page 237 of 630 2 proponent to elect to be subject to the provisions of AB 1893 even if the Builder’s Remedy application was deemed complete before the new law took effect. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (f)(7)(A).) 1.6. On January 7, 2025, the applicant requested that processing of the application be temporarily placed on hold. 1.7. On January 15, 2025, the applicant filed a revised application proposing to eliminate the previously proposed low-income unit to pursue a fully market-rate development, relying on the new exemption from state- mandated affordability requirements. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3)(A), (h)(3)(C), (h)(11)(A).) 1.8. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the subject application on March 18, 2025, at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Due to outstanding questions on the project’s impacts, the public hearing was continued to May 20, 2025. 1.9. The applicant requested further continuances to address questions raised by the Planning Commission and members of the public. A subsequent duly noticed public hearing to consider the application was held on September 16, 2025, at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 2. CEQA. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines section 15303, Class 3 Exemption, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, because the proposal consists of a multi-family residential project that is less than six units in an urbanized area. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines lists exceptions to the exemption. These exceptions to the exemptions define circumstances that prevent the application of the categorical exemption. Specifically, the exceptions to the exemptions are: • The project is located in a sensitive environment such that the project may impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern; • The cumulative effect of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant; • The project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances; • The project may damage scenic resources (i.e. trees, historic buildings, or rock outcroppings) within an official state scenic highway; • The project is located on a listed hazardous waste site; or Page 238 of 630 3 • The project may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. None of the above exceptions apply. The project is not located in a sensitive environment, such that the project may impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern. There is little to no chance of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time because this project is the result of the “builder’s remedy” under the Housing Accountability Act, which is only available if the application is submitted when the City does not have a certified General Plan Housing Element — and the City’s Housing Element is now certified. The project would not result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, or have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway as no scenic state highways exist in the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the project would not impact locally designated prominent public viewpoints as established in the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa, Figure 5.2, page 167). The Los Angeles County Fire Department, in a letter dated May 23, 2025, determined that adequate resources are available through County resources and mutual aid agreements with neighboring municipalities. In a memorandum from the Hermosa Beach Department of Public Works dated April 22, 2025 verified that there was no sewer capacity issue in the main on Hermosa Avenue to which the project would connect. The project is not located on a listed hazardous waste site. Finally, a historical assessment was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on May 16, 2024 and found the existing development was not considered a historical resource. Section 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for Precise Development Plan (PDP 24-08), using the review criteria that were in effect on February 7, 2024, when the applicant submitted a preliminary application under Government Code Section 65941.1. (See also Gov. Code § 65589.5(o).) While the standards for review for a Precise Development Plan have since changed, the applicable findings for a Precise Development Plan as of February 7, 2024 were: 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects; 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; 3. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; 4. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity Page 239 of 630 4 and safety of streets serving the area; 5. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area; 6. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools; 7. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use; 8. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services; 9. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms; and 10. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. While the Planning Commission finds some of the above findings can be met for the project, the proposed project is inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking, and open space, as demonstrated in the development standards chart provided below, these inconsistencies do not rise to the threshold needed to deny this project because there is no evidence that any of the inconsistencies create a specific, adverse impact to public health or to public safety, under written objective standards that were in effect at the time of submittal. Criteria Required Provided LOT STANDARDS Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit 1,320 per dwelling unit 510.6 per dwelling unit Lot Coverage Maximum 65% maximum 76.8% HEIGHT: 30 ft maximum 46.73 ft- 50.5 ft YARDS: Front 10 ft 1.08 ft Page 240 of 630 5 Criteria Required Provided LOT STANDARDS Side 3 ft 3.08 ft Rear, abutting alley 1st Floor 3 ft 8.33 ft 2nd Floor 1ft 1.06 ft PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: Total Parking Spaces Minimum 13 spaces 7 spaces Garage Spaces Minimum 10 spaces 4 spaces Guest Space Minimum 3 spaces 3 spaces Driveway Slope Maximum 20% 2% OPEN SPACE: Private Open Space: 1,500 sf (300 sf per unit) 483 countable sf (96.6 sf per unit) DESIGN ELEMENTS: Solid Waste Area (Per Unit) 15 waste bins (3 per unit) 15 waste bins (3 per unit) General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages The proposed project is a five-unit apartment building and would Page 241 of 630 6 Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Precise Development Plan 24-08, for the construction of a five-unit residential project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy” subject to the following Conditions of Approval: General: 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans received and reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 16, 2025, revised in accordance with the conditions below. The Community Development Director may approve minor modifications that do not otherwise conflict with the HBMC, state law, or requirements of this approval. 2. The project shall fully comply with the following requirements of the R-3 Zone as applicable: a) Designated, screened solid waste storage areas, a minimum of 2.5’ x 2.5’ (length times width) each, for three solid waste storage bins shall be shown on the site plan compliance with Chapter 8.12. b) All parking dimensions shall comply with Chapter 17.44. Roll-up automatic garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings and clearly indicated on floor plans. c) Driveway transitions shall comply with Section 17.44.120(D). General Plan Consistency and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a diverse range of housing unit types and sizes, within allowed density. Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. contribute to a diverse neighborhood with various housing types and unit sizes for residents of different income levels. However, this would not be done within the allowable density for the property. Under PLAN Hermosa the maximum density allowed at this site would be 33.0 dwelling units per acre, meanwhile the current proposal consists of 85.3 dwelling units per acre Page 242 of 630 7 d) Any satellite dish antennas or similar equipment shall comply with Section 17.46.210. e) Architectural treatments shall be as shown on building elevations, site and floor plans. 3. The project shall comply with all requirements of the Building Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Mitigations Measures of the General Plan Program EIR (SCH No. 201581009) as adopted by the City Council including: a) Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the following provisions of District Rule 403: i. All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. ii. The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. iii. All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv. All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust. v. All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of dust. vi. General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. vii. Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off (MM 4.2-2A). b) In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to Page 243 of 630 8 5 minutes at any location (MM 4.2-2b). c) Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings (MM 4.2-2c). For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed at depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits (depths between 15 and 35 feet), a qualified paleontologist shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities (MM 4.4- 3). d) If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered (MM 4.4-3). e) For development located at a distance within which acceptable vibration standards pursuant to the Table 4.11-10 of the General Plan Program EIR, included below, the applicant at the time of plan check submittal shall submit a report prepared by a qualified structural engineer demonstrating the following: i. Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would not exceed acceptable levels where damage to structures using vibration levels in Draft EIR Table 4.11-4 as standards. ii. Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration level limits are not exceeded. iii. A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes post‐ construction and post‐ demolition surveys of existing structures that would be impacted. Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or construction include but are not limited to: 1. Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment. 2. Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment. Page 244 of 630 9 3. Specifying demolition by non‐impact methods, such as sawing concrete. 4. Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources. 5. Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision-making for subsequent activities (MM 4.11-2). General Plan Program EIR TABLE 4.22-10 Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Vibration Velocity Level at 25 Feet, in/sec Distance from Equipment Within Which Standard is Exceeded Pile driver (impact) 0.158 158 feet Pile driver (sonic) 0.045 68 feet Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.050 74 feet Hydro mill (slurry wall) 0.002-0.006 9-17 feet Vibratory roller 0.050 74 feet Hoe ram 0.022 43 feet Large bulldozer 0.022 43 feet Caisson drilling 0.022 43 feet Loaded trucks 0.020 40 feet Jackhammer 0.009 24 feet Small bulldozer 0.001 5 feet Building Plans: 5. Two copies of a Final Landscape Plan, consistent with landscape plans approved by the Planning Commission, indicating size, type, quantity, and characteristics of landscape materials shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The Final Plan shall also include the following: a) A landscape plan to comply with Sections 17.22.060(H), 8.60.060, and 8.60.070 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. Page 245 of 630 10 b) An automatic landscape sprinkler system consistent with Section 17.22.060(H) shall be provided and shall be shown on plans (Building Permits are required). 6. The plans shall comply with Section 8.44.095 and install permeable surfaces in the driveway, guest parking space and other non-landscaped areas to the maximum extent feasible. If providing water-permeable surfaces on at least 50% of exterior surface area is not feasible and incorporating measures in 8.44.095 to the extent practicable to infiltrate the volume of runoff produced by an 0.80-inch twenty-four (24) hour rain event, then the applicant shall infiltrate runoff on-site. In the event that subsurface infiltration is required, plans shall designate the exact location of the subsurface infiltration system, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City (prior to Final map approval) for the ongoing infiltration and provide a surety bond to the City to guarantee that on-site, subsurface infiltration is achieved. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Building Division. All other drainage shall be routed to an off-site facility or on-site permeable area approved by the City. To the extent possible, a portion of roof drainage shall be routed to on-site permeable areas. No drainage shall flow over any driveway or sidewalk. If the drainage of surface waters onto the property requires a sump pump to discharge said waters onto the street, the property owner(s) shall record an agreement to assume the risk associated with use and operation of said sump pump, release the City from any liability, and indemnify the City regarding receipt of surface waters from the property. The recorded agreement must be filed with the City prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The plans and construction shall comply with all requirements of the Building Code in Title 15 and Green Building Standards in Chapter 15.48. Water conservation practices set forth in Section 8.56.070 shall be complied with and noted on construction plans. 8. Two copies of final construction plans, including site, elevation, and floor plans, which are consistent with the conditions of approval of this precise development plan, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for consistency with Planning Commission approved plans and this Resolution prior to the submittal to the Building Division for Plan Check. 9. The applicant shall submit all required plans and reports to comply with the City’s construction debris recycling program including manifests from both the recycler and County landfill at least 65% of demolition debris associated with demolition of the existing improvements and new construction shall be recycled. Page 246 of 630 11 10. The applicant shall pay all Parks and Recreation Facilities Area Dedication fees at the time of building permit issuance. Public Works 11. No new walls or foundation footing will be allowed to be constructed on or over the public right-of-way. 12. A Residential Encroachment Permit is required for any non-conforming structures located over or within the public-right-of way. 13. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, an approved civil engineering plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer, and approved by Public Works, addressing grading, undergrounding of all utilities, pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, on-site and off-site drainage (no sheet flow permitted), installation of utility laterals, and all other improvements necessary to comply with the Municipal Code and Public Works specifications, shall be filed with the Community Development Department. 14. Civil engineering plans shall include adjacent properties/structures, sewer laterals, and storm drain main lines on street. 15. Project construction shall protect private and public property in compliance with Sections 15.04.070 and 15.04.140. No work in the public right of way shall commence unless and until all necessary permits are attained from the Public Works Department including if required, an approved Residential or Commercial Encroachment Permit. 16. Sewer manhole/lid elevations must be submitted prior to grading and plan check. 17. Sewer lateral video must be submitted with plan check submittal if the developer plans to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required after review of the sewer lateral video. 18. The project must comply with Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations (HBMC Ch. 8.44) and must implement Low Impact Development Standards and submit at time of grading and plan check along with an erosion control plan. Construction 19. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, abutting property owners and residents within 100 feet of the project site shall be notified of the anticipated date for commencement of construction. Page 247 of 630 12 a) The procedures for notification shall be provided by the Building and Safey Division of the Community Development Department. b) Building permits will not be issued until the applicant provides an affidavit certifying mailing of the notice. 20. Project construction shall conform to the Noise Control Ordinance requirements in Section 8.24.050. Allowed hours of construction shall be printed on the building plans and posted at construction site. 21. Traffic control measures, including flagmen, shall be utilized to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. 22. A construction sign shall be posted conspicuously during the course of construction at the project site. Fire: 23. Replacement fire hydrants shall meet the dimensions of, and construction requirements outlined by AWWA standard C503. 24. Relocation of fire hydrants shall include required vehicular clearance be maintained, as provided by California Vehicle Code Chapter 9, Section 22514. 25. In lieu of the required 5 feet firefighter walking access on each side of the apartment building, the installation of a fire sprinkler system in compliance with NFPA 13 standards, LA County Fire Code section 903.3.1.1, is required. 26. The Fire Department recommends changing the building main address from Palm Drive to having the address of Hermosa Avenue as the infrastructure such as an access road and water supply are all located off Hermosa Ave. 27. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located on the street-address side of buildings; facing approved fire apparatus access roads; within 150 feet (via vehicular access) of an accessible public fire hydrant; as close to the street curb face as possible; fully visible; and recognizable from the street, fire apparatus access road or nearest point of fire department vehicle access; or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. FDC shall be located a minimum Other: 28. Approval of these permits shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission unless significant construction or Page 248 of 630 13 improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided. 29. The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan 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. 30. 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. 31. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. 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 permit. 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. Section 5. This permit shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of, and agree to and accept, all the conditions of this permit. The Precise Development Plan shall be recorded with the Affidavit of Acceptance, 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. Page 249 of 630 14 Section 6. 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 on this 16th day of September, 2025. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Page 250 of 630 15 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 25-XX is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its regular meeting of September 16, 2025. Kate Hirsh, Chair Alison Becker, Secretary ____________________ Date Page 251 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMPROJECT LOCATION:OWNER’S NAME:ADDRESS:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:APN:GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION:LOT AREA:UNIT 1LIVING AREATOTAL BUILDING GARAGE AREADECKS/BALCONIESTOTAL LIVING AREATOTAL DECKS/BALCONIESNO. OF BEDROOMSNO. OF BATHROOMSZONING INFORMATIONAREA:LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNITLOT COVERAGEYARDS:FRONTSIDEREARPARKING AND DRIVEWAYS:NUMBER OF SPACESGUEST SPACESPARKING SETBACKSPARKING STALL DIMENSIONTURNING AREADRIVEWAY WIDTHDRIVEWAY MAXIMUM SLOPEFENCES/WALLS:HEIGHT FROM FINISHED SURFACELINEAL FEETOPEN SPACE:TOTALPRIVATE (PER UNIT)REQUIREDPROVIDEDUNIT 2TEL:ZONING:TOTAL BUILDING AREA:UNIT 3PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE:CUBIC FEET PER UNITBASEMENT QUALIFICATION CALCULATIONBUILDING 11ST LEVEL F.F. ELEVATIONLINEAL FEET (LF) OF PERIMETERLF OF PERIMETER <6’ FROM GRADETO F.F. ABOVE% OF PERIMETER <6’ TO F.F. ABOVEBUILDING 2 BUILIDNG 3 BUILDING 4UNIT 4 UNIT 5LOBBY, ELEVATOR & STAIRSBUILDING COMMON AREAS:CS-0VICINTY MAPA/C AIR CONDITIONINGACOUS. ACOUSTICALA.D. AREA DRAINA.F.F.ABOVE FIN. FLOORALUM.ALUMINUM@ATBLDG.BUILDINGBED. BEDROOMBR.BRUSHEDCEM.CEMENTCLG.CEILINGCL. OPNG CLEAR OPENINGC.N.CONSTRUCTION NOTECOL.COLUMNCONC.CONCRETECONT.CONTINUOUSCONTR.CONTRACTORC.T.CERAMIC TILEDET.DETAILD.F.DRINKING FOUNTAINDIA. DIAMETERDIM. DIMENSIONDR. DOORDW. DISHWASHERDWG. DRAWINGELEV. ELEVATIONELEC. ELECTRICALELEVAT. ELEVATOREXIST. EXISTINGF.D.FLOOR DRAINF.E.FIRE EXTINGUISHERF.H.C.FIRE HOSE CABINETF.F.FINISH FACEFIN.FINISHFLR.FLOORFLOUR.FLOURESCENTF.O.S.FACE OF STUDF.W.C.FABRIC WALL COVERINGGA.GAUGEGAL.GALVANIZEDGD.GARBAGE DISPOSALGL.GLASSG.T.GRANITE TILEGYP. BD.GYPSUM BOARDHDWD.HARDWOODHDWR.HARDWAREH.M.HOLLOW METALHGT. HEIGHTH.V.A.C.HEAT., VENT., AIR COND.LAV.LAVATORYMAX. MAXIMUMMTL. METALMFG. MANUFACTURERMIN. MINIMUMMIR. MIRRORM.T.MARBLE TILEMUL.MULLIONMW.MICROWAVEN.I.C.NOT IN CONTRACTN.T.S. NOT TO SCALEO.A. OVER ALLO.C.ON CENTERPART. PARTITIONP.L.PLASTIC LAMINATEPOL.POLISHEDPR.PAIRP.T. PRESSURE TREATEDQ.T.QUARRY TILERAD.RADIUSR/FREFRIGERATOR/ FREEZERREF. REFERENCEREQ. REQUIREDRM. ROOMR.R. RESTROOMS.C.SEPARATE CIRCUITSECT.SECTIONSHT.SHEETSIM.SIMILARSPECS.SPECIFICATIONSS/RSTOVE/RANGES.STL.STAINLESS STEELSTD.STANDARDSUSP.SUSPENDEDT.C.TRASH COMPACTORTBD. TO BE DETERMINEDTELE. TELEPHONETHK. THICKTYP. TYPICALU.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVERT. VERTICALV.I.F.VERIFY IN FIELDVOL. VOLTSV.C.T.VINYL COMP. TILEV.S.F.VINYL SHEET FLOORINGV.W.C.VINYL WALL COVERINGW/WITHWC.WALL COVERINGABBREVIATIONSCONSULTANTSDENN ENGINEERS3914 Del Amo Blvd, Suite 921Torrance, CA 90503Phone: (310) 542-9433BF DESIGN LLCBoris Flores - Principal118 S. Catalina Ave.Phone: (310) 614-0592email: borisflores73@gmail.comBUILDING DESIGN:STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:TITLE 24 CALCULATIONS:SURVEYOR:SHEET INDEXSOILS ENGINEER:3415 PALM DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254PROPOSED NEW 5-UNITMR. TONY FERRAROGeneral Project InformationTopographic Survey / Parcel MapCivil Plans - Title SheetDemolition PlanGrading & Drainage PlanBasement Subdrain PlanPublic ImprovementsCivil Plans DetailsDriveway profiles & SectionsErosion Control PlanSite PlanEntry Level Floor Plans1st Floor Plan2nd Floor Plan3rd Floor PlanDeck Floor Plan & Roof PlanExterior ElevationsExterior ElevationsCS-0:TS:C-1C-2C-3C-3AC-4C-5C-6C-7A-1.0A-2.0A-2.1A-2.2A-2.3A-3.0A-4.0A-4.13415 PALM DRIVEMR. TONY FERRARO(416) 666-14323417 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 902544181-033-017LOT 4, BLOCK 101 SHAKESPEARE M.B. 9-190--2,553 SQ.FT. (PER SURVEY)1,961 SQ.FT.600------76.8 %--2.11' & 1.08'------4--38'-6" X 20'-0"9'-0" X 20'-0"N/AN/AN/AN/A12 %2 %6'-0"6'-0"169 FEET----NOT APPLICABLE92292267319386868085483627922922673193868688548301122221122.532014364.12' & 3.13'8.33' & 1.16'Project LocationTBDTBDTBDPERU CONSULTANTS, INC.5061 Rockvalley Rd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Phone: (424) 404-7692CIVIL ENGINEER:CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGPage 252 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592TSPage 253 of 630 N 65°02'45"E84.92'N 24°53'19"W 30.07'N 65°04'10"E84.91'N 24°53'19"W 219.52'7.50'7.50'N 24°54'01"W 223.82' N 24°54'01"W30.03'20.00'20.00'PALM DRIVE HERMOSA AVENUE 97 . 9 6 98. 0 0 P C86.5597.70 PC97.6698.2198.42WM97.64 FLWV97 . 7 2PPEBOX97 . 8 4 F L 98.0198. 0 0 WM98.26 GFF98 . 1 3 98.1498. 3 7 98. 4 5 98 . 6 4 98.51 86 . 8 0 86.78 TC86.41 FL86.4886 . 5 3 P C 86 . 7 5 86.36 TC85.89 FL86.03 EG86.34 TX86.41 TX86.42 TC85.98 FL86.06 EG86 . 5 8 CATVGM86 . 7 1 P C87.0586.97 GFF86.47 TX87.83 90. 7 2 T W 91. 6 9 93.76 94.9210 0 . 7 6 T W 95 . 2 3 95 . 5 4 95.75 86 . 5 8 86.50 87.88 87.90 89.88 89.90 92.60 92.5386.3986.4986.9286 . 9 2 87.00 FF86.74 87.97 87.5488. 5 2 T W 90 . 3 8 89.4291.0192.5792.5492.49 91.27 93 . 4 4 93.7595.6495.79 98.29 98.97 98.30 98. 8 2 EM118.76 RIDGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XFOUND L&T RCE 220241.00' W'LY & 0.05' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.50'FOUND L&T NO TAG1.00' W'LY & 0.06' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.62'SET L&T RCE 30826ON PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=97.70'FOUND L&T LS 34470.17' E'LY & 0.04' S'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=98.00'EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING GARAGECONC. GUTTER DRIVEWAY CONC. SIDEWALK 30.03' 30.07'SSMHSTA.2+13.26ELEV 97.58'12.6'98.8bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592L-1.0DNDNDNPLANT LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZEQTY.MATURITY SIZEWATER USAGEAGONIS FLEXUOSAPEPPERMINT WILLOW15 GAL110'-12' HMODERATENANDINA DOMESTICA "GULF STREAM"GULF STREAM HEAVENLY BAMBOO5 GAL636" HLOWPANDOREA JASMINOIDES VARIEGATAVARIEGATED BOWER VINE5 GAL.4MODERATELAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIAENGLISH LAVENDER5 GAL.336" HLOWDYMONDIA MARGARETAEDYMONDIA----FLATMODERATE - LOWLPNRAINBIRD 1/4 NOZZLE RAINBIRD 1/2 NOZZLE RAINBIRD FULL NOZZLE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER LEGEND1/2" PVC1/2" PVC1/2" PVC1/2" PVCPLANTER BUBBLER SYSTEMSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONMODELLINE TYPE8QFLT (90 DEGREE)SXB180025 - XERI-BUBLEER (180 DEGREE)UXB360025 - XERI-BUBLEER (360 DEGREE)RAINBIRD REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITHATMOSPHERIC BACKFLOW PREVENTOR:075-ASVFNIBCO BALL VALVE : T-FB-600ARAINBIRD REMOTE CONTROL ZONE KIT:XACZ-075CHUNTER 15 STATION PRO-C-INDOORIRRIGATION CONTROLLER WITH WIRELESSSOLAR SYNC SENSOR:PC-1500+SOLAR-SYNC-SENRAINBIRD SIDE-STRIPRAINBIRD END-STRIP15SSTA17EST1/2" PVC1/2" PVCSUBSURFACE DRIPNETAFIM TECHLINEEZ6-18IRRIGATION NOTES1. THIS IRRIGATION DESIGN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. ALL PIPING, VALVES, ETC. SHOWNWITHIN PAVED AREAS ARE FOR DESIGN CLARIFICATION ONLY. INSTALL ALLCOMPONENTS IN PLANTING AREAS WHEREVER POSSIBLE.DUE TO THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO INDICATE ALLOFFSETS, FITTINGS, SLEEVES, ETC., WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTORSHALL CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE THE STRUCTURAL AND FINISHED CONDITIONSAFFECTING ALL OF HIS WORK AND PLAN HIS WORK ACCORDINGLY, FURNISHINGSUCH FITTINGS, ETCH AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEET SUCH CONDITIONS.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT WILLFULLY INSTALL THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM ASSHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS IN THE FIELD THAT UNKNOWNOBSTRUCTIONS GRADE DIFFERENCES OR DIFFERENCES IN THE AREA DIMENSIONSEXIST THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE DESIGN OF THE IRRIGATIONSYSTEM.3.SET ALL VALVES AND QUICK COUPLERS NEXT TO WALKS OR PAVED SURFACES INLOCATIONS WITH NO ADJACENT PAVING, COORDINATE FINAL LOCATION WITHOWNER.4. CONTROLLER LOCATION IS DIAGRAMMATIC. OBTAIN FINAL LOCATION APPROVALFROM THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.5. PENDING 120VAC ELECTRICAL POWER SOURCE AT CONTROLLER LOCATION ISNOT A PART OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. COORDINATE POWER REQUIREMENTSWITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER.6. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO BE FAMILIAR WITHTHE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, UTILITIES GRADE DIFFERENCES, LOCATION OFWALLS, ETC. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL ITEMSDAMAGED BY HIS WORK. HE SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH OTHERCONTRACTORS FOR THE LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF PIPE SLEEVES ANDLATERALS UNDER ROADWAYS AND PAVING, ETC.7. ALL SPRINKLER EQUIPMENT NOT OTHERWISE DETAILED OR SPECIFIED SHALL BEINSTALLED AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW SYSTEM HASTHE CORRECT PSI IN ORDER FOR ALL THE VALVES TO OPERATE AS PER PLAN.PERMEABLE PAVERS420 SQ.FT.------Scale :1/8"=1'-0" LANDSCAPE PLANScale :1/8"=1'-0" IRRIGATION PLANI AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEPRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION TO MWELOTONY FERRARO DATEWater Use Calculation:Lot Square Footage :Building Footprint:Exterior Surface Area:Minimum Permeable area required:Permeable Landscape Area:Permeable Pavers Area:Total Permeable Area:Hardscape Area:2,553 sq.ft.1,264 sq.ft. Total Building Footprint1,284 sq.ft. (50% must be permeable andinfiltration device must be provided)642 sq.ft. Minimum109 sq.ft.562 sq.ft.671 sq.ft. > 642 sq.ft. Req'd. = OK613 sq.ft.NNN 65°02'45"E84.92'N 24°53'19"W 30.07'N 65°04'10"E84.91'N 24°53'19"W 219.52'7.50'7.50'N 24°54'01"W 223.82' N 24°54'01"W 30.03'20.00'20.00'PALM DRIVE HERMOSA AVENUE 97 . 9 6 98. 0 0 P C86.5597.70 PC97.6698 . 2 198.42WM97.64 FLWV97.72PPEBOX97 . 8 4 F L 98 . 0 198.00WM98.26 GFF98.1398 . 1 498.3798.4598 . 6 4 98.51 86.8086.78 TC86.41 FL86 . 4 8 86.53 PC86.7586.36 TC85.89 FL86.03 EG86.34 TX86.41 TX86.42 TC85.98 FL86.06 EG86 . 5 8 CATVGM86 . 7 1 P C87.0586.97 GFF86.47 TX87.83 90.72 TW91. 6 9 93.76 94. 9 2 10 0 . 7 6 T W 95 . 2 3 95.5495.7586.5886.50 87.88 87.90 89.88 89.90 92.60 92.5386.3986.4986.9286.9287.00 FF86.74 87.97 87. 5 4 88. 5 2 T W 90.3889 . 4 2 91 . 0 1 92.5792.5492.49 91.27 93.4493.7595.6495.79 98.29 98.97 98.30 98. 8 2 EM118.76 RIDGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XFOUND L&T RCE 220241.00' W'LY & 0.05' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.50'FOUND L&T NO TAG1.00' W'LY & 0.06' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.62'SET L&T RCE 30826ON PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=97.70'FOUND L&T LS 34470.17' E'LY & 0.04' S'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=98.00'EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING GARAGECONC. GUTTER DRIVEWAY CONC. SIDEWALK 30.03' 30.07'SSMHSTA.2+13.26ELEV 97.58'12.6'98.8DNLANDSCAPE NOTES:1.COMPOST: INCORPORATE COMPOST (4 CUBIC YARDS / 1000 SQ.FT.) TO A DEEP OF 6 INCHESINTO LANDSCAPE AREAS.2.MULCH: PROVIDE 3 INCHES LAYER ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS OTHERTHAN TURF OR CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVER.3.AREA LESS THAN 10 FEET IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL UTILIZE SUB-SURFACE IRRIGATION OR OTHERTECHNOLOGY THAT PREVENT OVERSPRAY OR RUNOOF.STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONSSECTION 8.44.095F.Incorporation of Low Impact Development Program Requirements into Project Plans.1. New development and redevelopment projects are required to control pollutants and runoffvolume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area through effective site design and useof water permeable surfaces (e.g., permeable paving or landscaping) to the extent it is technically feasible onnot less than fifty (50) percent of exterior surface areas excluding building footprints, and controlling runoffthrough infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth inthe Municipal NPDES PermitNNLLLNNNNPPPPCHZ #1HZ #22L-1.1MAWA = Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons per year)MAWA = (42.00 inches) (0.62) [(0.7 x 217 sq ft) + (0.3 x 0) = 3,955 gallons per yearETWU = (42.00) (0.62) [(48/0.9) +0)] = 1,389 gallons per yearPage 254 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592L-1.1HARDSCAPE SURFACE.MATERIAL AND COMPACTIONTO SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFICTO BE SET IN 6" LIFTS. REFER CONTROL WIRES & COMPUTERLATERAL LINE WITH SLEEVE.HARDWARE WIRE SLEEVE.PRESSURE MAIN LINE WITH CLEAN BACKFILL AS REQUIRED,SLEEVE.CLEAN SAND.REQUIREMENTS.CLEAN BACKFILL MAY BE SUBSTITUTEDFOR SAND UNDER WALKS AND DRIVES.ALL SLEEVES TO RUN A MIN. OF 12" BEYONDTWICE THE DIA. OF THE WORKING PIPE.ALL SLEEVES TO BE PVC. SCH. 40 ANDHARDSCAPE EDGES.MIN. DEPTH: 24" UNDER WALKS.3.336" UNDER STREETS. 30" UNDER DRIVEWAY.NOTES:CLR2"6"6.5.5644.1.2.21LEGENDSECTIONN.T.S.LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION DETAILSTechline® LITE END FEED LAYOUT®®®TWIST OR CRIMP WIRE CONNECTOR.INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'SWATERPROOF WIRE CONNECTOR -SCOTCH SEAL, GEL-TITE, SNAP-TITELOW VOLTAGE WIRINGOR PEN-TITE. INSTALL PERMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSUV RADIATION RESISTANT RAIN BIRD SPLICE-1 (1 OF 2)WATERPROOF CONNECTION: ID TAG: RAIN BIRD VID SERIES OF WIRE, COILED30-INCH LINEAR LENGTHUV RADIATION RESISTANTREMOTE CONTROL VALVE:FINISH GRADE/TOP OF MULCHPVC LATERAL PIPE±6" PVC SCH 40 MALE ADAPTERPVC SCH 40 ELL (1 OF 2) (1 OF 2)101987642132346879105INSTALL 6-INCH MIN. ABOVE 5 HIGHEST POINT OF DISCHARGE PVC SCH 40 PIPE (1 OF 2) (1 OF 2) RAIN BIRD 100-ASVFPage 255 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592L-1.2Page 256 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-1Page 257 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-2Page 258 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-3Page 259 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-3Page 260 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-4Page 261 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-5Page 262 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-6Page 263 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-7Page 264 of 630 N 65°02'45"E84.92'N 24°53'19"W 30.07'N 65°04'10"E84.91'N 24°53'19"W 219.52'7.50'7.50'N 24°54'01"W 223.82' N 24°54'01"W30.03'20.00'20.00'PALM DRIVE HERMOSA AVENUE 97 . 9 6 98. 0 0 P C86.5597.70 PC97.6698.2198.42WM97.64 FLWV97 . 7 2PPEBOX97 . 8 4 F L 98.0198. 0 0 WM98.26 GFF98 . 1 3 98.1498. 3 7 98. 4 5 98 . 6 4 98.51 86 . 8 0 86.78 TC86.41 FL86.4886 . 5 3 P C 86 . 7 5 86.36 TC85.89 FL86.03 EG86.34 TX86.41 TX86.42 TC85.98 FL86.06 EG86 . 5 8 CATVGM86 . 7 1 P C87.0586.97 GFF86.47 TX87.83 90. 7 2 T W 91. 6 9 93.76 94.9210 0 . 7 6 T W 95 . 2 3 95 . 5 4 95.75 86 . 5 8 86.50 87.88 87.90 89.88 89.90 92.60 92.5386.3986.4986.9286 . 9 2 87.00 FF86.74 87.97 87.5488. 5 2 T W 90 . 3 8 89.4291.0192.5792.5492.49 91.27 93 . 4 4 93.7595.6495.79 98.29 98.97 98.30 98. 8 2 EM118.76 RIDGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XFOUND L&T RCE 220241.00' W'LY & 0.05' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.50'FOUND L&T NO TAG1.00' W'LY & 0.06' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.62'SET L&T RCE 30826ON PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=97.70'FOUND L&T LS 34470.17' E'LY & 0.04' S'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=98.00'EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING GARAGECONC. GUTTER DRIVEWAY CONC. SIDEWALK 30.03' 30.07'SSMHSTA.2+13.26ELEV 97.58'12.6'98.8bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/8"=1'-0" Proposed Site PlanN3.08' 3.08'2.11'1.08'8.33'1.06'3.13' 4.12' 3.13'LANDSCAPE/PLANTERS AREAONE STORY ELEMENTSITE PLAN LEGENDT.O.P.- TOP OF PILASTERT.D.F.S.T.W.T.C.- FINISH SURFACE- TOP OF FENCE- TOP OF WALL- TOP OF CURB- TRENCH DRAINE.G.- EXISTING GRADEA.D.- AREA DRAINF.G.- FINISH GRADEA-1.0T.F.F.C.- FINISH CONCRETETWO STORY ELEMENTA/CA/CA/CDNDNDNGESOutline Of 5 AC UnitsStacked LocationACCESSIBLE PATHOutline of Deck andThird Floor Line AboveConcrete StepsOn GradeProvide Handrail(5) Electric Meters: 30"Min. Clr. Width, 36"Min. Clr. in Front(5) Gas Meters: 36" Clr.from Electric MeterOutline of Light Wellwith 42" Tall Guardrailat PerimeterOutline of First, SecondFloor and Deck at ThirdFloor Line AboveOutline of First, Secondand Third Floor DeckLine AboveOutline of Third FloorLine AboveOutline of First andSecond Floor Line AboveOutline of Back ofGarage at Entry LevelOutline of Back ofGarage at 1st Floor LevelConcrete StepsOn GradeProvide HandrailOutline of Second andThird Floor Line AboveGUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")Outline of CoveredConcrete Trash AreaFIVE-UNIT RESIDENCEW/ 4 CARGARAGEGUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")GUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")17.58'Page 265 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" Entry Level Floor PlanScale :1/4"=1'-0" 1st Floor Plan40'-6"16'-9"11'-0"1'-1"2'-1"3'-1"22'-10"4'-112" 3'-112"10'-4"13'-6"81'-9"13'-11"8'-0"6'-0"14'-1"12'-6"21'-0"8'-4"75'-6"1'-1"12'-6"13'-6"3'-1"11'-4"3'-112"23'-10"6'-0"35'-0"12'-6"21'-0"2'-1"8'-4"3'-11 2"23'-10"3'-1"74'-6"ELEVATORUPUPUPBEDROOMUNIT 1ACCESSIBLEBATHACCESSIBLE UNITKITCHEN2- CAR GARAGELOBBYSTORAGE /MECH. ROOMMECH.ELEV.LIGHTWELLLIVING AREAUPREF.Ø60"W/D5'-0"12'-6"2- COVEREDPARKINGØ60"5'-0" x 1'-6"AWNINGHEIGHT WINDOW3'-0" x 6'-0"CASEMENTEGRESS WINDOW3'-6"3'-6"ELEVATORUPDNA/CA/CA/CDNUNIT 22- CAR GARAGELIGHTWELL BELOWTRASH AREALOBBYKITCHENLIVING AREABEDROOM #1BEDROOM #2W/DDECKDNDNBATH #2BATH #1A-2.0GENERAL LEGENDKEY NOTESUnit 1 Living Area: 600 sq.ft.2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIOR WALLS;2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS AND 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT WALLS BETWEENHOUSE AND GARAGE FOR R-19 INSULATION- U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTH TROWEL CEMENTPLASTER OVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPER OVER SHEATHING AND 5/8"GYPSUM BOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FOR INSULATION REQUIREDLobby Area: 96 sq.ft.Garage: 936 sq.ft.Stairs and Elevator Area: 69 sq.ft.Unit 2 Living Area: 922 sq.ft.Lobby Area: 91 sq.ft.Garage Area: 500 sq.ft.ACCESSIBLE PATHACCESSIBLE PATH2'-0"18'-0"3'-10"Page 266 of 630 ELEVATORUPDNLOBBYKITCHENLIVING AREABEDROOM #1BEDROOM #2BATH #2BATH #1W/DDECKUNIT 3LIVING AREAUNIT 4KITCHENLAUNDRYBATHBEDROOMDECKDWTO UNIT 5bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" 2nd Floor PlanScale :1/4"=1'-0" 3rd Floor Plan13'-11"8'-0"6'-0"14'-1"12'-6"82'-9"1'-1"12'-6"3'-1"11'-4"3'-112"23'-10"35'-0"12'-6"4'-6"2'-1"81'-9"6'-0"10'-9"7'-0"6'-0"1'-1"15'-3"13'-0"3'-112"9'-6"2'-4"12'-0"3'-1" 23'-10"1'-1"10'-0"31'-6"9'-6"9'-6"8'-0"14'-3"1'-1"82'-9"3'-1"23'-10"3'-112"2'-1"9'-0"12'-6"12'-3"7'-2"6'-6"11'-6"14'-3"3'-11 2"4'-0"14'-4"3'-1" 23'-10"81'-9"ELEVATORDNDWDECKKITCHENFOYER HALLBATH #2BEDROOM #2MASTERBEDROOMPANTRYLAUNDRYPOWDERROOMGREAT ROOMUNIT 5D.W.MASTERBATHROOMUPSTORAGEREF.LOWER LINEAL FIRE PLACEBUILT-IN5'-6" 11'-4"12'-6"GENERAL LEGENDA-2.1KEY NOTES2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS - U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTH TROWEL CEMENT PLASTEROVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPER OVER SHEATHING AND 5/8" GYPSUMBOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FOR INSULATION REQUIREDUnit 3 Living Area: 922 sq.ft.Lobby Area: 91 sq.ft.Unit 4 Living Area: 673 sq.ft.Unit 5 Living Area: 1,640 sq.ft. at 3rd Floor3'-4"5'-3"Page 267 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" 4th Floor PlanELEVATORDNOPENOPENOPENROOF DECKFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFFAUW/HHPFAUW/HHPOFFICEUPPER HALLScale :1/4"=1'-0" Roof Plan1'-1"16'-0"13'-0"13'-0"27'-9"3'-1"2'-6"5'-312"1'-6"3'-212"2'-012"5'-312"2'-6"3'-112" 3'-1"6'-10"13'-6"3'-6"3'-112"2'-1"15'-0"13'-0"26'-0"27'-9"1'-1"1'-1"16'-0"25'-6"13'-6"27'-9"3'-1"6'-10"13'-6"3'-6"3'-112"2'-1"21'-6"19'-0"13'-6"27'-9"1'-1"1'-6"3'-1"2'-6"5'-312"1'-6"3'-212"2'-012"5'-312"2'-6"3'-112"1'-6"A-3.0GENERAL LEGEND2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIORWALLS AND 2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS - U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTHTROWEL CEMENT PLASTER OVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPEROVER SHEATHING AND 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FORINSULATION REQUIREDRoof Deck Area: 245 sq.ft.KEY NOTESROOF DECK FINISH OVER WATERPROOFING DEX-O-TEX ESR-1757INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS OVER METAL FLASHING, OVER DECKSHEATHING AND LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WHERE OCCURS.IB PVC FLAT ROOFING SYSTEM -CLASS "A" LARR # 25961; ESR-2852;CRRC No. 0640-00052 % SLOPE MINIMUM TO DRAINCONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WATERPROOFINGAND DRAINAGE SLOPE PATTERN AND ADJUST ASNEEDED FOR BETTER DRAINAGE AND WATERPROOFINGOPENOPENOPENROOF DECKFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOF13'-0"Unit 5 (Exclusive Use)Unit 5 Living Area: 298 sq.ft. at 4th FloorPage 268 of 630 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0"53'-9" 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 42'-6"111222245555669577101112131415151718P.C.98.00F.F. ELV.98.25F.F. ELV.88.00'P.C.86.71SOUTH NEIGHBOR'SPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 53'-9"2222255766778121414@ Garage Door87.00' P.C.86.53P.C.86.71FINIISH SURFACES12345678GLASS GUARDRAIL 42" ABOVE DECK - BY FRAMELESS HARDWARE COMPANY LLC -ESR-4814 - OR SIMILAR - SEE9107/8" CEMENT PLASTER - SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH - COLOR TO FOLLOWCHIMNEY CAP - SMOOTH STUCCO FINISHSTAIN GRADE WOOD CORBELCAST STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM MOLDINGSTAIN GRADE BERMUDA WOOD SHUTTERSHAPED STUCCO WING WALLSTAIN GRADE RECESSED WOOD PANELINGFUR-OUT FRAMED STUCCO SURROUND WALLSTAIN GRADE WOOD HORIZONTAL TRIM1112ALUMINUM CLAD SLIDING FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOORMANUFACTURER - SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE1314No. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE WEEP SCREED - SEE DETAIL15STONE VENEER - SPECIFICATIONS TO FOLLOWMOSAIC TILE - SPECIFICATION TO FOLLOWWROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL - SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOFABRICATIONALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER- SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE16ALUMINUM CLAD FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER - SEEFLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULEOUTLINE OF FINISHED FLOOR BELOW GRADE1718bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592A-4.0Page 269 of 630 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 53'-9" 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0"42'-6"11122555667778212151515161618F.F. ELV.98.25P.C.97.70P.C.86.53NORTH NEIGHBOR'SADJACENT GRADE LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 42'-6"115915151718F.F. ELV.98.25P.C.97.70P.C.98.00FINIISH SURFACES12345678GLASS GUARDRAIL 42" ABOVE DECK - BY FRAMELESS HARDWARE COMPANY LLC -ESR-4814 - OR SIMILAR - SEE9107/8" CEMENT PLASTER - SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH - COLOR TO FOLLOWCHIMNEY CAP - SMOOTH STUCCO FINISHSTAIN GRADE WOOD CORBELCAST STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM MOLDINGSTAIN GRADE BERMUDA WOOD SHUTTERSHAPED STUCCO WING WALLSTAIN GRADE RECESSED WOOD PANELINGFUR-OUT FRAMED STUCCO SURROUND WALLSTAIN GRADE WOOD HORIZONTAL TRIM1112ALUMINUM CLAD SLIDING FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOORMANUFACTURER - SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE1314No. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE WEEP SCREED - SEE DETAIL15STONE VENEER - SPECIFICATIONS TO FOLLOWMOSAIC TILE - SPECIFICATION TO FOLLOWWROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL - SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOFABRICATIONALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER- SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE16ALUMINUM CLAD FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER - SEEFLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULEOUTLINE OF FINISHED FLOOR BELOW GRADE1718bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592A-4.1Page 270 of 630 State of California GOVERNMENT CODE Section 65589.5 65589.5. (a)  (1)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (A)  The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. (B)  California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing. (C)  Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration. (D)  Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects. (2)  In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following: (A)  California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives. (B)  While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. (C)  The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability. (D)  According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025. (E)  California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions. STATE OF CALIFORNIAAUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL Page 271 of 630 (F)  Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. (G)  The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent. (H)  When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees. (I)  An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences. (J)  California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section. (K)  The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. (L)  It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (3)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (4)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments removing provisions from subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) and adding those provisions to Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2 by Assembly Bill 1413 (2023), insofar as they are substantially the same as existing law, shall be considered restatements and continuations of existing law, and not new enactments. (b)  It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d). (c)  The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away Page 272 of 630 from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (d)  For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1)  The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2)  The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A)  Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B)  The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (3)  The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. Page 273 of 630 (4)  The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5)  On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. (A)  This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete. (B)  If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6)  On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (e)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (f)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8) of this subdivision, and subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency Page 274 of 630 from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. Nothing in this section shall limit a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915. (2)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project. (3)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter. (4)  For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (5)  For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (6)  Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project: (A)  A local agency may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and those shall apply. Page 275 of 630 (B)  (i)  Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following: (I)  Render the project infeasible. (II)  Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. (ii)  The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying with clause (i). (C)  (i)  A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915. (ii)  For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential density or base density means the density permitted for a builder’s remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iii)  A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iv)  A project that dedicates units to extremely low-income households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards as provided to a housing development project that dedicates three percentage points more units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 65915. (v)  All units dedicated to extremely low-income, very low income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant to paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915. (D)  (i)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (ii)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the same type and density proposed by the applicant. (iii)  Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose. (E)  A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to, Page 276 of 630 increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. (F)  (i)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123. (ii)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (G)  (i)  (I)  If the local agency had a local affordable housing requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency may require a housing development for mixed-income households to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other aspect of the local affordable housing requirement. (II)  Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing requirements shall not be applied to require housing for mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the units to affordable units of any kind. (III)  Housing for mixed-income households that is required to dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV)  A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income households to comply with the local percentage requirement or affordability level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that compliance with the local percentage requirement or the affordability level, or both, would not render the housing development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required to comply with that requirement. (ii)  Affordable units in the development project shall have a comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units. (iii)  Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law. (7)  (A)  For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary Page 277 of 630 application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025. (B)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more. (8)  A housing development project proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently updated and adopted housing element, and that is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (6) and paragraph (9). (9)  For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project. (g)  This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem. (h)  The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: (1)  “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (2)  “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following: (A)  Residential units only. (B)  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions: (i)  At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use. (ii)  At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the following: (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. Page 278 of 630 (II)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (iii)  At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all of the following: (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II)  The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use. (III)  The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing nonresidential uses on the site. (IV)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (C)  Transitional housing or supportive housing. (D)  Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code. (3)  (A)  “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. (B)  “Housing for lower income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (C)  (i)  “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of the following: (I)  A housing development project in which at least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. (II)  A housing development project in which at least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (III)  A housing development project in which at least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV)  A housing development project in which there are 10 or fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, Page 279 of 630 that is on a site that is smaller than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum density of 10 units per acre. (ii)  All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall meet both of the following: (I)  The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (II)  The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years. (D)  “Housing for moderate-income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (4)  “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (5)  Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the application is not complete. (6)  “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does any of the following: (A)  Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (B)  Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. (C)  Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. (D)  Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if all of the following conditions are met: (i)  The project applicant provides written notice detailing the challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local agency established under Section 65100. (ii)  Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice on the local agency’s internet Page 280 of 630 website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. (iii)  The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written notice and shall not make a determination until at least 60 days after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency pursuant to clause (i). (iv)  Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements: (I)  The findings articulate an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary. (II)  The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing. (v)  (I)  If a local agency continues the challenged course of conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that its course of conduct does not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant. (II)  If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph. (vi)  A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. (E)  Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. (F)  (i)  Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943 and includes in the determination an item that is not required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist. Page 281 of 630 (ii)  In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was not identified in the initial determination and upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified in the initial determination. (iii)  Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has submitted all of the items required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (iv)  If a local agency determines that an application is incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval of a housing development project under this section. (G)  Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (f). (H)  Makes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1. (I)  (i)  Fails to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.1 are satisfied. (ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (J)  (i)  Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.2 are satisfied. (ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (7)  (A)  For purposes of this section and Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2, “lawful determination” means any final decision about whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 or subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.2. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (8)  “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. Page 282 of 630 (9)  Until January 1, 2030, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (10)  Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. (11)  “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all of the following criteria: (A)  The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. (B)  On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article. (C)  The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions: (i)  The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (I)  Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2. (II)  Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. (III)  The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. (ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I)  One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (II)  A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). (III)  A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. (D)  (i)  On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than the minimum density required on the site. (I)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. Page 283 of 630 (II)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. (ii)  On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or one-half of the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower. (E)  The project site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. (12)  “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing development project, or attempting to subject it to, development standards, conditions, or policies. (13)  “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. (14)  “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses. (i)  If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the housing development project’s application is complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the requirements of subdivision (o). (j)  (1)  When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: Page 284 of 630 (A)  The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B)  There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (2)  (A)  If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows: (i)  Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. (ii)  Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units. (B)  If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. (3)  For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. (4)  For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. Page 285 of 630 (k)  (1)  (A)  (i)  The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii): (I)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section. (II)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section. (III)  (ia)  Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2030. (IV)  The local agency violated a provision of this section applicable to a builder’s remedy project. (ii)  If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of the following instances: (I)  The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. (II)  (ia)  In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) or (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval. (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (B)  Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within the time period prescribed Page 286 of 630 by the court, the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of the fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. (C)  If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. (D)  Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2)  For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section. Page 287 of 630 (l)  If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court has previously found that the local agency violated this section within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit. (m)  (1)  Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. (2)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within the time period set forth in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 after the applicant’s timely written notice. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (3)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written notice. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (n)  In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of Page 288 of 630 preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. (o)  (1)  Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. (2)  Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances: (A)  In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction. (B)  A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. (C)  Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (D)  The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph: (i)  “Affordable housing project” means a housing development that satisfies both of the following requirements: (I)  Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (II)  All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (ii)  “Final approval” means that the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met: (I)  The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. Page 289 of 630 (II)  If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project. (E)  The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (3)  This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. (4)  For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. (5)  This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section. (6)  This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (7)  With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. (8)  (A)  This subdivision shall apply to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 before January 1, 2030. (B)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2034. (p)  (1)  Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes the award appropriate, shall give due weight Page 290 of 630 to the degree to which the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the suitability of the site for a housing development, and the reasonableness of the decision of the local agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project that satisfies conditions established in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 or paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.2. (2)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (q)  This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act. (r)  The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. (Amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 268, Sec. 2.5. (AB 1893) Effective January 1, 2025. Inoperative January 1, 2031, pursuant to Sec. 1 of Stats. 2023, Ch. 768. ) Page 291 of 630 Assembly Bill No. 1893 CHAPTER 268 An act to amend Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, relating to land use. [Approved by Governor September 19, 2024. Filed with Secretary of State September 19, 2024.] legislative counsel’s digest AB 1893, Wicks. Housing Accountability Act: housing disapprovals: required local findings. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law, commonly referred to as the Housing Element Law, prescribes requirements for a city’s or county’s preparation of, and compliance with, its housing element, and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and determine whether the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element Law, as specified. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. Among these conditions, the act allows a local agency to disapprove a housing development project that is inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinances and general plan land use designation as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, if the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element that is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, as specified. This bill would make various changes to that condition. The bill would specify that a local agency may disapprove or condition approval of a housing development project or emergency shelter, as described above, if the local agency makes written findings that on the date the application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project, as defined. Existing law defines various terms for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act. Among these terms, the act defines “housing development project” to mean a use consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 2⁄3 of the square footage designated for residential use, or 89 STATE OF CALIFORNIAAUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL Page 292 of 630 transitional or supportive housing. The act also defines the term “disapprove the housing development project” to include, among other things, any instance in which a local agency votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved. The act also defines the term “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” as provided. This bill would revise the definition of “housing development project” to (1) expand the scope of mixed-use developments that qualify under that definition and (2) include farmworker housing, as defined, within that definition. The bill would also revise the definition of “disapprove the housing development project” to (1) include any instance in which a local agency takes final administrative action on the application and the application is disapproved and (2) additionally provide that a local agency disapproves the project if it undertakes specified acts, including failing to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if certain conditions are met, and failing to comply with specified law. The bill would also recast the definition of the term “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” to mean housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. The bill would add various definitions, including “housing for lower income households,” “housing for mixed-income households,” and “housing for moderate-income households.” Existing law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development complies with certain objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development is compliant with the maximum density allowed within that land use designation. Existing law, the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, until January 1, 2033, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including satisfying specified density thresholds. The act makes a development that meets those objective standards and affordability and site criteria a use by right and subject to a streamlined, ministerial review process. This bill would prescribe requirements that apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project, including that a builder’s remedy project is deemed to be in compliance with specified residential density standards and specified objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards necessary for the streamlined, ministerial approval processes described above. By imposing additional duties on local agencies with respect to the review and approval of builder’s remedy projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The Housing Accountability Act authorizes certain persons to bring an action to enforce the act’s provisions and requires a court to order certain relief if the court makes certain findings. 89 — 2 — Ch. 268 Page 293 of 630 This bill would require court to order the relief referenced above if the court finds that the local agency violated the builder’s remedy project provisions described above. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1413 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1413 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a)  California has an ongoing statewide housing shortage crisis. The legislative findings, declarations, and intent set forth in Section 65580, Section 65581, and subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code are reiterated and incorporated here by reference. (b)  In addition, according to the latest update to the Statewide Housing Plan, updated every four years as required by law under Section 50423 of the Health and Safety Code, recent data confirms a need to plan for a minimum of 2,500,000 homes statewide over the next eight-year cycle, including at least 643,352 homes for very low income households, 384,910 homes for low-income households, 420,814 homes for moderate-income households, and 1,051,177 homes for above moderate-income households (Department of Housing and Community Development, A Home for Every Californian: 2022 Statewide Housing Plan (March 2022) available at https://statewide-housing-plan-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com). (c)  The state’s statutory housing objectives are not attainable absent the timely cooperation of all local governments, including charter cities, to update and faithfully implement their housing elements without delay. Indeed, the Legislature has long recognized the role local governments have to use the powers vested in them to meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. (d)  Relatedly, one of the most efficient and effective means of assuring cooperation from local governments in achieving the statewide goal of planning and permitting enough housing so that supply can meet demand is an effective self-executing remedy that housing developers can avail themselves of when local housing elements are not timely updated and implemented. (e)  To achieve the state’s statutory housing objective, the Legislature has amended the Housing Element Law, as set forth in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to reflect the complexities of existing land use 89 Ch. 268 — 3 — Page 294 of 630 practices and economic realities, and to prompt local governments to timely adopt and implement their updated housing elements. (f)  While the Legislature has, in recent years, modernized and updated many provisions in the Housing Element Law, provisions setting forth remedial measures that do not require judicial intervention have largely been left untouched. (g)  Although the Legislature recognizes and continues to believe that each locality is best capable of determining how it should meet and address its share of regional housing needs, current land use permitting practices continue to hinder the state’s statutory housing objectives in increasing housing supply to meet demand. (h)  Harmonizing the interests of all state and local agencies to eliminate counterproductive actions—such as by prohibiting overly burdensome land use controls, while providing clear guidance at the state level as to the implementation of self-executing remedies—is essential to attaining the state’s statutory housing objectives. (i)  Self-executing remedies, such as the existing “builder’s remedy” provision set forth in the Housing Accountability Act, can be more effectively deployed by the private sector to develop more housing projects of all levels of affordability, and would encourage local agencies to adopt and implement housing elements in a timely fashion, if the Legislature provides clearer guidance to obviate the need for judicial intervention, and would lower barriers to economic feasibility. To that end, the amendments set forth in this act with respect to “builder’s remedy” projects are intended to provide greater clarity of existing law, and should not be interpreted as constraints on or impediments to processing current “builder’s remedy” project applications deemed complete. (j)  Absent statewide measures to promote the immediate production of new homes, the imbalance between supply and demand in housing will likely continue in the foreseeable future. Left unabated, the unmet demand will lead to even higher housing costs. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office report, California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences (2015), California needs to produce around 210,000 market rate units annually “to seriously mitigate its problems with housing affordability.” Moreover, considerable evidence shows that: new market-rate housing improves overall housing affordability at the statewide, regional, local, and neighborhood levels; when new market-rate production is significantly constrained relative to existing and future demand, existing housing units come under gentrification pressure; and robust market-rate housing production does not, absent demolishing existing affordable housing units, cause displacement of low-income households (Legislative Analyst’s Office, Perspectives on Helping Low-Income Californians Afford Housing (2016) and Chapple, Hwang, Jeon, Zhang, Greenberg, and Shrimali, Housing Market Interventions and Residential Mobility in the San Francisco Bay Area, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Community Development Working Paper 2022-1 (2022); doi: 10.24148/cdwp2022-01). Other recent studies confirm that building new market-rate housing has a positive impact 89 — 4 — Ch. 268 Page 295 of 630 on increasing more housing opportunities for lower income households (Mast, “JUE Insight: The Effect of New Market-Rate Housing Construction on the Low-Income Housing Market” (2023) 133 Journal of Urban Economics; doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2021.103383). (k)  The provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, the entirety of the Housing Accountability Act, including the amendments set forth below to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, continues to apply to all cities and counties, including charter cities. SEC. 2. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65589.5. (a)  (1)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (A)  The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. (B)  California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing. (C)  Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration. (D)  Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects. (2)  In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following: (A)  California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives. (B)  While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. (C)  The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability. 89 Ch. 268 — 5 — Page 296 of 630 (D)  According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025. (E)  California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions. (F)  Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. (G)  The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent. (H)  When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees. (I)  An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences. (J)  California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section. (K)  The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. (L)  It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (3)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (b)  It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d). 89 — 6 — Ch. 268 Page 297 of 630 (c)  The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (d)  For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1)  The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2)  The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A)  Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. 89 Ch. 268 — 7 — Page 298 of 630 (B)  The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (3)  The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (4)  The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5)  On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. (A)  This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete. (B)  If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6)  On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. 89 — 8 — Ch. 268 Page 299 of 630 (e)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (f)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8) of this subdivision, and subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. Nothing in this section shall limit a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915. (2)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project. (3)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter. (4)  For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (5)  For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. 89 Ch. 268 — 9 — Page 300 of 630 (6)  Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project: (A)  A local agency may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and those shall apply. (B)  (i)  Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following: (I)  Render the project infeasible. (II)  Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. (ii)  The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying with clause (i). (C)  (i)  A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915. (ii)  For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential density or base density means the density permitted for a builder’s remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iii)  A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iv)  A project that dedicates units to extremely low-income households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards as provided to a housing development project that dedicates three percentage points more units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 65915. (v)  All units dedicated to extremely low-income, very low income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant to paragraph (11) 89 — 10 — Ch. 268 Page 301 of 630 of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915. (D)  (i)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (ii)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the same type and density proposed by the applicant. (iii)  Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose. (E)  A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. (F)  (i)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123. (ii)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (G)  (i)  (I)  If the local agency had a local affordable housing requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency may require a housing development for mixed-income households to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other aspect of the local affordable housing requirement. (II)  Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing requirements shall not be applied to require housing for mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the units to affordable units of any kind. (III)  Housing for mixed-income households that is required to dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV)  A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income households to comply with the local percentage requirement or affordability 89 Ch. 268 — 11 — Page 302 of 630 level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that compliance with the local percentage requirement or the affordability level, or both, would not render the housing development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required to comply with that requirement. (ii)  Affordable units in the development project shall have a comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units. (iii)  Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law. (7)  (A)  For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025. (B)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more. (8)  A housing development project proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently updated and adopted housing element, and that is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (6) and paragraph (9). (9)  For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with 89 — 12 — Ch. 268 Page 303 of 630 Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project. (g)  This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem. (h)  The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: (1)  “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (2)  “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following: (A)  Residential units only. (B)  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions: (i)  At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use. (ii)  At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the following: (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (iii)  At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all of the following: (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II)  The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use. (III)  The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing nonresidential uses on the site. (IV)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (C)  Transitional housing or supportive housing. (D)  Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code. (3)  (A)  “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. (B)  “Housing for lower income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable cost, as defined by 89 Ch. 268 — 13 — Page 304 of 630 Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (C)  (i)  “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of the following: (I)  A housing development project in which at least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. (II)  A housing development project in which at least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (III)  A housing development project in which at least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV)  A housing development project in which there are 10 or fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, that is on a site that is smaller than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum density of 10 units per acre. (ii)  All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall meet both of the following: (I)  The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (II)  The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years. (D)  “Housing for moderate-income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (4)  “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (5)  Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a 89 — 14 — Ch. 268 Page 305 of 630 preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the application is not complete. (6)  “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does any of the following: (A)  Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (B)  Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. (C)  Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. (D)  Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if all of the following conditions are met: (i)  The project applicant provides written notice detailing the challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local agency established under Section 65100. (ii)  Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice on the local agency’s internet website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. (iii)  The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written notice and shall not make a determination until at least 60 days after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency pursuant to clause (i). (iv)  Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements: (I)  The findings articulate an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary. (II)  The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing. (v)  (I)  If a local agency continues the challenged course of conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency shall bear the burden of 89 Ch. 268 — 15 — Page 306 of 630 establishing that its course of conduct does not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant. (II)  If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph. (vi)  A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. (E)  Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. (F)  (i)  Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943 and includes in the determination an item that is not required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist. (ii)  In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was not identified in the initial determination and upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified in the initial determination. (iii)  Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has submitted all of the items required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (iv)  If a local agency determines that an application is incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval of a housing development project under this section. (G)  Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (f). (H)  Makes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1. 89 — 16 — Ch. 268 Page 307 of 630 (I)  (i)  Fails to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in this subparagraph, if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (I)  There is substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is not located in either of the following: (ia)  On a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, or subparagraphs (E) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (ib)  Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. (II)  The housing development project is located on a legal parcel or parcels within an urbanized area and meets one or more of the following criteria: (ia)  The housing development project is located within one-half mile walking distance to either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop. (ib)  The housing development project is located in a very low vehicle travel area. (ic)  The housing development project is proximal to six or more amenities pursuant to subclause (IV) of clause (ii) as of the date of submission of the application for the project. (id)  Parcels that are developed with urban uses adjoin at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the project site or at least three sides of a four-sided project site. For purposes of this clause, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (III)  The density of the housing development project meets or exceeds 15 dwelling units per acre. (IV)  Both of the following criteria are met: (ia)  There is substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is eligible for an exemption sought by the applicant. (ib)  If the exemption sought by the applicant is subject to an exception under the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations), there is substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2 of those guidelines. (V)  (ia)  The applicant has given timely written notice to the local agency of the action or inaction that the applicant believes constitutes a failure to make a determination or an abuse of discretion, as defined in this subparagraph, and the local agency did not make a lawful determination 89 Ch. 268 — 17 — Page 308 of 630 within 90 days of the applicant’s written notice. The applicant’s written notice shall contain all of the following: (Ia)  The information specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 15062 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. (Ib)  A citation to the section of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations or the statute under which the applicant asserts that the project is exempt. (Ic)  A brief statement of reasons supporting the assertion that the project is exempt. (Id)  A copy of the excerpts from the record constituting substantial evidence that the criteria of subclauses (I) to (IV), inclusive, are satisfied. (ib)  Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice required by sub-subclause (ia), the local agency shall file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Compliance with this sub-subclause is not a condition that must be satisfied in order to find that the local agency has disapproved the housing development project under this subparagraph. (ic)  The local agency may, by providing a written response to the applicant within 90 additional days of the applicant’s written notice, extend the time period to make a lawful determination by no more than 90 days if the extension is necessary to determine if there is substantial evidence in the record that the housing development project is eligible for the exemption sought by the applicant. (id)  If the local agency has given the applicant written notice of the local agency’s determination that the project is not exempt, the applicant’s notice shall be deemed timely if and only if it is delivered to the local agency within 35 days of the date that the local agency gave the applicant notice of the local agency’s determination. (ie)  If the local agency has not given the applicant the written notice described in sub-subclause (id), the applicant’s notice shall be deemed timely if given after 60 days from the date on which the project application has been received and accepted as complete by the lead agency, or 60 days from the date on which the project application has been determined or deemed to be complete within the meaning of Section 65943, whichever is earlier. (ii)  For purposes of this subparagraph, the following definitions apply: (I)  “Abuse of discretion” means that the conditions set forth in subclauses (I) to (IV), inclusive, of clause (i) are satisfied, but the local agency does not determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). This subclause sets forth the exclusive definition of “abuse of discretion” for purposes of this subparagraph. (II)  “High-quality transit corridor” has the same meaning defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. 89 — 18 — Ch. 268 Page 309 of 630 (III)  “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (IV)  “Proximal” to an amenity means either of the following: (ia)  Within one-half mile of either of the following amenities: (Ia)  A bus station. (Ib)  A ferry terminal. (ib)  Within one mile, or for a parcel in a rural area, as defined in Section 50199.21 of the Health and Safety Code, within two miles, of any of the following amenities: (Ia)  A supermarket or grocery store. (Ib)  A public park. (Ic)  A community center. (Id)  A pharmacy or drugstore. (Ie)  A medical clinic or hospital. (If)  A public library. (Ig)  A school that maintains a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (V)  “Urbanized area” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21071 of the Public Resources Code. (VI)  (ia)  “Very low vehicle travel area” means an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. (ib)  For purposes of sub-subclause (ia), “area” may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or grid. (ic)  For the purposes of determining “regional vehicle miles traveled per capita” pursuant to sub-subclause (ia), a “region” is the entirety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning organization, or the entirety of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization. (iii)  This subparagraph shall not be construed to require a local agency to determine that a project is exempt if, on the record before the local agency, the project is not eligible for exemption. (iv)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (J)  Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (i)  There is substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the site of the housing development project is not located on either of the following: 89 Ch. 268 — 19 — Page 310 of 630 (I)  On a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, or subparagraphs (E) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (II)  Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. (ii)  The housing development project is located on a legal parcel or parcels within an urbanized area and meets one or more of the following criteria: (I)  The housing development project is located within one-half mile walking distance to either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop. (II)  The housing development project is located in a very low vehicle travel area. (III)  The housing development project is proximal to six or more amenities pursuant to subclause (IV) of clause (vii) as of the date of submission of the application for the project. (IV)  Parcels that are developed with urban uses adjoin at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the project site or at least three sides of a four-sided project site. For purposes of this clause, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (iii)  The density of the housing development project meets or exceeds 15 dwelling units per acre. (iv)  There has been prepared a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document that, if duly adopted, approved, or certified by the local agency, would satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) with respect to the project. (v)  The local agency or a body or official to which the agency has delegated authority to adopt, approve, or certify the negative declaration addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document has held a meeting at which adoption, approval, or certification of the environmental review document was on the agenda and the environmental review document could have been adopted, approved, or certified, as applicable, but the agency did either of the following: (I)  Committed an abuse of discretion, as defined in this subparagraph. (II)  Failed to decide whether to require further study or to adopt, approve, or certify the environmental document. (vi)  (I)  The applicant has given timely written notice to the local agency of the action or inaction that the applicant believes constitutes a failure to decide or an abuse of discretion, and the local agency did not make a lawful determination about whether to adopt, approve, or certify the environmental review document within 90 days of the applicant’s written notice. The applicant’s written notice shall include a copy of those excerpts from the 89 — 20 — Ch. 268 Page 311 of 630 record that constitute substantial evidence that the criteria of clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive, are satisfied. (II)  If the local agency has voted to require further study, rather than adopting, approving, or certifying the negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document in the form it was presented for the agency’s consideration, the applicant’s notice shall be deemed timely if and only if it is delivered to the local agency within 35 days of the date that the local agency gave written notice of its decision to the applicant. (III)  If the local agency has not voted to require further study, rather than adopting, approving, or certifying the negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document in the form it was presented for the agency’s consideration, the applicant’s notice shall be deemed timely if given after the time period specified in Section 21151.5 of the Public Resources Code or another applicable provision of that code for completing the addendum, negative declaration, environmental impact report, or other comparable environmental review document, as applicable, has passed. If the Public Resources Code does not specifically describe the deadline to complete the applicable environmental document, a 180-day deadline is the applicable time period. (vii)  For purposes of this subparagraph, the following definitions apply: (I)  (ia)  “Abuse of discretion” means either of the following: (Ia)  If the local agency fails to adopt a negative declaration, “abuse of discretion” means that the agency, in bad faith or without substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that further environmental study is necessary to identify or analyze potentially significant impacts on the physical environment, decided to require further environmental study rather than adopting the negative declaration. (Ib)  If the local agency fails to adopt an addendum for the project, certify an environmental impact report for the project, or approve another comparable environmental document, “abuse of discretion” means that the agency, in bad faith or without substantial evidence in the record that further environmental study is legally required to identify or analyze potentially significant impacts on the physical environment, decided to require further environmental study rather than adopting, approving, or certifying the environmental review document. (ib)  This subclause sets forth the exclusive definition of “abuse of discretion” for purposes of this subparagraph. (II)  “High-quality transit corridor” has the same meaning defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. (III)  “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (IV)  “Proximal” to an amenity means either of the following: (ia)  Within one-half mile of either of the following amenities: (Ia)  A bus station. (Ib)  A ferry terminal. 89 Ch. 268 — 21 — Page 312 of 630 (ib)  Within one mile, or for a parcel in a rural area, as defined in Section 50199.21 of the Health and Safety Code, within two miles, of any of the following amenities: (Ia)  A supermarket or grocery store. (Ib)  A public park. (Ic)  A community center. (Id)  A pharmacy or drugstore. (Ie)  A medical clinic or hospital. (If)  A public library. (Ig)  A school that maintains a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (V)  “Urbanized area” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21071 of the Public Resources Code. (VI)  (ia)  “Very low vehicle travel area” means an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. (ib)  For purposes of sub-subclause (ia), “area” may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or grid. (ic)  For the purposes of determining “regional vehicle miles traveled per capita” pursuant to sub-subclause (ia), a “region” is the entirety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning organization, or the entirety of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization. (viii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (7)  (A)  For purposes of this section, “lawful determination” means any final decision about whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) or clause (vii) of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6). (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (8)  “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. (9)  Until January 1, 2030, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (10)  Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. 89 — 22 — Ch. 268 Page 313 of 630 (11)  “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all of the following criteria: (A)  The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. (B)  On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article. (C)  The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions: (i)  The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (I)  Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2. (II)  Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. (III)  The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. (ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I)  One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (II)  A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). (III)  A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. (D)  (i)  On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than the minimum density required on the site. (I)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. (II)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. (ii)  On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or 89 Ch. 268 — 23 — Page 314 of 630 one-half of the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower. (E)  The project site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. (12)  “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing development project, or attempting to subject it to, development standards, conditions, or policies. (13)  “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. (14)  “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses. (i)  If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the housing development project’s application is complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the requirements of subdivision (o). (j)  (1)  When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (A)  The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified 89 — 24 — Ch. 268 Page 315 of 630 written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B)  There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (2)  (A)  If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows: (i)  Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. (ii)  Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units. (B)  If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. (3)  For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. (4)  For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. (k)  (1)  (A)  (i)  The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii): 89 Ch. 268 — 25 — Page 316 of 630 (I)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section. (II)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section. (III)  (ia)  Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2030. (IV)  The local agency violated a provision of this section applicable to a builder’s remedy project. (ii)  If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of the following instances: (I)  The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. (II)  (ia)  In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) or (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval. (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (B)  Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within the time period prescribed by the court, the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. 89 — 26 — Ch. 268 Page 317 of 630 The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. (C)  If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. (D)  Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2)  For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section. (l)  If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, the court, in addition to any 89 Ch. 268 — 27 — Page 318 of 630 other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court has previously found that the local agency violated this section within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit. (m)  (1)  Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. (2)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within the time period set forth in subclause (V) of clause (i) of that subparagraph after the applicant’s timely written notice. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (3)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written notice. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (n)  In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has 89 — 28 — Ch. 268 Page 319 of 630 been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. (o)  (1)  Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. (2)  Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances: (A)  In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction. (B)  A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. (C)  Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (D)  The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph: (i)  “Affordable housing project” means a housing development that satisfies both of the following requirements: (I)  Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (II)  All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (ii)  “Final approval” means that the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met: (I)  The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for challenging that final 89 Ch. 268 — 29 — Page 320 of 630 approval without an appeal, petition, request for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. (II)  If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project. (E)  The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (3)  This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. (4)  For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. (5)  This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section. (6)  This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (7)  With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. (8)  (A)  This subdivision shall apply to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 before January 1, 2030. (B)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2034. 89 — 30 — Ch. 268 Page 321 of 630 (p)  (1)  Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes the award appropriate, shall give due weight to the degree to which the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the suitability of the site for a housing development, and the reasonableness of the decision of the local agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project that satisfies conditions established in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause (i) of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) or clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h). (2)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (q)  This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act. (r)  The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 2.5. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65589.5. (a)  (1)  The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (A)  The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. (B)  California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing. (C)  Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration. (D)  Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects. (2)  In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following: (A)  California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and 89 Ch. 268 — 31 — Page 322 of 630 homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives. (B)  While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. (C)  The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability. (D)  According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025. (E)  California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions. (F)  Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. (G)  The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent. (H)  When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees. (I)  An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences. (J)  California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section. (K)  The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. (L)  It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. 89 — 32 — Ch. 268 Page 323 of 630 (3)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (4)  It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments removing provisions from subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) and adding those provisions to Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2 by Assembly Bill 1413 (2023), insofar as they are substantially the same as existing law, shall be considered restatements and continuations of existing law, and not new enactments. (b)  It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d). (c)  The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (d)  For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1)  The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or 89 Ch. 268 — 33 — Page 324 of 630 conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2)  The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A)  Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B)  The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (3)  The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (4)  The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5)  On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. (A)  This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete. (B)  If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 89 — 34 — Ch. 268 Page 325 of 630 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6)  On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (e)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (f)  (1)  Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8) of this subdivision, and subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. Nothing in this section shall limit a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915. (2)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project. 89 Ch. 268 — 35 — Page 326 of 630 (3)  Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter. (4)  For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (5)  For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (6)  Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project: (A)  A local agency may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and those shall apply. (B)  (i)  Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following: (I)  Render the project infeasible. (II)  Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. (ii)  The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying with clause (i). (C)  (i)  A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915. (ii)  For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential density or base density means the density 89 — 36 — Ch. 268 Page 327 of 630 permitted for a builder’s remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iii)  A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iv)  A project that dedicates units to extremely low-income households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards as provided to a housing development project that dedicates three percentage points more units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 65915. (v)  All units dedicated to extremely low-income, very low income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant to paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915. (D)  (i)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (ii)  The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the same type and density proposed by the applicant. (iii)  Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose. (E)  A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. (F)  (i)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123. (ii)  A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (G)  (i)  (I)  If the local agency had a local affordable housing requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency may require a housing development for mixed-income 89 Ch. 268 — 37 — Page 328 of 630 households to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other aspect of the local affordable housing requirement. (II)  Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing requirements shall not be applied to require housing for mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the units to affordable units of any kind. (III)  Housing for mixed-income households that is required to dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV)  A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income households to comply with the local percentage requirement or affordability level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that compliance with the local percentage requirement or the affordability level, or both, would not render the housing development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required to comply with that requirement. (ii)  Affordable units in the development project shall have a comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units. (iii)  Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law. (7)  (A)  For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025. (B)  Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more. (8)  A housing development project proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently updated and adopted housing element, and 89 — 38 — Ch. 268 Page 329 of 630 that is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (6) and paragraph (9). (9)  For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project. (g)  This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem. (h)  The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: (1)  “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (2)  “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following: (A)  Residential units only. (B)  Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions: (i)  At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use. (ii)  At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the following: (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (iii)  At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all of the following: (I)  The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II)  The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use. (III)  The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing nonresidential uses on the site. 89 Ch. 268 — 39 — Page 330 of 630 (IV)  No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (C)  Transitional housing or supportive housing. (D)  Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code. (3)  (A)  “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. (B)  “Housing for lower income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (C)  (i)  “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of the following: (I)  A housing development project in which at least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. (II)  A housing development project in which at least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (III)  A housing development project in which at least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV)  A housing development project in which there are 10 or fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, that is on a site that is smaller than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum density of 10 units per acre. (ii)  All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall meet both of the following: (I)  The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (II)  The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years. 89 — 40 — Ch. 268 Page 331 of 630 (D)  “Housing for moderate-income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (4)  “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (5)  Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the application is not complete. (6)  “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does any of the following: (A)  Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (B)  Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. (C)  Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. (D)  Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if all of the following conditions are met: (i)  The project applicant provides written notice detailing the challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local agency established under Section 65100. (ii)  Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice on the local agency’s internet website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. (iii)  The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written notice and shall 89 Ch. 268 — 41 — Page 332 of 630 not make a determination until at least 60 days after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency pursuant to clause (i). (iv)  Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements: (I)  The findings articulate an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary. (II)  The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing. (v)  (I)  If a local agency continues the challenged course of conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that its course of conduct does not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant. (II)  If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph. (vi)  A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. (E)  Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. (F)  (i)  Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943 and includes in the determination an item that is not required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist. (ii)  In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was not identified in the initial determination and upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified in the initial determination. (iii)  Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has submitted all of 89 — 42 — Ch. 268 Page 333 of 630 the items required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (iv)  If a local agency determines that an application is incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval of a housing development project under this section. (G)  Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (f). (H)  Makes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1. (I)  (i)  Fails to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.1 are satisfied. (ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (J)  (i)  Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.2 are satisfied. (ii)  This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (7)  (A)  For purposes of this section and Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2, “lawful determination” means any final decision about whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 or subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.2. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (8)  “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. (9)  Until January 1, 2030, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. 89 Ch. 268 — 43 — Page 334 of 630 (10)  Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. (11)  “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all of the following criteria: (A)  The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. (B)  On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article. (C)  The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions: (i)  The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (I)  Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2. (II)  Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. (III)  The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. (ii)  Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I)  One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (II)  A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). (III)  A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. (D)  (i)  On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than the minimum density required on the site. (I)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. (II)  For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar 89 — 44 — Ch. 268 Page 335 of 630 trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. (ii)  On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or one-half of the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower. (E)  The project site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. (12)  “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing development project, or attempting to subject it to, development standards, conditions, or policies. (13)  “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. (14)  “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses. (i)  If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the housing development project’s application is complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the requirements of subdivision (o). (j)  (1)  When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (A)  The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or 89 Ch. 268 — 45 — Page 336 of 630 approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B)  There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (2)  (A)  If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows: (i)  Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. (ii)  Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units. (B)  If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. (3)  For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. (4)  For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. (k)  (1)  (A)  (i)  The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in 89 — 46 — Ch. 268 Page 337 of 630 any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii): (I)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section. (II)  The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section. (III)  (ia)  Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2030. (IV)  The local agency violated a provision of this section applicable to a builder’s remedy project. (ii)  If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of the following instances: (I)  The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. (II)  (ia)  In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) or (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval. (ib)  This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (B)  Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within the time period prescribed by the court, the court shall impose fines on a local 89 Ch. 268 — 47 — Page 338 of 630 agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of the fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. (C)  If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. (D)  Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2)  For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section. 89 — 48 — Ch. 268 Page 339 of 630 (l)  If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court has previously found that the local agency violated this section within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit. (m)  (1)  Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. (2)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within the time period set forth in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 after the applicant’s timely written notice. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (3)  (A)  A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written notice. (B)  This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (n)  In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition 89 Ch. 268 — 49 — Page 340 of 630 or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. (o)  (1)  Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. (2)  Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances: (A)  In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction. (B)  A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. (C)  Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (D)  The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph: (i)  “Affordable housing project” means a housing development that satisfies both of the following requirements: (I)  Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (II)  All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. 89 — 50 — Ch. 268 Page 341 of 630 (ii)  “Final approval” means that the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met: (I)  The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. (II)  If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project. (E)  The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (3)  This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. (4)  For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. (5)  This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section. (6)  This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (7)  With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. 89 Ch. 268 — 51 — Page 342 of 630 (8)  (A)  This subdivision shall apply to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 before January 1, 2030. (B)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2034. (p)  (1)  Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes the award appropriate, shall give due weight to the degree to which the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the suitability of the site for a housing development, and the reasonableness of the decision of the local agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project that satisfies conditions established in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 or paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.2. (2)  This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (q)  This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act. (r)  The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 3. Section 2.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 1413. That section of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2025, (2) each bill amends Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 1413, in which case Section 2 of this bill shall not become operative. SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. O 89 — 52 — Ch. 268 Page 343 of 630 SROUR & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Development Services Group, Inc. 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 206, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 brandon@esrour.com 310/372-8433 August 11, 2025 Jake Whitney Associate Planner City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90802 Re: Precise Development Plan (PDP 24-08), 3415 Hermosa Ave. Dear Mr. Whitney: The purpose of this letter is to provide supplemental information that Staff may consider including in the record of the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on PDP 24-08. Nothing in this submittal, however, is intended to revise, amend, modify, or withdraw the applicants’ pending application before the Planning Commission, and this is not a request to postpose consideration of the application beyond the Commission’s September hearing. Following the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission hearing on PDP 24-08, the applicants worked with their architect to explore potential changes to the project that would address concerns voiced at that hearing by some in the community. Community members objected to the proposed building height and increase in density from four to five units. Enclosed with this letter is an alternative building design that, among other things, eliminates a proposed story, reduces the maximum height from 50.5 feet to 34.3 feet, and eliminates one of the proposed units. To be clear, the applicant is not putting forth this revised design in place of anything in the pending application. Rather, the enclosed four-unit design may provide the basis for a future application amendment that would be acceptable to both the Planning Commission and the applicants and would remain within the scope of the Builder’s Remedy. To that end, it may be productive to include the alternative design in Staff’s report at the next hearing on this project. Best Regards, Brandon Straus Brandon Straus Enclosure Page 344 of 630 SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:33 PM COVER 25016 3D IMAGES A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 NEW RESIDENCE3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 A NEW 4 UNIT RESIDENCE REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE Page 345 of 630 ROOM NAMEROOM ELEVATIONAREA=150 SFFLR FINISH=TILE A.01 A EGRESS 1 NORTH 1 1 A.00 SIM ROOM TAG ELEVATION TAG SHEET NUMBER ELEVATION DESIGNATION WINDOW LETTER DESIGNATION DOOR NUMBER DESIGNATION SKYLIGHT LETTER DESIGNATION NORTH ARROW DESIGNATION REVISION DESIGNATION EXTENT OF REVISION SECTION NUMBER SHEET NUMBER TOP/BOTTOM RISER UP 1 Ref 1Ref 1Ref 1 RefA 20R @ RISER HEIGHT18T @ TREAD DEPTH SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:33 PM G.00 25016 PROJECTINFORMATION A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 SYMBOL LEGEND PROJECT DATAPROPERTY OWNERS TONY FERRARO3417 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 4, BLOCK 101SHAKESPEAREM.B. 9-190APN 4181-033-017 OCCUPANCY AND ZONING OCCUPANCY:ZONING:CONSTRUCTION TYPE:AREA DISTRICT:NUMBER OF UNITS:NUMBER OF STORIES: CITY, STATE, NATIONALLY APPLICABLE CODES CONSULTANTS CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANT NEW RESIDENCE3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 A NEW 4 UNIT RESIDENCE AREA CALCULATIONS UNIT #1 = 1,162 SFUNIT #2 = 876 SFUNIT #3 = 825 SFUNIT #4 = 1,713 SFTOTAL LIVING AREA = 4,576 SF HEIGHT CALCULATIONS 0.00' NW + 0.00' NE + 0.00' SW + 0.00' SE = 0.00' 0.00' / 4 = 0.00'0.00' + X' =0.00' MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT = ACTUAL HEIGHT = OPEN SPACE CALCS. UNIT #1 = 0 SFUNIT #2 = 160 SFUNIT #3 = 0 SFUNIT #4 = 300 SFTOTAL OPEN SPACE = 460 SF NAMEADDRESSCITY, CA ZIPT.310.000.0000 CIVIL CONSULTANTNAMEADDRESSCITY, CA ZIPT.310.000.0000 STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTNAMEADDRESSCITY, CA ZIPT.310.000.0000 GEO-TECHNICAL CONSULTANTNAMEADDRESSCITY, CA ZIPT.310.000.0000 ENERGY CONSULTANT NAMEADDRESSCITY, CA ZIPT.310.000.0000 INTERIOR DESIGNER NAMEADDRESSCITY, CA ZIPT.310.000.0000 LIGHTING CONSULTANT NAMEADDRESSCITY, CA ZIPT.310.000.0000 2022 CRC, 2022 CBC, 2022 CMC, 2022 CPC, 2022 CEC, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH VICINITY MAP NORTH HERMOSA BEACH, CA PROJECT SITE ABBREVIATION A.H.ACTUAL HEIGHTA.W.AWNING WINDOWB.O.W. BOTTOM OF WALLC.H.CRITICAL HEIGHTCLG.CEILINGCLR.CLEARCOL.COLUMNCONC.CONCRETEC.W. CASEMENT WINDOWDIM.DIMENSIONDN.DOWNE.G.EXISTING GRADEELEV.ELEVATIONF.A.FROM ABOVEF.G.FINISH GRADEFLR.FLOORF.S.FINISH SURFACEFXFIXEDHORZ.HORIZONTALHT.HEIGHTLAND.LANDINGLT.WT.LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETEMAX.MAXIMUMMIN.MINIMUMNEIGH.NEIGHBOR GRADEOP.OPERABLEPL.PROPERTY LINEREQ.REQUIREDSECT.SECTIONS.F.E SUB FLOOR ELEVATIONSHT.SHEETSK.SKEWEDSL.SLOPEDT.O.C.TOP OF CURBT.O.F TOP OF FENCET.O.W.TOP OF WALL REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE GENERAL NOTES 1.BUILDING COMPLIES WITH 2019 CBC, 2019 CMC, 2019 CPC, 2019 CEC, AND CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.2.AQMD NOTIFICATION IS REQUIRED 10 DAYS BEFORE BEGINNING ANY DEMOLITION WORK. REQUIRED FORM IS AVAILABLE AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. PROVIDE PROOF OF NOTIFICATION (MAIL WITH RETURN RECEIPT) 10 DAYS BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, OR COMPLETE ASBESTOS NOTIFICATION WAIVER.3.ALL BUILDING FEATURES PROJECTING INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE INDICATED ON SITE/PLOT PLAN.4.SOILS REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR ALL CUTS, FILLS, AND EARTHWORK AS REQUIRED BY CBC SECTION 1804.5.STUMPS AND ROOTS SHALL BE REMOVED TO A DEPTH OF 12" IN THE AREA OCCUPIED BY THE BUILDING.6.INSTALLATION OF INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR WALL AND CEILING COVERINGS SHALL CONFORM TO CHAPTER 25 UBC.7.ALL WATER CLOSETS TO FLUSH WITH 1.6 GALLON MAX. AND ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL BE CERTIFIED LOW FLOW FIXTURES.8.ALL HOSE BIBS MUST BE PROTECTED BY BACK FLOW PREVENTION AND HAVE AN ANTI-SIPHON DEVICE.9.PROVIDE APPROVED BACKWATER VALVE FOR ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES LOCATED BELOW THE ELEVATION OF THE NEXT UPSTREAM MANHOLE COVER. FIXTURES ABOVE SUCH ELEVATION SHALL NOT DISCHARGE THROUGH THE BACKWATER VALVE. PROVIDE CAST IRON WASTE PIPE RISERS.10.ALL WINDOW COVERINGS REQUIRED BY CFIR. FORM SHALL BE POSTED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.11. WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SCAQMD). (714)396:2000 PER RULE 1403 FOR THE PROPER DISPOSAL OF ASBESTOS.12. ONLY LOS ANGELES COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVED DEVICES MAY BE UTILIZED FOR LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICES.13. ALL SITE DRAINAGE SHALL BE TERMINATED AT PUBLIC WAY VIA NON-EROSIVE DEVICE PER HBMC.14. PROVIDE DRIP PAN OR SIMILAR DEVICE FOR LAUNDRY ROOM, WATER HEATER, AND DISHWASHER.15. PROVIDE SURVEY STAKES PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION TO VERIFY LOT LINES.16. THE ARCHITECT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE GRADING OR DRAINAGE.17. IAPMO APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR ONE PIECE LAVATORY.18. POST INSULATION COMPLIANCE CARD IN CONSPICUOUS LOCATION IN DWELLING PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.19.IT IS THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO VERIFY THAT THE BUILDING IS WITHIN THE HEIGHT LIMIT PRIOR TO FRAMING THE ROOF RAFTERS. CONTACT THE CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS.20. CONTROL VALVE FOR SHOWERS AND TUB/SHOWERS SHALL BE OF THE PRESSURE BALANCE OR THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE. UPC. SECT. 410.7.21. VERIFY CLEARANCES WITH OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES FROM ALL PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURE INCLUDING SCAFFOLDING AND OTHER WORKING AREAS DURING CONSTRUCTION. CLEARANCE TO BE 8 FT. HORIZONTAL AND 12 FT. VERTICAL. VERIFY WITH SOUTHERN ALIFORNIA EDISON CO. BEFORE COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION.22. PROVIDE PROTECTION TO PEDESTRIANS PER UBC SECTION 3303 DURING CONSTRUCTION.23. BUILDING ADDRESS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE BUILDING IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET PER CBC SEC. 501.24. THE STRUCTURE SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF "APPENDIX CHAPTER 10 SECURITY" OF HBMC.25. COOKING EQUIPMENT MUST BE LISTED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.26. ALL DOORS PROVIDING DIRECT ACCESS TO THE POOL SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A SELF CLOSING, SELF LATCHING DEVICE WITH A RELEASE MECHANISM PLACED NO LOWER THAN 54" AFF. ALL THESE DOORS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH EXIT ALARMS. CBC SECTION 3109.4.1.8.27. UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE REQUIRED FOR ALL REPAIRS, REMODELS OR EXPANSION EXCEPT WHERE THE BUILDING VALUATION OF SUCH REPAIRS OR REMODELS IN A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY PERCENT OF THE EXISTING VALUATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 28. ALL WATER FIXTURES SHALL BE WATER CONSERVING CPC 402.029. DRAINAGE FIXTURE LOCATED BELOW THE NEXT UPSTREAM MANHOLE OR BELOW THE MAIN SEWER LEVEL REQUIRES INVESTIGATION TO ASCERTAIN THE NECESSITY FOR SEWER BACKWATER DEVICE CPC 710.0EXCAVATION NOTES 1.PROVIDE CONTINUOUS INSPECTION DURING EXCAVATION OF SHORING AND INSTALLATION OF SHORING MEMBERS.2. AN EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF ANY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, STANDARD SIDEWALKS, CURBS, GUTTERS, DRIVEWAY APPROACHES, OR UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES.3. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF PERMIT FROM CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY FOR EXCAVATION 5'-0" OR DEEPER. CALL 213.736.3041.4. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT "DIG ALERT" PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (800) 227-26005. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SHORING OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. QUALIFIED PERSONS REGISTERED WITH THE STATE SHALL DESIGN SHORING. 6. A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM THE STATE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY FOR TRENCHES OR EXCAVATION 5' (1.52 METERS) OR DEEPER OR BUILDING/STRUCTURE OVER 3 STORIES HIGH, OR BUILDING OVER 36' (11 METERS) HIGH. ENCROACHMENT NOTES 1.ALL PLANT MATERIALS IN THE PLANNED LANDSCAPE SHALL NOT BE HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH AND SAFETY, SUCH AS PLANTS THAT CONTAIN THORNS, SPINES, TOXIC FRUITS OR LEAVES, AND THOSE THAT DROP EXCESSIVE SLIPPERY FRUITS AND FLOWERS, AND SURFACE ROOTING.2. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE ON A FULLY AUTOMATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM SUPPLIED BY HOME OWNER.3. ALL WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH LOCAL BUILDING, PLUMBING AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES HAVING JURISDICTION.4. HEIGHTS OF WALLS, FENCES AND ALL OTHER ELEMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY ENCROACHMENT REGULATIONS.5. UTILITIES AND VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS MAX. 42" HIGH SHALL GENERALLY BE AVOIDED SO AS TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND TO PROTECT VISTAS FROM NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.6. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL NOT EXCEED 42" IN HEIGHT. TREES AND SHRUBS MAY BE PERMITTED WITH A SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLAN. PLAN REQUIREMENTS 1.ALL PLANS FOR NEW AND/ OR ADDITIONS OVER FOUR HUNDRED (400) SQUARE FEET MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, FOR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS.2. AN ENGINEERING PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED STORMWATER CONTROL FOR THE PROJECT SHALL BE MADE A PART OF THE PLAN. THIS PLAN SHALL SHOW THE EXISTING STREET CROSS SECTIONS, ELEVATIONS AND EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER ELEVATIONS FOR A DISTANCE OF ONE HUNDRED FEET (100') ON EACH SIDE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, AND THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR THE PLANNED PROJECT.3. A SURVEY OF THE PROJECT WILL BE REQUIRED WITH SURVEY POINTS SET AT THE CENTER LINE OF THE STREET AND OFFSET POINTS EITHER ON THE TOP OF THE CURB OR IN THE SIDEWALK. ALL SURVEY POINTS SHALL BE RE-ESTABLISHED IF THEY ARE REMOVED OR DESTROYED DURING CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 1.A SEWER CAP PERMIT MUST BE ACQUIRED BEFORE A DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED.2.ALL WORK DONE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE DONE BY A CURRENTLY LICENSED CONTRACTOR WITH A CLASS ``A", ``C-12" OR ``C-34" LICENCE FOR ALL TRENCHING AND PAVING OR A CLASS "C-08" LICENSE FOR ALL CONCRETE WORK. A CLASS ``B" LICENSE MAY BE ACCEPTABLE FOR MINOR CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK WORK CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.3.ALL CONTRACTORS WORKING ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS MUST HAVE A CURRENT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH BUSINESS LICENSE.4.PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY SCAFFOLDING, UTILITY TRENCHING, LUMBER DROPS, CRANES, DUMPSTERS, ETC. ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. THE PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE AND AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW BY CITY OFFICIALS AT ALL TIMES. ANY OF THE WORK REQUIRING PERMIT(S) AND STARTED WITHOUT NECESSARY PERMIT(S) SHALL RESULT IN THE JOB BEING STOPPED UNTIL THE PERMIT(S) ARE OBTAINED AND A DOUBLE FEE FOR PERMIT(S) WILL BE CHARGED.5.A CASH DEPOSIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE AMOUNT OF THE SAID DEPOSIT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (THE MINIMUM DEPOSIT IS SET AT $1,600). THE CASH DEPOSIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH PROJECT AND WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED FROM ON PROJECT TO ANOTHER. AFTER ALL IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN PLACE AND APPROVED THE CASH DEPOSIT WILL BE REFUNDED.6.ANYTHING EXISTING OR TO BE CONTRUCTED ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER THAN REQUIRED CITY IMPROVEMENTS WILL REQUIRE AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.7.A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL PROPER PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM OTHER AGENCIES SUCH AS CALTRANS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, SANITATION DISTRICT, WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, ETC. IF SAID PERMITS ARE REQUIRED.8.APPLICANT SHALL MAINTAIN AND KEEP IN FORCE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION A POLICY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE, NAMING THE CITY AS ADDITIONALLY INSURED IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) MINIMUM.9.SECTION 4216/4217 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES A DIG ALERT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER BE ISSUED BEFORE A "PERMIT TO EXCAVATE" WILL BE VALID. FOR YOUR DIG ALERT I.D. NUMBER CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT AT (800) 227-2600 TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 1. ALL EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, CONCRETE DRAINAGE SWALE, SIDWALK AND DRIVEWAY WITHIN THE PROPERTY LIMITS SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED, UNLESS IT IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR THAT THEY MEET THE CURRENT CITY STANDARDS.2. IF THE CURB, GUTTER, CONCRETE DRAINAGE SWALE, SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY DO NOT EXIST THEY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED.3. CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE POURED MONOLITHICALLY, BUT SEPARATE FROM SIDEWALK.4. ALL DRIVEWAY SLOPES TO BE 2% FROM TOP OF CURB OR LIP OF SWALE TO RIGHT-OF-WAY.5. WHEELCHAIR RAMPS ARE REQUIRED ON CORNER LOTS AND MAY BE REQUIRED AT OTHER LOCATIONS.6. GRAFFITI IN FRESHLY POURED CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY UP TO AND INCLUDING REMOVE AND REPLACEMENT.7. ALL LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY MIST HAVE AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.8. ALL LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION MUST MEET CURRENT CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPER INSTALLATION. ALL SITE DRAINAGE SHALL BE TERMINATED AT PUBLIC WAY VIA NON-EROSIVE DEVICE PER HBMC.9. SUMP PUMPS REQUIRE 2" ABS. DISCHARGE LINE PER PUMP TO TERMINATE AT CURB.10. SEWER LATERALS MUST BE A MINIMUM 4" V.C.P. PIPE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONE LATERAL PER UNIT.11. SEWER LATERALS FOR CONDOMINIUMS SHALL BE A MINIMUM 6" V.C.P. PIPE WITH A MINIMUM OF 4 UNITS PER LATERAL.12. EXISTING SEWER LATERALS MAY BE USED IF THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN NOTES (10) AND (11) ARE MET AND A VIDEO TAPE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND IF THE VIDEO SHOW THE LATERAL TO BE IN GOOD CONDITION. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY 1. ANY ASPHALT OR CONCRETE STREET WITHIN THE PROPERTY LIMITS THAT IS DAMAGED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED TO MEET CURRENT CITY STANDARDS.2. ANY PUBLIC PROPERTY DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR. THE CITY SHALL AT ITS DISCRETION AND IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY, MAKE ANY REPAIRS DEEMED NECESSARY, THE COST OF WHICH WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE DEPOSIT HELD BY THE CITY. JOB SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 1. PROPER BARRICADES SHALL BE PLACED AROUND ANY CONSTRUCTION SITE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THESE BARRICADES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUREMENTS OF THE WORK AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL HANDBOOK (W.A.T.C.H.) MANUAL.2. ANYTIME A STREET OR ALLEY IS GOING TO BE CLOSED THE APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS REQUIRED. ALSO THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT DISPATCHER, SHALL BE NOTIFIED (310) 318-0313.3. STREET, ALLEY AND SIDEWALK CLOSURES REQUIRE PROPER SIGNAGE AND BARRICADES AS REQUIRED BY THE (W.A.T.C.H.) MANUAL. 4. ALL CONSTRUCTION FENCES ARE TO BE BEHIND THE SIDEWALK AND ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WITHOUT PERMITS ARE TO BE BEHIND THE FENCE. SIDEWALKS ARE TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO PEDESTREANS AT ALL TIMES.5. IF SCAFFOLDING IS NEEDED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, A PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED AND ALL PROVISIONS OF THE 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SECTION 3303 OR THE LATEST EDITION MUST BE MET.6. NO CONSTRUCTIO0N EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL, PORTABLE TOILETS, DUMPSTERS, ETC. SHALL BE LEFT ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OVERNIGHT WITHOUT PROPER PERMITS. THESE OBSTRUCTIONS MUST HAVE PROPER BARRICADES WITH FLASHING YELLOW LIGHTS OPERATING AFTER DARK.7. NO OVERNIGHT CLOSURES WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.8. ANY PUBLIC SIDEWALK DAMAGE TO THE POINT OF CAUSING A TRIP HAZARD DURING CONSTRUCTION, THAT PANEL OF CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND PATCHED WITH TEMPORARY ASPHALT PATCH WHICH MUST BE KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR UNTIL THE PERMANENT SIDEWALK IS CONSTRUCTED.9. ALL VEHICLES THAT INTRUDE INTO A NORMAL TRAFFIC LANE MUST HAVE PROPER SIGNAGE AND BARRICADES AS REQUIRED BY THE (WATCH) MANUAL.10. ALL WORK VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE PARKING RESTRICTIONS.11. MATERIAL DROPOFF IS NOT ALLOWED ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A PERMIT FORM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.12. FLAGMEN ARE REQUIRED FOR ANY VEHICLES THAT BLOCK THE TRAVEL LANE AND REQUIRE TRAFFIC TO USE THE OPPOSING LANES TO PASS.13. PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION SHALL COMPLY WITH UBC. SECTION 3303 DURING CONSTRUCTION. 14. ALL ACTIVITIES PERFORMED IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIRE PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT. STORM RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS 1. PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL DEBRIS OR RUNOFF FROM ENTERING ANY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR COUNTY STORM DRAIN. A SAW CUT RESIDUE MUST BE RETAINED WITH BERMS OR SAND BAGS AND VACUMMED TO PREVENT IT FROM ENTERING INTO ANY STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.2. SANDBAGS ARE REQUIRED FOR EROSION CONTROL DURING THE RAINY SEASON, OCTOBER 15th THROUGH APRIL 15th AND MAY BE REQUIRED AT OTHER TIMES.3. A POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION SITES TWO ACRES OR MORE.4. STORM WATER MITIGATION PLANS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS:A. SINGLE FAMILY HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENTS WITH A SLOPE GREATER THAN 25%.B. 10+ HOME DEVELOPMENTS.C. PARKING LOTS, 25 SPACES OR MORE.D. RESTAURANTSE. SERVICE STATIONS.F. AUTO REPAIR FACILITIES.G. 100,000 SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. SUCH PROJECTS MUST CAPTURE AND TREAT THE FIRST 3/4" INCH OF RAIN RUNOFF FROM THEIR SITE. INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 1. CALL FOR INSPECTION 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE (310) 318-0214.2. INSPECTIONS WILL ONLY BE DONE MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY 8:30 AM TO 12:30 PM AND 1:30 PM TO 4:30 PM OFFICE COUNTER HELP WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM 7:00 AM TO 8:30 AM AND 4:30 PM TO 6:00 PM.3. ALL FORMS AND COMPACTION SHALL BE INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE BEING POURED OR ASPHALT BEING PLACED.4. SEWER LATERAL PERMITS WILL NOT BE FINAL UNLESS A SEWER LATERAL DIAGRAM HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO ALL PROJECTS REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT UNLESS IT IS DETERMINED UNNECESSARY BY THE PUBLEC WORKS DIRECTOR. A GRADING PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR ANY PROJECT REQUIRING A BUILDING PERMIT UNLESS WAIVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY STANDARDS. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS 1.ANY UTILITY CUT WITHIN CITY STREETS SHALL BE EITHER PERPENDICULAR OR PARALLEL TO THE CENTER OF THE STREET. DIAGONAL CUTS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.2. BACKFILL OF TRENCHES SHALL BE DONE IN LIFTS OF NO MORE THAN TWO FEET (2) WITH WATER JET AND APPROPRIATE COMPACTION TOOL USED BETWEEN EACH LIFT. ONE SACK SLURRY MIX CAN BE USED IN PLACE OF NATIVE SOIL.3. AFTER BACKFILLING THE TRENCH A TEMPORARY ASPHALT PATCH SHALL BE PLACED OVER THE TRENCH AND REMAIN FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) WEEKS.4. THE PERMANENT PATCH WILL REQUIRE A ONE FOOT (1) MINIMUM OVERCUT ON EACH SIDE OF THE TRENCHLINE PRIOR TO THE FINAL PATCH, THE FINAL PATCH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE INCHES (5) THICK OR ONE INCH (1) THICKER THAN THE EXISTING PAVEMENT.5. THE FINAL PATCH IN ASPHALT STREETS TO BE DONE IN TWO LIFTS, A BASE OF 3" MINIMUM 3/4 AGGREGATE AND A TOP LIFE OF 2" OF 3/8" AGGREGATE. ALL EDGES OF THE CUT ASPHALT TO BE PACKED THOUOUGHLY AND THE PATCH COMPACTED BY MECANICAL MEANS TO A HEIGHT SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING ASPHALT AND ALL EDGES TO BE TACKLED.6. THE FINAL PATCH ON CONCRETE STREETS TO BE CLASS 3500 P.S.I. (7 SACK), EXISTING CONCRETE TO BE DRILLED TWO AND HALF INCHES (2 1/2") BELOW THE SURFACE TO A DEPTH OF 6" MINIMUM AND DOWELLED WITH #5 REBAR ON 18" SPACING. FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING OR MEDIUM BROOM.7. ALL UTILITY BOXES ARE TO BE NEW AND ADJUSTED TO THE NEW GRADE. KEEP ALL UTILITY BOXES OUT OF DRAINAGE FLOW LINES, CURB RETURNS, DRIVEWAY APPROACH AND WHEEL CHAIR RAMPS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.8. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE UNDER GROUND. CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR THEIR REVIEW. SHEET INDEX SHEET #SHEET NAME COVER 3D IMAGES G.00 PROJECT INFORMATION C.01 CIVIL SURVEY A.00 AREA CALCULATIONS A.01 SITE PLAN A.02 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A.03 FIRST & SECOND FLOOR PLANS A.04 THIRD FLOOR & ROOF PLANS A.05 ELEVATIONS A.06 ELEVATIONS A.07 SECTIONS A.08 SECTIONS A.09 SECTIONS A.10 ELEVATION COMPARISON Page 346 of 630 C.01 Page 347 of 630 WD UNIT #1 AREA1162 SF GARAGE507 SF STORAGE21 SF STORAGE7 SF UNIT #2 AREA876 SF GARAGE451 SF BALCONY160 SF OPEN SPACE160 SF UNIT #3 AREA825 SF UNIT #4 AREA761 SF BALCONY95 SF UNIT #4 AREA952 SF BALCONY705 SF OPEN SPACE300 SF SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:30 PM A.00 25016 AREACALCULATIONS A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 OPEN SPACE CALCS. UNIT #1 = 0 SFUNIT #2 = 160 SFUNIT #3 = 0 SFUNIT #4 = 300 SFTOTAL OPEN SPACE = 460 SF AREA CALCULATIONS UNIT #1 = 1,162 SFUNIT #2 = 876 SFUNIT #3 = 825 SFUNIT #4 = 1,713 SFTOTAL LIVING AREA = 4,576 SF REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" BASEMENT FLOOR AREA PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR AREA PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" SECOND FLOOR AREA PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" THIRD FLOOR AREA PLAN Page 348 of 630 110SW 561 3 86.73 127CHIS X 99.12N 65°07'00"E112.40'404CH S L X 99.12475SS M H 86.45 STREET 17.5' INTERSECTION ESTABLISHED PER FOUND TIES PER PWFB 0616-1112,1113 FOUND CHISLE "X" ACCEPTED AS C/L INTERSECTION PER R.S 277-90 SSMH STA 3+16.28 ELEV 86.27' 400 40296.56 403405 40741097.7141197.5841241397.61 414415416 41741897.7741997.73 42042142242397.96 424425426 42943043343586.62 43686.50437438439440 44144244344444544644744886.33 44986.24 451453454455456 45745845946046146286.5446386.64464467 468469470471472473474 477481485486487488489490491492493494 501504505511 450SSMH86.27 47586.45 97.9698.00 PC86. 5 5 97.70 PC97.66 WM 97. 6 4 F L WV 97.1597.02 FL97.2297.72 PP EBOX97.84 FL98.0198.00 WM98.4898.25 FL98.38 98.1498.37 98.5186.8086.78 TC86.41 FL86.48 86.27 86.18 FL86.52 TC 85.88 EG85.63 FL86.26 TC86.34CATV PM86.53 PC86.36 TC85.89 FL86.03 EG 86.34 TX 86.41 TX 86.42 TC 85.98 FL86.06 EG86.58CATV GM 86.71 PC 86.47 TX 86.55 TX86.08 FL86.18 EG86.8086.62 86.64 FL86.97 TC 86.58 86.5087.8887.9089.8889.9092.6092.5386. 3 9 86.49 87.5488.52 TW89.4291.01 92.4991.2793.75 99.12 98. 8 TP= P E N X L&T 3 0 8 2 6 TP= P E N X ELGA RFL FL FLFC FL HSHSTSL& T N O T A G L& T R C E 2 2 0 2 4 TPTCFL FLTCEGFLTCBS W CCTCFLEGTX TXTCFLEGNW C W TXTXFLEGBS W FLFL TWBSTSBSTSBSTSHS B S HSHS HSTWHS P R O D T S BSSEC W SS M H N 65°02'45"E 84.92'N 24°53'19"W30.07'N 65°04'10"E84.91'N 24°53'19"W219.52'7.50' 7.50'N 24°54'01"W223.82'N 24°54'01"W30.03'20.00' 20.00' N 67°18'41"E297.27' 184.75' 112.53' N 65°07'00"E112.40'113.75'30.03'80.05'80.15'30.07'109.30'18.6' 17.5' 1.0' 1.3' 61SE T L&T /PC520 521 57 58 522 523 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA AVENUE35TH STREET 34TH STREET SCALE 1" = 8' 3418 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 LOT 4, BLOCK 101 SHAKESPEARE M.B. 9-190 APN 4181-033-017 SURVEY AND TOPOGRAPHY FM TS JANUARY 10, 2022 REVISIONS 22-481 TONY FERRARO 3417 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 PHONE 416-666-1432 15' 7.5'7.5' 90' 70'20' NOTE: A TITLE POLICY HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND REVIEWED BY DENN ENGINEERS AT THE TIME OF THIS SURVEY. ANY READILY AVAILABLE ITEMS AFFECTING THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BASED ON PROVIDED DOCUMENTS. USA NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY ORDER NO. 072333486-30 DATED DECEMBER 30, 2022 FOUND L&T RCE 22024 1.00' W'LY & 0.05' N'LY OF PROP. CORNER TAG ELEV.=86.50' FOUND L&T NO TAG 1.00' W'LY & 0.06' N'LY OF PROP. CORNER TAG ELEV.=86.62' SET L&T RCE 30826 ON PROP. CORNER TAG ELEV.=97.70' FOUND L&T LS 3447 0.17' E'LY & 0.04' S'LY OF PROP. CORNER TAG ELEV.=98.00' EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING GARAGE CONC. GUTTERDRIVEWAYCONC. SIDEWALKFOUND MAG NAIL, NO REFERENCE STA.1+00.00 FOUND MAG NAIL, NO REFERENCE STA.1+04.34 SSMH STA.1+18.65 ELEV 86.27' INTERSECTION ESTABLISHED PER FOUND TIES PER PWFB 0616-1112,1113 STA.3+23.82 FOUND CHISLE "X" ACCEPTED AS C/L INTERSECTION PER R.S 277-90 STA.3+23.86 SSMH STA.3+16.28 ELEV 86.27' TO FOUND S&W LS 5411 @ MANHATTAN AVENUE PER R.S 277-90 SSMH STA.2+13.26 ELEV 97.58' SSMH STA.4+24.53 ELEV 100.18' E N G I N E E R S CONCRETE BRICK 106.76 EXISTING ELEVATION BLOCK WALL 100 EXISTING CONTOUR X EXISTING FENCE EXISTING BUILDING WOOD DECK BCR BEGINNING OF CURB RETURN CATV CABLE TV PULL BOX CONC.CONCRETE CHMNY CHIMNEY CEFB CITY ENGINEERS FIELD BOOK C/L CENTERLINE C.L.F. / W.I.F.CHAIN LINK FENCE / WROUGHT IRON FENCE E'LY EASTERLY EG EDGE OF GUTTER EM ELECTRIC METER FF FINISH FLOOR FH FIRE HYDRANT FL FLOW LINE GFF GARAGE FINISH FLOOR GM GAS METER GUY / GW GUY WIRE I.P. IRON PIPE MONUMENT L&T LEAD AND TACK / TAG MONUMENT MH MANHOLE ( SANITARY SEWER / STORM DRAIN) N'LY NORTHERLY N&T NAIL AND TAG MONUMENT PB PULL BOX ( EDISON / TRAFFIC / STREET LIGHT PB (CONT)TELEPHONE / CABLE TV) PC PROPERTY CORNER / PROP. CORNER PL PROPERTY LINE / PROP. LINE PP / UP POWER POLE / UTILITY POLE PPT PARAPET PWFB PUBLIC WORKS FIELD BOOK R.R.RAIL ROAD RDFB ROAD DEPARTMENT FIELD BOOK R.S.RECORD OF SURVEY SPK / S&W SPIKE / SPIKE AND WASHER MONUMENT S'LY SOUTHERLY SSCO SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT STK / STK&T STAKE / STAKE AND TAG MONUMENT STLT / LT STREET LIGHT POLE / LIGHT POLE TC TOP OF CURB TX / BX TOP OF APRON / BOTTOM OF APRON W'LY WESTERLY WM WATER METER NOTE: ALL SETBACK DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MEASURED TO EXTERIOR SURFACE OF BUILDINGS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. R.C.E. 30826GARY J. ROEHL JOB ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY CHECK BY SHEET 1 OF 1 DRAWN ON REVISIONS JOB NO. THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS' ACT ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THIS PLAN WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF DENN ENGINEERS SHALL RELIEVE DENN ENGINEERS FROM ANY LIABILITY OR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM SUCH CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS, INCLUDING ANY ATTORNEYS FEES OR COSTS INCURRED IN ANY PROCEEDING THAT DENN ENGINEERS MAY BE JOINED. 3914 DEL AMO BLVD, SUITE 921 TORRANCE, CA 90503 (310) 542-9433 FOR COPYRIGHT LEGEND BOUNDARY MONUMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY SET ON PROPERTY CORNERS. PLEASE REFER TO THE NOTATION ON THIS SURVEY PLAT FOR OFFSET DIMENSIONS. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT DENN ENGINEERS FOR CLARIFICATION BY PHONE AT: (310) 542-9433, M-F 8:00 AM TO 5:00 PM.NORTHDN DN DNDNDNDN E A.08 EA.08 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 A A B B A A.07 A A.07 G A.09 G A.09 H A.09 H A.09 F A.08 FA.08 D A.08 DA.08 GARAGE GARAGE NEW 4 UNIT RESIDENCE BASEMENT SLAB = 87.00' FIRST FLOOR= 96.48' SECOND FLOOR= 106.48' THIRD FLOOR= 115.96' PALM DRIVEHERMOSA AVENUESHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:31 PM A.01 25016 SITE PLAN A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 KEYNOTE LEGEND SYM.DESCRIPTION REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE 1 Revision 1 Date 1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN NORT H Page 349 of 630 UPUP DN UP UP3 1/2"E A.08 E A.08 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 A A B B GARAGE UNIT #1 UNIT #1 LIVING ROOMACCESSIBLE UNIT UNIT #1 BEDROOM B UNIT #1 BEDROOM A A A.07 A A.07 G A.09 G A.09 H A.09 H A.09 F A.08 F A.08 D A.08 D A.08 88.52'93.00' TOW 12'-11"3 1/2"2'-0"3 1/2"5'-2"3 1/2"14'-7 1/4" ELEV WINDOW WELLTO PL3'-9 1/4"3'-2"3'-2"5'-0"22'-8 1/4"3'-0"2'-8"11'-9 1/4"15'-11 3/4"PANTRYLAUNDRYPOWDER ROOM BATH A BATH B CLOSET B 3'-7"4'-2"4'-8 5/8"ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM 2'-6"3 1/2"20'-2 23/256"3 1/2"3'-3"3 1/2"15'-0 3/4"3 1/2" 20'-2 1/8" GARAGE UNIT #2 REF.3'-3"MECH ROOM UNIT #2 ENTRY BUILT-IN 3 TRASH CANS - UNIT 1 ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE 21'-2 7/8"3'-9" TO PLTO PL 2'-1 1/8"TO PL3'-4 3/4"3'-6" TO PLTO PL 2'-2 1/4" TO PL 6'-8 3/8" TO PL 6'-8 1/8" SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:23 PM A.02 25016 BASEMENTFLOOR PLAN A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 KEYNOTE LEGEND SYM.DESCRIPTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE Page 350 of 630 DN DN DN DN DN DN WD DN DNUP E A.08 E A.08 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 A A B B 24'-3 151/256"15'-0 3/4"34'-8 1/4"7'-8"22'-8 1/4"UNIT #2 LIVING ROOM UNIT #2 BEDROOM B A A.07 A A.07 G A.09 G A.09 H A.09 H A.09 F A.08 F A.08 D A.08 D A.08 20'-0"GARAGEUNIT #2 BEDROOM A UNIT #3 & #4 ENTRY 1'-6" TO PL 2'-2"3'-9 35/128"3'-4 35/128"18'-8 1/4"18'-3 1/4"5'-0"2'-8"10'-7"12'-4 3/4"21'-5 3/8"GLASS RAIL 3'-5" 9'-7 7/8"3 1/2"4'-10"3'-1"UNIT #2 BATHROOM WINDOWWELL 3 TRASH CANS - UNIT 4 3 TRASH CANS - UNIT 33 TRASH CANS - UNIT 2 OPEN TO ABOVE 7'-0"1'-6"SIDE DISCHARGE STACKED AC UNITS FIREPLACE TO PL 6'-7 1/2" TO PL 6'-7 1/4"TO PL3'-10 1/4"TO PL3'-5 1/2"TO PL3'-9 7/8"TO PL3'-6"E A.08 E A.081 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 A A B B A A.07 A A.07 G A.09 G A.09 H A.09 H A.09 F A.08 F A.08 D A.08 D A.08 UNIT #3 BEDROOM A UNIT #3 BATH UNIT #4 5'-8"3'-0 5/8"5'-0"11'-2"11'-2 7/8"5'-0" 6'-0" 5'-0"3'-5 3/4"6'-0"6'-10 3/4"10'-0 1/8" FIREPLACE UNIT 3 LIVING AREA UNIT #3 BEDROOM B UNIT #4 BEDROOM OPEN TO BELOW UNIT #3 & #4 LOBBY LOW LINEN CAB UNDER WINDOWTO PL3'-10 1/4"TO PL3'-2 5/8"TO PL 1'-0 3/8" TO PL 1'-0 1/8"TO PL3'-2"TO PL3'-2"TO PL3'-6"TO PL 5'-7 1/4" TO PL 5'-7 1/8" SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:24 PM A.03 25016 FIRST &SECOND FLOORPLANS A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTE LEGEND SYM.DESCRIPTION REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE Page 351 of 630 DN E A.08 E A.08 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 A A B B A A.07 A A.07 G A.09 G A.09 H A.09 H A.09 F A.08 F A.08 D A.08 D A.08 UNIT #4 KITCHEN POWDER DINING 3'-0"LEDGE 3'-3" PANTRY FIREPLACEBELOW TO PL3'-2 5/8"TO PL3'-2 1/8"TO PL3'-2"TO PL3'-6"TO PL3'-2"TO PL 1'-0 1/8" TO PL 1'-0 3/8" TO PL 9'-3 1/4" TO PL 7'-1" E A.08 EA.08 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 A A B B A A.07 A A.07 G A.09 G A.09 H A.09 H A.09 F A.08 FA.08 D A.08 DA.08 FIREPLACEBELOW 6'-0" OVERHANG 3'-0"TO PL2'-6 1/8"TO PL2'-6 5/8"TO PL 1'-0 3/8" TO PL 1'-0 1/8"TO PL2'-6"TO PL2'-6"SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:25 PM A.04 25016 THIRD FLOOR &ROOF PLANS A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 KEYNOTE LEGEND SYM.DESCRIPTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF PLAN REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE Page 352 of 630 BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' FIRST FLOOR96.48'FIRST FLOOR96.48' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ROOF124.46'ROOF124.46' E A.08 97.70' PC 86.53' PC 12345G A.09 H A.09 F A.08 D A.08 98.80' NEIGH 97.66' NEIGH 92.49' NEIGH 91.27' NEIGH 89.42' NEIGH 93.75' NEIGH 88.52' TOW 89.83' TOW 90.83' TOW 93.00' TOW 94.83' TOW 91.83' TOWINTERPOLATED LINE FROM PROPERTY CORNERSHEIGHT FROM INTERPOLATED LINE34'-3 1/4"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE6'-0" MAX6'-0" ACTUAL6'-0"97.15' TOW 99.45' TOW99.45' TOW99.45' TOW99.45' TOW99.45' TOW 102.48' TOW 30' ABOVE INTEROPLA T E D G R A D E BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' FIRST FLOOR96.48'FIRST FLOOR96.48' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ROOF124.46'ROOF124.46' 86.71' PC86.53' PC ABA A.07 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:26 PM A.05 25016 ELEVATIONS A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 KEYNOTE LEGEND SYM.DESCRIPTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST ELEVATION Page 353 of 630 BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' FIRST FLOOR96.48' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ROOF124.46' E A.08 86.71' PC 98.00' PC 123 4 5G A.09 H A.09 F A.08 D A.08 86.50' NEIGH 87.88' NEIGH 87.90' NEIGH 89.88' NEIGH 89.90' NEIGH 92.60' NEIGH92.53' NEIGH 95.81' NEIGH 98.14' NEIGH GARAGE98.00' 89.73' TOW9'-5 3/4"8'-6"8'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT.11 3/4"8'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT.11 3/4"7'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT.11 3/4"8'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT.11 3/4"9'-0 1/4" ROUGH PLATE HT.11 3/4"8'-6" ROUGH PLATE HT.UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4 PROPOSED GRADE ON SUBJECT LOT8'-7 49/256"2'-7 113/256"4'-0"3'-1 41/64"3'-6"90.50' FS 92.23' FS 93.95' FS 95.67' FS 88.69' FSPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEINTERPOLATED LINE FROM PROPERTY CORNERSHEIGHT FROM INTERPOLATED LINE34'-0 3/8"AC UNITS 6'-0"103.60' TOW 101.67' TOW 99.95' TOW 98.23' TOW 96.50' TOW 94.69' TOW 92.73' TOW6'-0"6'-0"7'-9 3/4"6'-0"3'-0"6'-0"6'-0"6'-0"30' ABOVE INTEROPLATE D G R A D E BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ROOF124.46'ROOF124.46' 97.70' PC98.00' PC ABA A.07 GARAGE98.00'GARAGE98.00' 98.00' LIP 5'-6"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:27 PM A.06 25016 ELEVATIONS A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION KEYNOTE LEGEND SYM.DESCRIPTION REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EAST ELEVATION Page 354 of 630 BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' FIRST FLOOR96.48' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ROOF124.46' E A.08 123 4 5 G A.09 H A.09 F A.08 D A.08 UNIT #2 LIVING ROOM GARAGE98.00' POWDER UNIT #4 SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:28 PM A.07 25016 SECTIONS A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION A REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE Page 355 of 630 BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ROOF124.46'ROOF124.46' AB A A.07 GARAGE98.00'GARAGE98.00' KITCHEN UNIT #1 BEDROOM B BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' FIRST FLOOR96.48' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ROOF124.46'ROOF124.46'8'-6"11 3/4"8'-6"11 3/4"9'-0 1/4"11 3/4"8'-6"4"AB A A.07 GARAGE98.00' UNIT #3 BATH BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' FIRST FLOOR96.48'FIRST FLOOR96.48' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ROOF124.46'ROOF124.46' AB A A.07 UNIT #4 UNIT #2 BEDROOM B UNIT #1 BEDROOM A SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:29 PM A.08 25016 SECTIONS A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION D SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION E SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION F REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE Page 356 of 630 BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' FIRST FLOOR96.48'FIRST FLOOR96.48' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ABA A.07 GARAGE98.00'GARAGE98.00' UNIT #1 LIVING ROOMACCESSIBLE UNIT BASEMENT FLOOR87.00'BASEMENT FLOOR87.00' FIRST FLOOR96.48'FIRST FLOOR96.48' SECOND FLOOR106.48'SECOND FLOOR106.48' THIRD FLOOR115.96'THIRD FLOOR115.96' ABA A.07 GARAGE98.00'GARAGE98.00' UNIT #2 LIVING ROOM GARAGE UNIT #1 SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:30 PM A.09 25016 SECTIONS A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION G SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION H REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE Page 357 of 630 SHEET NUMBER COPYRIGHT DRAWING PRINT DATE PROJECT NUMBER REVISIONS STAMP PROJECT 8/28/2025 12:35:34 PM A.10 25016 ELEVATIONCOMPARISON A NEW 4 UNITRESIDENCE 3415 PALM DRIVEHERMOSA BEACHCALIFORNIA 90254 REVISION SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DATE Page 358 of 630 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 | hermosabeach.gov | HermosaBchCity HermosaBeachCity Date: April 22, 2025 To: Planning Department From: Heecheol Kwon, Public Works Department Project Address: 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach Memorandum Re: Sewer Capacity review at 3415 Palm Drive The City of Hermosa Beach Public Works Department has reviewed the sewer master plan in relation to the subject site. Upon review, Public Works confirmed there are two sewer mains – one Hermosa Avenue and another Palm Drive. The sewer service lateral for the subject site is connected to the sewer main on Hermosa Avenue. According to the sewer master plan, there is no identified deficiency in sewer capacity up to the point where it connects to the Los Angeles Sanitation District sewer line. If additional information is needed, please contact Heecheol Kwon at hkwon@hermosabeach.gov Reviewed By: Heecheol Kwon, P.E. Senior Engineer Cc: Joseph SanClemente, P.E., Public Works Director Page 359 of 630 5:47 PM p 5:46 AM 12:00 PM W S E N [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA TONY FERRARO SHADE STUDY Page 360 of 630 56' - 11" 53' - 11 1/2" [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CAFALL EQUINOX - 9 AM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - FALL 9 AM NORTH Page 361 of 630 11' - 9 1/2"26' - 1 1/2"[2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CAFALL EQUINOX - 12 PM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - FALL 12 PM NORTH Page 362 of 630 6 4 ' - 7 1 /2 "6 3 ' - 1 1 /2 " [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CAFALL EQUINOX - 3 PM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - FALL 3 PM NORTH Page 363 of 630 1 2 7' - 2" [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CAWINTER SOLSTICE - 9 AM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - WINTER 9 AM NORTH Page 364 of 630 [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CAWINTER SOLSTICE - 12 PM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - WINTER 12 PM NORTH Page 365 of 630 134' - 6"[2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CAWINTER SOLSTICE - 3 PM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - WINTER 3 PM NORTH Page 366 of 630 62' - 3" 59' - 9" [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CASPRING EQUINOX - 9 AM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - SPRING 9 AM NORTH Page 367 of 630 26' - 2 1/2"[2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CASPRING EQUINOX - 12 PM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - SPRING 12 PM NORTH Page 368 of 630 5 7 ' - 6 "5 8 ' - 1 0 1 /2 "[2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CASPRING EQUINOX - 3 PM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - SPRING 3 PM NORTH Page 369 of 630 37' - 5" 35' - 6" [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CASUMMER SOLSTICE - 9 AM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - SUMMER 9 AM NORTH Page 370 of 630 8' - 3"7' - 2 1/2"[2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CASUMMER SOLSTICE - 12 PM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - SUMMER 12 PM NORTH Page 371 of 630 37' - 11 1/2" 37' - 1" [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CASUMMER SOLSTICE - 3 PM TONY FERRARO 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN - SUMMER 3 PM NORTH Page 372 of 630 [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA3 IMAGES FOR SHADOWS TONY FERRARO 1 FALL EQUINOX - 12 PM3SPRING EQUINOX - 12 PM 2 WINTER SOLSTICE - 12 PM Page 373 of 630 [2025/04/29] | [25-0211] The drawings presented are illustrative of character and design intent only, and are subject to change based upon final design considerations (i.e. applicable codes, structural, and MEP design requirements, unit plan / floor plan changes, etc.) © 2024 BSB Design, Inc. 3415 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA3 IMAGES FOR SHADOWS - 30' TALL BUIDLING TONY FERRARO 1 FALL EQUINOX - 12 PM - 30' TALL BUILDING ON SITE2SPRING EQUINOX - 12 PM - 30' TALL BUILDING ON SITE 3.WINTER SOLSTICE - 12 PM - 30' TALL BUILDING ON SITE Page 374 of 630 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE @ Garage Door87.00' ESTCODE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE S8B-ECT PROPERTY3415 PALM DR.APN: 4181-033-017LOT 4 BLOCK 101ELEVATION COMPARISON AT HERMOSA AVE. - WEST SIDE1/4" = 1'-0"3410 HERMOSA AVE.APN: 4181-033-018LOT 5 BLOCK 1013422 HERMOSA AVE.APN: 4181-033-016LOT 3 BLOCK 101bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592A-4.2Page 375 of 630 PLAN HERMOSA | 167 Figure 5.3 Prominent Public Viewpoints and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas Page 376 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMPROJECT LOCATION:OWNER’S NAME:ADDRESS:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:APN:GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION:LOT AREA:UNIT 1LIVING AREATOTAL BUILDING GARAGE AREADECKS/BALCONIESTOTAL LIVING AREATOTAL DECKS/BALCONIESNO. OF BEDROOMSNO. OF BATHROOMSZONING INFORMATIONAREA:LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNITLOT COVERAGEYARDS:FRONTSIDEREARPARKING AND DRIVEWAYS:NUMBER OF SPACESGUEST SPACESPARKING SETBACKSPARKING STALL DIMENSIONTURNING AREADRIVEWAY WIDTHDRIVEWAY MAXIMUM SLOPEFENCES/WALLS:HEIGHT FROM FINISHED SURFACELINEAL FEETOPEN SPACE:TOTALPRIVATE (PER UNIT)REQUIREDPROVIDEDUNIT 2TEL:ZONING:TOTAL BUILDING AREA:UNIT 3PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE:CUBIC FEET PER UNITBASEMENT QUALIFICATION CALCULATIONBUILDING 11ST LEVEL F.F. ELEVATIONLINEAL FEET (LF) OF PERIMETERLF OF PERIMETER <6’ FROM GRADETO F.F. ABOVE% OF PERIMETER <6’ TO F.F. ABOVEBUILDING 2BUILIDNG 3BUILDING 4UNIT 4UNIT 5LOBBY, ELEVATOR & STAIRSBUILDING COMMON AREAS:(LOW INCOME UNIT)CS-0VICINTY MAPA/C AIR CONDITIONINGACOUS. ACOUSTICALA.D.AREA DRAINA.F.F. ABOVE FIN. FLOORALUM. ALUMINUM@ ATBLDG. BUILDINGBED.BEDROOMBR. BRUSHEDCEM. CEMENTCLG. CEILINGCL. OPNG CLEAR OPENINGC.N. CONSTRUCTION NOTECOL. COLUMNCONC. CONCRETECONT. CONTINUOUSCONTR. CONTRACTORC.T. CERAMIC TILEDET. DETAILD.F. DRINKING FOUNTAINDIA. DIAMETERDIM. DIMENSIONDR. DOORDW. DISHWASHERDWG. DRAWINGELEV. ELEVATIONELEC. ELECTRICALELEVAT. ELEVATOREXIST. EXISTINGF.D. FLOOR DRAINF.E. FIRE EXTINGUISHERF.H.C. FIRE HOSE CABINETF.F. FINISH FACEFIN. FINISHFLR. FLOORFLOUR. FLOURESCENTF.O.S. FACE OF STUDF.W.C. FABRIC WALL COVERINGGA. GAUGEGAL. GALVANIZEDGD. GARBAGE DISPOSALGL. GLASSG.T. GRANITE TILEGYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARDHDWD. HARDWOODHDWR. HARDWAREH.M. HOLLOW METALHGT. HEIGHTH.V.A.C. HEAT., VENT., AIR COND.LAV. LAVATORYMAX. MAXIMUMMTL. METALMFG. MANUFACTURERMIN. MINIMUMMIR. MIRRORM.T. MARBLE TILEMUL. MULLIONMW. MICROWAVEN.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACTN.T.S. NOT TO SCALEO.A. OVER ALLO.C. ON CENTERPART. PARTITIONP.L. PLASTIC LAMINATEPOL. POLISHEDPR. PAIRP.T.PRESSURE TREATEDQ.T. QUARRY TILERAD. RADIUSR/F REFRIGERATOR/ FREEZERREF. REFERENCEREQ. REQUIREDRM. ROOMR.R. RESTROOMS.C. SEPARATE CIRCUITSECT. SECTIONSHT. SHEETSIM. SIMILARSPECS. SPECIFICATIONSS/R STOVE/RANGES.STL. STAINLESS STEELSTD. STANDARDSUSP. SUSPENDEDT.C. TRASH COMPACTORTBD. TO BE DETERMINEDTELE. TELEPHONETHK. THICKTYP. TYPICALU.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVERT. VERTICALV.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELDVOL. VOLTSV.C.T. VINYL COMP. TILEV.S.F. VINYL SHEET FLOORINGV.W.C. VINYL WALL COVERINGW/ WITHWC. WALL COVERINGABBREVIATIONSCONSULTANTSDENN ENGINEERS3914 Del Amo Blvd, Suite 921Torrance, CA 90503Phone: (310) 542-9433BF DESIGN LLCBoris Flores - Principal118 S. Catalina Ave.Phone: (310) 614-0592email: borisflores73@gmail.comBUILDING DESIGN:STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:TITLE 24 CALCULATIONS:SURVEYOR:SHEET INDEXSOILS ENGINEER:3415 PALM DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254PROPOSED NEW 5-UNITMR. TONY FERRAROGeneral Project InformationTopographic Survey / Parcel MapCivil Plans - Title SheetDemolition PlanGrading & Drainage PlanBasement Subdrain PlanPublic ImprovementsCivil Plans DetailsDriveway profiles & SectionsErosion Control PlanSite PlanEntry Level Floor Plans1st Floor Plan2nd Floor Plan3rd Floor PlanDeck Floor Plan & Roof PlanExterior ElevationsExterior ElevationsCS-0:TS:C-1C-2C-3C-3AC-4C-5C-6C-7A-1.0A-2.0A-2.1A-2.2A-2.3A-3.0A-4.0A-4.13415 PALM DRIVEMR. TONY FERRARO(416) 666-14323417 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 902544181-033-017LOT 4, BLOCK 101 SHAKESPEARE M.B. 9-190--2,553 SQ.FT. (PER SURVEY)1,961 SQ.FT.600------76.8 %--2.11' & 1.08'------4--38'-6" X 20'-0"9'-0" X 20'-0"N/AN/AN/AN/A12 %2 %6'-0"6'-0"169 FEET----NOT APPLICABLE92292267319386868085483627922922673193868688548301122221122.532014364.12' & 3.13'8.33' & 1.16'Project LocationTBDTBDTBDPERU CONSULTANTS, INC.5061 Rockvalley Rd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Phone: (424) 404-7692CIVIL ENGINEER:CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGPage 66 of 401County of Los AngelesFire DepartmentFire Prevention DivisionLand Development UnitCLEARED FORPUBLIC HEARING05/29/2025Page 377 of 630 N 65°02'45"E84.92'N 24°53'19"W 30.07'N 65°04'10"E84.91'N 24°53'19"W 219.52'7.50'7.50'N 24°54'01"W 223.82' N 24°54'01"W30.03'20.00'20.00'PALM DRIVE HERMOSA AVENUE 97 . 9 6 98. 0 0 P C86.5597.70 PC97.6698.2198.42WM97.64 FLWV97 . 7 2PPEBOX97 . 8 4 F L 98.0198. 0 0 WM98.26 GFF98 . 1 3 98.1498. 3 7 98. 4 5 98 . 6 4 98.51 86 . 8 0 86.78 TC86.41 FL86.4886 . 5 3 P C 86 . 7 5 86.36 TC85.89 FL86.03 EG86.34 TX86.41 TX86.42 TC85.98 FL86.06 EG86 . 5 8 CATVGM86 . 7 1 P C87.0586.97 GFF86.47 TX87.83 90. 7 2 T W 91. 6 9 93.76 94.9210 0 . 7 6 T W 95 . 2 3 95 . 5 4 95.75 86 . 5 8 86.50 87.88 87.90 89.88 89.90 92.60 92.5386.3986.4986.9286 . 9 2 87.00 FF86.74 87.97 87.5488. 5 2 T W 90 . 3 8 89.4291.0192.5792.5492.49 91.27 93 . 4 4 93.7595.6495.79 98.29 98.97 98.30 98. 8 2 EM118.76 RIDGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XFOUND L&T RCE 220241.00' W'LY & 0.05' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.50'FOUND L&T NO TAG1.00' W'LY & 0.06' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.62'SET L&T RCE 30826ON PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=97.70'FOUND L&T LS 34470.17' E'LY & 0.04' S'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=98.00'EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING GARAGECONC. GUTTER DRIVEWAY CONC. SIDEWALK 30.03' 30.07'SSMHSTA.2+13.26ELEV 97.58'12.6'98.8bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/8"=1'-0" Proposed Site PlanN3.08' 3.08'2.11'1.08'8.33'1.06'3.13' 4.12' 3.13'LANDSCAPE/PLANTERS AREAONE STORY ELEMENTSITE PLAN LEGENDT.O.P.- TOP OF PILASTERT.D.F.S.T.W.T.C.- FINISH SURFACE- TOP OF FENCE- TOP OF WALL- TOP OF CURB- TRENCH DRAINE.G.- EXISTING GRADEA.D.- AREA DRAINF.G.- FINISH GRADEA-1.0T.F.F.C.- FINISH CONCRETETWO STORY ELEMENTA/CA/CA/CDNDNDNGESOutline Of 5 AC UnitsStacked LocationACCESSIBLE PATHOutline of Deck andThird Floor Line AboveConcrete StepsOn GradeProvide Handrail(5) Electric Meters: 30"Min. Clr. Width, 36"Min. Clr. in Front(5) Gas Meters: 36" Clr.from Electric MeterOutline of Light Wellwith 42" Tall Guardrailat PerimeterOutline of First, SecondFloor and Deck at ThirdFloor Line AboveOutline of First, Secondand Third Floor DeckLine AboveOutline of Third FloorLine AboveOutline of First andSecond Floor Line AboveOutline of Back ofGarage at Entry LevelOutline of Back ofGarage at 1st Floor LevelConcrete StepsOn GradeProvide HandrailOutline of Second andThird Floor Line AboveGUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")Outline of CoveredConcrete Trash AreaFIVE-UNIT RESIDENCEW/ 4 CARGARAGEGUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")GUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")17.58'Page 79 of 401County of Los AngelesFire DepartmentFire Prevention DivisionLand Development UnitCLEARED FORPUBLIC HEARING05/29/2025Page 378 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" Entry Level Floor PlanScale :1/4"=1'-0" 1st Floor Plan40'-6"16'-9"11'-0"1'-1"2'-1"3'-1"22'-10"4'-112" 3'-112"10'-4"13'-6"81'-9"13'-11"8'-0"6'-0"14'-1"12'-6"21'-0"8'-4"75'-6"1'-1"12'-6"13'-6"3'-1"11'-4"3'-112"23'-10"6'-0"35'-0"12'-6"21'-0"2'-1"8'-4"3'-11 2"23'-10"3'-1"74'-6"ELEVATORUPUPUPBEDROOMUNIT 1ACCESSIBLEBATHACCESSIBLE UNITKITCHEN2- CAR GARAGELOBBYSTORAGE /MECH. ROOMMECH.ELEV.LIGHTWELL(LOW INCOME)LIVING AREAUPREF.Ø60"W/D5'-0"12'-6"2- COVEREDPARKINGØ60"5'-0" x 1'-6"AWNINGHEIGHT WINDOW3'-0" x 6'-0"CASEMENTEGRESS WINDOW3'-6"3'-6"ELEVATORUPDNA/CA/CA/CDNUNIT 22- CAR GARAGELIGHTWELL BELOWTRASH AREALOBBYKITCHENLIVING AREABEDROOM #1BEDROOM #2W/DDECKDNDNBATH #2BATH #1A-2.0GENERAL LEGENDKEY NOTESUnit 1 Living Area: 600 sq.ft.2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIOR WALLS;2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS AND 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT WALLS BETWEENHOUSE AND GARAGE FOR R-19 INSULATION- U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTH TROWEL CEMENTPLASTER OVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPER OVER SHEATHING AND 5/8"GYPSUM BOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FOR INSULATION REQUIREDLobby Area: 96 sq.ft.Garage: 936 sq.ft.Stairs and Elevator Area: 69 sq.ft.Unit 2 Living Area: 922 sq.ft.Lobby Area: 91 sq.ft.Garage Area: 500 sq.ft.ACCESSIBLE PATHACCESSIBLE PATH2'-0"18'-0"3'-10"Page 80 of 401Page 379 of 630 ELEVATORUPDNLOBBYKITCHENLIVING AREABEDROOM #1BEDROOM #2BATH #2BATH #1W/DDECKUNIT 3LIVING AREAUNIT 4KITCHENLAUNDRYBATHBEDROOMDECKDWbfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" 2nd Floor PlanScale :1/4"=1'-0" 3rd Floor Plan13'-11"8'-0"6'-0"14'-1"12'-6"82'-9"1'-1"12'-6"3'-1"11'-4"3'-112"23'-10"35'-0"12'-6"4'-6"2'-1"81'-9"6'-0"10'-9"7'-0"6'-0"1'-1"15'-3"13'-0"3'-112"9'-6"2'-4"12'-0"3'-1" 23'-10"1'-1"10'-0"31'-6"9'-6"9'-6"8'-0"14'-3"1'-1"82'-9"3'-1"23'-10"3'-112"2'-1"9'-0"12'-6"12'-3"7'-2"6'-6"11'-6"14'-3"3'-11 2"4'-0"14'-4"3'-1" 23'-10"81'-9"ELEVATORDNDWDECKKITCHENFOYER HALLBATH #2BEDROOM #2MASTERBEDROOMPANTRYLAUNDRYPOWDERROOMGREAT ROOMUNIT 5D.W.MASTERBATHROOMUPSTORAGEREF.LOWER LINEAL FIRE PLACEBUILT-IN5'-6" 11'-4"12'-6"GENERAL LEGENDA-2.1KEY NOTES2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS - U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTH TROWEL CEMENT PLASTEROVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPER OVER SHEATHING AND 5/8" GYPSUMBOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FOR INSULATION REQUIREDUnit 3 Living Area: 922 sq.ft.Lobby Area: 91 sq.ft.Unit 4 Living Area: 673 sq.ft.Unit 5 Living Area: 1,640 sq.ft. at 3rd Floor +298 sq.ft. at Roof DeckTotal Living: 1,938 sq.ft.3'-4"5'-3"Page 81 of 401Page 380 of 630 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" Roof Deck Floor PlanELEVATORDNOPENOPENOPENROOF DECKFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFFAUW/HHPFAUW/HHPOFFICEUPPER HALLScale :1/4"=1'-0" Roof Plan1'-1"16'-0"13'-0"13'-0"27'-9"3'-1"2'-6"5'-312"1'-6"3'-212"2'-012"5'-312"2'-6"3'-112" 3'-1"6'-10"13'-6"3'-6"3'-112"2'-1"15'-0"13'-0"26'-0"27'-9"1'-1"1'-1"16'-0"25'-6"13'-6"27'-9"3'-1"6'-10"13'-6"3'-6"3'-112"2'-1"21'-6"19'-0"13'-6"27'-9"1'-1"1'-6"3'-1"2'-6"5'-312"1'-6"3'-212"2'-012"5'-312"2'-6"3'-112"1'-6"A-3.0GENERAL LEGEND2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIORWALLS AND 2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS - U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTHTROWEL CEMENT PLASTER OVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPEROVER SHEATHING AND 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FORINSULATION REQUIREDRoof Deck Area: 245 sq.ft.KEY NOTESROOF DECK FINISH OVER WATERPROOFING DEX-O-TEX ESR-1757INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS OVER METAL FLASHING, OVER DECKSHEATHING AND LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WHERE OCCURS.IB PVC FLAT ROOFING SYSTEM -CLASS "A" LARR # 25961; ESR-2852;CRRC No. 0640-00052 % SLOPE MINIMUM TO DRAINCONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WATERPROOFINGAND DRAINAGE SLOPE PATTERN AND ADJUST ASNEEDED FOR BETTER DRAINAGE AND WATERPROOFINGOPENOPENOPENROOF DECKFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOF13'-0"Page 82 of 401Page 381 of 630 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0"53'-9" 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 42'-6"111222245555669577101112131415151718P.C.98.00F.F. ELV.98.25F.F. ELV.88.00'P.C.86.71SOUTH NEIGHBOR'SPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 53'-9"2222255766778121414@ Garage Door87.00' P.C.86.53P.C.86.71FINIISH SURFACES12345678GLASS GUARDRAIL 42" ABOVE DECK - BY FRAMELESS HARDWARE COMPANY LLC -ESR-4814 - OR SIMILAR - SEE9107/8" CEMENT PLASTER - SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH - COLOR TO FOLLOWCHIMNEY CAP - SMOOTH STUCCO FINISHSTAIN GRADE WOOD CORBELCAST STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM MOLDINGSTAIN GRADE BERMUDA WOOD SHUTTERSHAPED STUCCO WING WALLSTAIN GRADE RECESSED WOOD PANELINGFUR-OUT FRAMED STUCCO SURROUND WALLSTAIN GRADE WOOD HORIZONTAL TRIM1112ALUMINUM CLAD SLIDING FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOORMANUFACTURER - SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE1314No. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE WEEP SCREED - SEE DETAIL15STONE VENEER - SPECIFICATIONS TO FOLLOWMOSAIC TILE - SPECIFICATION TO FOLLOWWROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL - SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOFABRICATIONALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER- SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE16ALUMINUM CLAD FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER - SEEFLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULEOUTLINE OF FINISHED FLOOR BELOW GRADE1718bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592A-4.0Page 83 of 401Page 382 of 630 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 53'-9" 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0"42'-6"11122555667778212151515161618F.F. ELV.98.25P.C.97.70P.C.86.53NORTH NEIGHBOR'SADJACENT GRADE LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 42'-6"115915151718F.F. ELV.98.25P.C.97.70P.C.98.00FINIISH SURFACES12345678GLASS GUARDRAIL 42" ABOVE DECK - BY FRAMELESS HARDWARE COMPANY LLC -ESR-4814 - OR SIMILAR - SEE9107/8" CEMENT PLASTER - SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH - COLOR TO FOLLOWCHIMNEY CAP - SMOOTH STUCCO FINISHSTAIN GRADE WOOD CORBELCAST STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM MOLDINGSTAIN GRADE BERMUDA WOOD SHUTTERSHAPED STUCCO WING WALLSTAIN GRADE RECESSED WOOD PANELINGFUR-OUT FRAMED STUCCO SURROUND WALLSTAIN GRADE WOOD HORIZONTAL TRIM1112ALUMINUM CLAD SLIDING FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOORMANUFACTURER - SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE1314No. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE WEEP SCREED - SEE DETAIL15STONE VENEER - SPECIFICATIONS TO FOLLOWMOSAIC TILE - SPECIFICATION TO FOLLOWWROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL - SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOFABRICATIONALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER- SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE16ALUMINUM CLAD FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER - SEEFLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULEOUTLINE OF FINISHED FLOOR BELOW GRADE1718bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592A-4.1Page 84 of 401Page 383 of 630 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION Land Development Unit 5823 Rickenbacker Road Commerce, CA 90040 Telephone (323) 890-4243, Fax (323) 890-9783 EPIC-LA NUMBER:PROJECT NUMBER:FLDU2025001350 CITY/COMMUNITY:STATUS:Cleared PROJECT ADDRESS:3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 05/29/2025DATE: CONDITIONS In lieu of the required 5 feet firefighter walking access on each side of the apartment building, the installation of a fire sprinkler system in compliance with NFPA 13 standards, LA County Fire Code section 903.3.1.1, is required. 1. The Fire Department recommends changing the building main address from Palm Drive to having the address of Hermosa Avenue as the infrastructure such as an access road and water supply are all located off Hermosa Ave. 2. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located on the street-address side of buildings; facing approved fire apparatus access roads; within 150 feet (via vehicular access) of an accessible public fire hydrant; as close to the street curb face as possible; fully visible; and recognizable from the street, fire apparatus access road or nearest point of fire department vehicle access; or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. FDC shall be located a minimum of 25 feet (7620 mm) from the structure. When this distance cannot be achieved, a minimum 2-hour fire-resistive wall shall be provided for the structure with no openings in the wall, for 25 feet (7620 mm) in either direction from the FDC. The required fire-resistive construction and lack of openings shall extend for the full height of the wall or building as determined by the fire code official. The fire code official may allow sufficiently protected overhead openings. FDC shall be located not less than 24 inches (609.6 mm) nor more than 42 inches (1066.8 mm) above grade. 3. For any questions regarding the report, please contact Juan Padilla at (323) 890-4243 or Juan.Padilla@fire.lacounty.gov. Reviewed by:Page 1 of 1 PDP24-08 Hermosa Beach Page 384 of 630 Page 385 of 630 Page 386 of 630 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, California Historic Resource Evaluation May 16, 2024 Submitted by: Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 David Kaplan, Principal Pam O’Connor, Architectural Historian Page 387 of 630 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Summary of Research and Methodology 1 Regulatory Framework 2 Project Location and Setting 6 Development History of Hermosa Beach and the 3400 block of Palm Drive 9 Building Description and History 13 Review of Previous Surveys 16 Evaluation of Eligibility 16 Conclusion 19 References 20 Attachment A: Photographs Attachment B: Maps Attachment C: Building Permits Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Attachment E: DPR Records Attachment F: Resumes Page 388 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kaplan Chen Kaplan conducted a historic resource assessment of the multi-family residential buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive (also known as 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue). The property was developed with a 4-unit apartment building and 4-unit garage in1956 according to City of Hermosa Beach building permit records. The multi-family dwellings at 3415-17 Palm Drive did not influential the development history of the City of Hermosa Beach. They are not representative of any historic or significant architectural style. No historic persons or events are associated with the subject property. This Historic Resource Assessment conducted by Kaplan Chen Kaplan followed standards and guidelines established by the National Park Service and the California Office of Historic Preservation. The findings of the Historic Resource Assessment are based on research, field observations, evidence, technical guidelines and analysis and evaluation conducted by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications. The Historic Resources Survey conducted for the City of Hermosa Beach for the City’s General Plan Update in 2013-2014 did not identify the subject property as an eligible historic resource. The findings of this current intensive Historic Resource Assessment found no evidence that the subject building is an eligible historic resource. The buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive do not meet the criteria to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources or as a City of Hermosa Beach Landmark. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY A comprehensive methodology for researching the development history of properties and evaluation of the research to determine potential historic eligibility included conducting the following activities: • Field review of in April 2024 • Field review of adjacent area in April 2024 • Photography of subject property and adjacent area • Building Permit Research • Assessor data research • Review of City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Surveys and related materials and documents • Research online databases and sources • Research online library resources • Review of City Directories • Review of aerial and topographic maps • Research online photographic databases Page 389 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 2 • Research historic newspaper databases • Review of technical sources on architectural styles • Evaluation of properties in accordance with federal, state, and local eligibility criteria All the field data and research data were analyzed and evaluated by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Preservation/Architectural Historian and by an architect who meets the Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architect. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The importance of historic resources has been recognized by federal, state, and local governments through programs and legislation that identify and recognize buildings, structures, object, landscapes, and districts that possess historic significance. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considers historical resources part of the environment. A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the significance of an historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment. A property that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, is listed in a local register of historical resources, or has been identified as historically significant in an historic resources survey that meets specific criteria is considered a historical resource under CEQA. To determine if a property is a potential historical resource, it must be evaluated for its eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources and/or as a local historical resource. National Register of Historic Places The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as an authoritative guide “used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and indicate what properties should be afforded protection from destruction or impairment.”1 Buildings, districts, sites and structures may be eligible for listing in the National Register if they possess significance at the national, state or local level in American history, culture, architecture or archeology, and in general, are over 50 years old. Significance is evaluated using established criteria: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 136 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60. Page 390 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 3 Significance of Association National Register Bulletin 32, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, provides guidance on evaluating potential historic association with people who have “made contributions or played a role that can be justified as significant.” For association with leaders or prominent families it is necessary “to explain their significant accomplishments” and they “must be compared to those of others who were active, successful, prosperous, or influential in the same field.” Most properties nominated for associations with significant persons also are nominated for other reasons and a majority of properties nominated under the association criterion are also significant in the area of architecture or for the area in which the individual(s) achieved recognition. National Register Bulletin 32 adds that the fact that we value certain professions or the contributions of certain groups historically does not mean that every property associated with or used by a member of that group is significant. Associations with one or more individuals in a particular profession, economic or social class, or ethnic group will not automatically qualify a property. The contribution must be distinctive: it is not enough to show that an individual has acquired wealth, run a successful business, or held public office, unless any of these accomplishments, or their number or combination, is a significant achievement in the community in comparison with the activities and accomplishments of others. Integrity. Properties may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register as individual resources and/or as contributors to an historic district. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that in addition to meeting at least one of the four criteria, a resource should be evaluated to assess its integrity. For individual resources to qualify for inclusion they must represent an important aspect of an area’s history and possess integrity. An historic district must retain integrity as a whole, “the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished.” Historic Context. A resource must also be significant within an historic context. National Register Bulletin 15 states that an historic context explains “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific…property or site is understood and its meaning…is made clear.” To be determined eligible for listing on the National Register a property must possess significance within a historic context and possess integrity. Historic District. According to National Register Bulletin 15, an historic district derives its importance from being a unified entity whose identity as a district “results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment.” An historic district is “a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, or by documented differences in patterns of historic development or associations...the boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district.”2 2 National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, pp. 5-6, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf Page 391 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 4 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register, based on the National Register, is the “authoritative guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and indicate which properties are to be protected.” A building, site, structure, object, or historic district may be eligible for inclusion on the California Register if it meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison states that in addition to meeting one of the criteria of significance, a resource must “retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance” and “integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. ” Historical resources that “have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.” Series 6 Guidance also states, “Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.” Historical resources that do not retain sufficient integrity to qualify for the National Register may still be eligible for listing in the California Register: “a resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.”3 City of Hermosa Beach Landmark Criteria The City of Hermosa Beach’s historic resources preservation program was established in 1998 to encourage property owners of historically significant structures or sites to voluntarily apply for local landmark status. A resource may be designated a City of Hermosa Beach Landmark (Ord. 98-1186 §4, 11/10/98), if it meets one or more of the following criteria: 
 A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; or 
 3California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison, p. 3. Page 392 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 5 B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; or 
 C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or 
 D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; or 
 E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community, or the City. (Ord. 98-1186 §4, 11/10/98) 
 Aspects of Integrity The National Park Service Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, defines seven “aspects of integrity” and provides technical information on their application. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” To “retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects.” For resources that are significant for their association with historic events or persons to be eligible for the National Register the resource must retain “the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person.” For resources that are evaluated historic for their style or construction the “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. For a historic district to retain integrity as a whole, “the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished. In addition, the relationships among the district’s components must be substantially unchanged since the period of significance. When evaluating the impact of intrusions upon the district’s integrity, take into consideration the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the components that do not contribute to the significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment.” The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities associated with integrity that, in various combinations, define integrity: feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials. 1. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved. 2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, Page 393 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 6 technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape. For a resource to be evaluated as significant for its design, a “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.” 3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. 4. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. 5. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. A property must retain key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. 6. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. 7. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and it is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship. PROJECT LOCATION The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive (aka 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) is located near the north border of the City of Hermosa Beach. The subject property is in the north section of the area known as The Walk Street Neighborhood. As noted in the Hermosa Beach General Plan this area “provides a range of beach side residential development and neighborhood commercial services within a linear street network. The walk streets that provide beach access from Hermosa Avenue out to The Strand are a feature unique to this beach front residential area.”4 The Strand, is a cement pedestrian and bicycle/skating pathway. The Strand is located between the sand beach and the private residential/commercial parcels. 4 City of Hermosa Beach Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, 2017. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9872/637001018228830000 Page 394 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 7 Location Map (Source: Plan Hermosa) Neighborhood Map The subject parcel is in the Shakespeare Tract, Lot 4, Block 101. The Los Angeles County Assessor gives the parcel the address of 3415-17 Palm Drive with Assessor Parcel Number 4181-033-017. There are six parcels on the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue/Palm Drive which is between 35th Street on its north and 34th Street on the south. Each parcel is approximately 30 feet wide and 85 feet deep. The parcels are bounded by Hermosa Avenue on the west and by Palm Drive, basically an alley, on the east. Neighborhood Map (Google Maps) Page 395 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 8 The parcel at 3415-17 Palm Drive is located between 35th Street on the north and 34th Street on the south. It is mid-block closer to the south end of the 3400 block. It has a general plan land use designation as high density residential. The buildings on the parcel have little setback from either the west, Hermosa Avenue property line and from east, Palm Drive property line. The west building faces Hermosa Avenue where it displays the address of 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue. The east building faces a narrow street that operates as an alley, with the name of Palm Drive where it displays the address of 3415-17 Palm Drive. East side of 3400 Block of Hermosa Avenue looking south West side of Palm Drive looking south Page 396 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 9 West side of 3400 Block of Hermosa Avenue DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE 3400 BLOCK OF PALM DRIVE Hermosa Beach was originally part of an 1837 Mexican land grant known as Rancho Sausal Redondo, granted to Antonio Ygnacio Avila by then- governor Juan Alvarado. The 22,458-acre property included the areas today known as Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. In 1855, the United States government recognized Avila as the rightful owner of the property. Upon his death in 1858 the property was sold to Scottish native Robert Burnett, who owned the Rancho Aguaje de la Centinela land grant. Burnett raised sheep and cattle on the land. In 1873 Burnett leased a portion of the land to Daniel Freeman and 12 years later Freeman bought the land and over the next 15 years divided the property selling it to various real estate developers. The land continued to change hands and eventually 1,500 acres were sold to developers, Moses Hazeltine Sherman and Eli Clark who had controlling interest of the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. At the turn of the 20th Century Hermosa Beach was primarily used for ranching and farming. The first land survey in Hermosa Beach was conducted 1901and the Hermosa Beach Tract was subdivided and recorded in September of that year for the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. The Tract was a strip of land that paralleled the coast of the Pacific Ocean and contained hundreds of parcels for both residential and commercial development. The strip was narrow, defined by the boardwalk, The Strand, on the west and Hermosa Avenue on the east, running parallel with the coast. In December 1901 the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company added another tract to the east of Hermosa Avenue to Summit Avenue (later Monterey Boulevard) and over the decades the City grew to the east. In December 1903 the area to the north of the Hermosa Tract was subdivided and recorded as the Shakespeare Tract by the Shakespeare Beach Company and the Los Angeles Pacific Railroad Company. The Tract was originally laid out with rectangular parcels in its north area and south with the center area of the Tract featuring a series of curvilinear streets. The streets of the Tract were named after 19th Century literary figures. The originally planned center curvilinear section was never fully realized. Later the east-west running streets were numbered, with the City of Hermosa street system starting with 1st Street on the South and 35th Street on the north. Page 397 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 10 The first boardwalk in Hermosa Beach consisted of wood planks (originally known as the Esplanade) and ran for two miles. In 1914 most of this boardwalk, by then known as The Strand, was constructed in cement with the final portion at the north end completed in 1926. Hermosa Beach’s first pier was built in 1904 by the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. The deck and pilings were wood, and the Pier extended five hundred feet out into the ocean. In 1913 the pier was partly washed away, and a new pier was eventually constructed. The City of Hermosa Beach was incorporated in 1907. The new City acquired ownership of the two-mile stretch of ocean frontage, which was included in an original deed to the City from the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. Two hundred ten feet on each side of the pier were dedicated in perpetuity as an area for recreation, free from commerce, and for the benefit of the public. The first decade of the 20th Century saw the beginning of the development of Hermosa Beach into a city. The population in 1910 was 679 and grew to 2,327 by 1920. The first Page 398 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 11 hotels, the Pioneer and Berth hotels were constructed. A City Hall, police and fire Departments, Post Office, schools, and library were all established. The Santa Fe Railway and the Los Angeles Railway connected Hermosa Beach to the region and nation. Vacant parcels continued to be developed over the decades as evidenced by the population growth. Between 1920 and 1940 the population grew by around 5,000 to 7,197. Between 1940 and 1950 the population grew by another 5,000 to 11,826. Again, the population grew by around 5,000 between 1950 and 1960 to 16,115. After that, over the 60 years between 1960 and 2020, the population grew by around only 3,500 to 19,728. The 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue/Palm Drive was slow to develop. In 1912 there were six parcels on the east side of Hermosa Avenue. The 1912 Sanborn shows that five years after the Shakespeare Tract had been recorded none of the six parcels on the east side of the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue/Palm Drive had been developed between Homer Avenue and Byron Avenue. Only a few parcels had been developed on the nearby streets. The 1927 Sanborn Map shows several parcels on the west side of the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue had been developed. On the east side of the block only one parcel had been developed – the parcel adjacent to the subject parcel on its north. 1912 Sanborn Map excerpt 1927 Sanborn Map excerpt The 1946 Sanborn Map shows that the west side of the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue had been developed with residences. On the east side of the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue/Palm Drive, all but two of the six parcels had been developed with residences. The subject property had not yet been developed. Page 399 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 12 1946 Sanborn Map excerpt 1960 Sanborn Map excerpt The 1960 Sanborn Map shows that the subject parcel had not yet been developed. However, City of Hermosa Beach building permit records show that the subject building with the address of 3414-18 Palm Drive was constructed in 1956. Satellite View of area around 3415-17 Palm Drive (Google Earth, c2023) Page 400 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 13 BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF 3415-17 PALM DRIVE In1956 a building permit was taken out to construct a four-unit apartment building with a four-car garage. The owner was Harry Sac (a 1967 permit notation lists owner as “Sax”). There was no architect listed. The contractor was Vincent Pickett. The address for the project was 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue on the 1956 permit card. The buildings are vernacular in style and do not reference any specific architectural style. From the satellite view of the property and field review, it appears that there are two buildings on the parcel. It is unclear if the smaller building facing Palm Drive was a four- car garage originally. Currently there are two garage doors on the Hermosa Avenue elevation and two garage doors on the Palm Drive elevation. It is possible the Palm Drive building originally was the garage for the property, as it is a smaller structure, but there is no documentation confirming that. Currently the residential units are on the upper story of each building and parking in the first-floor garages. Plan view of 3415-17 Palm Drive parcel (Google Earth, c2023) It is unclear whether the configuration of parking is original of if it was originally all In the building facing Palm Drive. Building permit records list that the buildings were re-roofed in 1987. Permits list that the building was sandblasted in 1980 and 1992. A number of building permits were taken out in the period between 1997 and 1999. These included statements about remodeling, interior alterations, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work, and addition of a roof deck. Hermosa Avenue elevation Palm Drive elevation Both buildings are two stories tall and rectangular in plan with flat roofs. The Hermosa Avenue elevation (with address of 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) has a roof with a front eave that is slightly pitched with a flat roof with a deck behind the eave. The front elevation is symmetrically balanced with two garage doors at the first level and with a tripartite window above each of the garage doors. The building is stucco clad except for Page 401 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 14 the upper level of the front (west) elevation which projects out slightly and is clad with vertical siding. The building that faces Palm Drive with the address of 3415-17, has a projecting upper level with two windows. The lower level has two garage doors. The area between the buildings has mechanical and support equipment. Wood stairways with lattice lead to the upper-level units. Hermosa Avenue (west) elevation and Hermosa Avenue (west) elevation and south elevation north elevation Area on first floor between buildings North elevation Area between buildings at upper floor Upper elevation between buildings Page 402 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 15 Palm Drive (east) and north elevations Palm Drive (east) and south elevations Occupant History In the 1950s City Directories transitioned into telephone books. While telephone numbers had been added, the occupations of the residents were no longer provided. Telephone directories identified by EDR included timepoints between1964 to 2005. In some years only one of the units was listed with the other unit not listed, or the citation of “occupant unknown” or “XXX” was provided. 3415 Palm Drive 1971 Robert B. Tuttle 1976 James Ruof 1987 Debbie Grossblatt 2005 Michael Miracle 3417 Palm Drive 1971 Jack D. Sachse 1976 Cynthia Gravees 1982 Jasper Colebank 1995 Scott Evans 2000 Charles R. Skelton 3414 Hermosa Avenue 1971 Alan Gabbaro 1976 Joe Somerville 1982 Mary Trischuk 1987 Coy Worden 2000 Susan Y. Wohn 3418 Hermosa Avenue 1971 Edward C. Hall 1987 Ted Kerman 1995 Justin Graham 2005 Christopher Faulkner No biographical information was identified for any of the occupants listed in the City Directories as residing at 3415-17 Palm Drive or 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue. Page 403 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 16 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS SURVEYS The City of Hermosa Beach commissioned PCR Services Corporation to conduct a historic resources survey for the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), published in August 2017, for the “Plan Hermosa” General Plan Update. The Survey findings were included in Appendix C. The survey consisted of an initial Windshield Survey of the entire City conducted by PCR architectural historians along with members of the Hermosa Beach Historical Society. This was followed by a City-wide reconnaissance survey by PCR staff of “all potentially historic buildings within the survey area, including previously recorded resources as well as all unevaluated properties containing buildings 45 years of age or older.”5 The subject building, 3415-17 Palm Drive (3414-18 Hermosa Avenue), was not identified as an eligible historic resource. A records search was also conducted as part of the 2013-14 historic resources survey. The subject property was not identified in the records search. Source: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Draft EIR EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY Broad patterns of history, historic events criteria. -Hermosa Beach Criterion A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. -Hermosa Beach Criterion B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history -National Register Criterion A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history 5 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Update EIR, Existing Conditions Report, p. 7-2. Page 404 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 17 -California Register Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The apartment building at 3415-17 Palm Drive was constructed in 1956, 53 years after the Shakespeare Tract was recorded and almost 50 years after the City was incorporated. The property is not associated with the early development of the City. The buildings were not the first constructed in the northern portion of the City; rather the development was in-fill, almost the last of the vacant parcels to be developed. This building did not stimulate the development of multi-family housing in the City of Hermosa Beach. There is no evidence that any historic events are associated with the building at 3415-17 Palm Drive. The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive does not meet the criteria related to broad patterns of history or association with historic events. Association with historic persons: -Hermosa Beach Criterion B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. -National Register Criterion B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. -California Register Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. A review of Telephone Directories did not identify any long-term occupants of the building. No biographical information was identified for any of the occupants of the building. None of the occupants achieved historic significance thus the property is not associated with the lives of historic persons. The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive does not meet the criteria related to association with historic persons. Significant historic design, work of a master architect or craftsman -Hermosa Beach Criterion C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. -Hermosa Beach Criterion D: It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect. -National Register Criterion C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. -California Register Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. The buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive/3414-18 Hermosa Avenue are not an example of any historic or significant architectural style. They do not display any architectural details or Page 405 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 18 references to any historic architectural style and neither possesses high artistic values. The buildings are not representative of any specific period. There is no evidence that the building was designed by a master architect. The workmanship is not that of a master craftsman. The buildings on the property at 3415-17 Palm Drive do not meet the criteria as an example of any historic architectural style and do not possess excellence of architectural design or craftsmanship. There is no evidence that the buildings are associated with a master architect. The materials and workmanship are not representative of that of a master craftsman. Potential to yield information related to pre-history or history -National Register Criterion D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history -California Register Criterion 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The property was developed in the mid-20th Century and budling techniques of the period are well documented. There is no unknown information about construction techniques or engineering that would be provided by this building. This report does not evaluate archeological resources. The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive does not meet the criteria to yield historic information about the building. Familiar visual feature -Hermosa Beach Criterion E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community, or the City. The building at 3415-17 Palm Drive is located mid-block on the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue; the Palm Drive elevation faces what is essentially an alley. The buildings on the parcel are not in a prominent location in terms of visibility. The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive does not meet the criteria of a familiar visual feature of the Walk Street Neighborhood. Historic District There is no concentration of buildings from any period of history, nor of any architectural style or property type to form an historic district. No historic district that includes the 3400 block of Palm Drive was identified in the Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Survey. Integrity Analysis Location: The buildings at the 3415-17 Palm Drive property are in their original location. Page 406 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 19 Design: While the buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive retains original massing and volume as a simple rectangular building, they do not represent or illustrate any historic architectural style or any significant construction techniques. The buildings are not examples of significant aesthetic design. Setting: The 3400 blocks of Palm Drive or Hermosa Avenue are not part of any historic district nor is the subject property representative of any historic setting. Workmanship: There is no evidence of skill of construction or of the work of a master craftsman. Materials: The materials used on the exteriors of the buildings are unremarkable; they are not representative of any specific historical period nor are they of exceptional quality. The exteriors of the buildings have undergone sandblasting at least two times. Feeling: The buildings do not communicate any historic aesthetic or sense of a particular period of time Association: There is no association with any historic persons or events. The property and buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive do not retain historic integrity. CONCLUSION The buildings at the property known as 3415-17 Palm Drive do not meet any of the criteria for eligibility as a historic resource. The findings of this report concur with the City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Survey that did not identify the subject building as an eligible historic resource. The property does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources or as a City of Hermosa Beach landmark. Page 407 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 20 REFERENCES Aerial Photographs. EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. California Index, Los Angeles Central Library. City Directories, EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Telephone Directories for Hermosa Beach. EDR City Directory data. City of Hermosa Beach, Building Permit Records City of Hermosa Beach, General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report, Technical Appendices, 2014. City of Hermosa Beach, Draft EIR for General Plan Update, 2017. City of Hermosa Beach, Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach, http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1351 City of Hermosa Beach, City of Hermosa Beach Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, 2017. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9872/637001018228830000 Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter. Los Angeles: An Architectural Guide. Salt Lake City: Gibbs-Smith. 2003. Gleye, Paul. The Architecture of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Rosebud Press. 1981. Hermosa Beach Historical Society, http://www.hermosabeachhistoricalsociety.org Los Angeles County Assessor Records McAllister, Virginia and Lee McAllister. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1984 Page 408 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan i May 16, 2024 Attachment A: Photographs 3400 Block of Hermosa Avenue 1. Looking north along 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue 2. West side of 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue looking north from 34th Street Page 409 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii May 16, 2024 3.East side of 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue looking north from 34th Street 4. East side of 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue looking south from 35th Street Page 410 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii May 16, 2024 5. 111 34th Street, vacant lot (corner of 34th Street and Hermosa Avenue 6. 3410 Hermosa Avenue Page 411 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv May 16, 2024 7. 3415-17 Palm Drive, facing Hermosa Avenue (aka 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) 8. 3422 Hermosa Avenue Page 412 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan v May 16, 2024 9. 3430 Hermosa Avenue 10. 108 35th Street (corner of 35th Street and Hermosa Avenue) Page 413 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi May 16, 2024 3400 Block of Palm Drive 11. 3400 block of Palm Drive, looking north from 34th Street 12. 111 34th Street, vacant lot, along Palm Drive Page 414 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii May 16, 2024 13. 3410 Hermosa Avenue, along Palm Drive 14. 3415-17 Palm Drive, along Palm Drive (east building) Page 415 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii May 16, 2024 15. 3422 Hermosa Avenue, along Palm Drive 16. 3430 Hermosa Avenue, along Palm Drive Page 416 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix May 16, 2024 17. 108 35th Street 18. Looking south along Palm Drive from 35th Street Page 417 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan x May 16, 2024 3415-17 Palm Drive (aka 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) 19. West elevation of west building, facing Hermosa Avenue (aka 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) 20. West elevation of west building facing Hermosa Avenue and its south elevation Page 418 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi May 16, 2024 21. West elevation of west building facing Hermosa Avenue and its north elevation 22. Garage door detail of west building, facing Hermosa Avenue Page 419 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii May 16, 2024 23. Window detail of west building, facing Hermosa Avenue 24. Side elevation of west building Page 420 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii May 16, 2024 25. Side elevation (south) of west building 26. Stucco detail Page 421 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiv May 16, 2024 27. East elevation of east building facing Palm Drive and its north elevation 28. East elevation of east building facing Palm Drive and its south elevation Page 422 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xv May 16, 2024 29. Garage door on east elevation of east building facing Palm Drive 30. Upper story overhang and window on east elevation of east building facing Palm Drive Page 423 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvi May 16, 2024 31. North side elevation of east building from Palm Drive 32. Area between west and east buildings Page 424 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvii May 16, 2024 33. Area between west and east buildings 34. Area between west and east buildings Page 425 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xviii May 16, 2024 35. South elevation of west building 36. Window detail on side of west building Page 426 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xix May 16, 2024 37. Area between east and west buildings 38. Area between east and west buildings, door and railing detail Page 427 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xx May 16, 2024 39. Area between east and west buildings, window detail 40. Area between east and west buildings Page 428 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxi May 16, 2024 41. Area between east and west buildings, window detail 42. Area between east and west buildings with railing detail Page 429 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan i May 16, 2024 Attachment B: Maps Aerial photograph (ca. 2022) Los Angeles County Assessor's Map Page 430 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii May 16, 2024 Original Tract Map (Page 1) Page 431 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii May 16, 2024 Original Corner Record (Page 1) Page 432 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv May 16, 2024 Original Corner Record (Page 2) Page 433 of 630 Historic Resource Assessment 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 ATTACHMENT C: Building Permits Page 434 of 630 941473418 HERMOSA AVE. LOT 4 BLK 101': SHAKESPEARE 4-unit apt. tt ex 9141 9/6/56 4-unit apt: Owner- arry Sac: Conti-Vincen Pickett: Plumb & H.S.-5716: Furn-5778 & 7779: Swr-3504;Temp.power-6174: Wiring 6214: OK 6/7/57 9918 _ 9/26/67°Water htr replaced: (3414 Hermosa) Owner- H. ax: Contr-Pac. Installers:No access for insp. eV() S r 4 -73 f 1/ q 7- 8-3I-13 Plbg. #12644, Remove laundry tray, Owner Barger; Contr: Herrin Plbg. OK 8/27/75. e).YZ 14- 3 a.-1 CQ - Ridn. y37 F q'//•78 Page 435 of 630 3414;= 3418 HERMOSA AVENUE, LOT 4, BLOCK 101 SHAKESPEARE' 18509 - 9/25/80 - Wet Sandblast, Owner: Colbank, Contr: A-1 22476 bldg. , sandblasting, 6/1/92; finaled: 8/3/92. V11:1 ( ti^fv(z -PA/14Pr A\k-es 'Roc 0 ipci n'6- 3/zSk' -.e4.0-nfCi-.11- 3 f1c c g r e( Page 436 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 BUILDING PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: B97-00144 Finaled 06/16/1997 12/19/1999 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3418 HERMOSA AVENUE Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: In House Plan Check - Alteration/Remodel Description: INTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND ADD ROOF DECK (620 SF) Lot Size: 30 X 85 # Units: 4 Valuation: $21,341.00 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: R-3 # Bldgs: 2 Owner: CHRIS SMITH 3418 HERMOSA AVE HERMOSA BEACH,CA , 90254 Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $445.50 1.00Building $356.40 1.00Building Plan Check $2.13 1.00Seismic Fees Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $804.03 $804.03 $0.00 Page 437 of 630 Redaction Log Reason Page (# of occurrences)Description no reason 1 (1)--- Page 438 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 BUILDING PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: B97-00301 Finaled 07/31/1997 02/02/1998 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3415 PALM DR Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Alteration/Remodel Description: REROOF Lot Size: # Units: 1 Valuation: $1,700.00 # Stories: 1 Use Zone: # Bldgs: 1 Owner: , Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $82.00 1.00Building $0.50 1.00Seismic Fees Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $82.50 $82.50 $0.00 Page 439 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ELECTRICAL PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: E97-00178 Finaled 06/16/1997 09/24/1999 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3418 HERMOSA AV Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Alteration/Remodel Description: 3 CIRCUITS, OUTLETS (10), LIGHT FIXTURES Lot Size: # Units: Valuation: # of Meters: 4 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: # Bldgs: Owner: , Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $92.40 1.00Electrical Permit Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $92.40 $92.40 $0.00 Page 440 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 MECHANICAL PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: M97-00042 Finaled 06/16/1997 09/15/1998 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3418 HERMOSA AV Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Alteration/Remodel Description: 1 FURNACE Lot Size: # Units: Valuation: # of Meters: 4 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: # Bldgs: Owner: , Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $35.30 1.00Plumbing Permit Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $35.30 $35.30 $0.00 Page 441 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 PLUMBING PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: P97-00079 Finaled 06/16/1997 09/15/1999 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3418 HERMOSA AV Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Alteration/Remodel Description: 2 FIXTURES, WATER HEAT, 5 FIXTURES, 4 VENT PIPING Lot Size: # Units: Valuation: # of Meters: 4 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: # Bldgs: Owner: , Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $90.20 1.00Plumbing Permit Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $90.20 $90.20 $0.00 Page 442 of 630 r 3415 — 17. Palm Drive See 3414-18 Hermosa Ave. M-1-3o ' l 5/0/V7 —roe tti Page 443 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 BUILDING PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: B02-00103 Finaled 03/04/2002 10/19/2010 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3417 PALM DR Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: In House Plan Check - Alteration/Remodel Description: A BAMBOO PATIO AWNING ON FRONT BUILDING (2 UNITS) (EXPIRED 6/21/04) (Charge 10% of building permit fee $14.80 to re-activate permit per B. Rollins, created a new job card for inspections 4/12/10) Lot Size: # Units: 4 Valuation: $4,500.00 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: # Bldgs: 2 Owner: CHRISTOPHER AND PATRICIA SMITH 3417 PALM DR 90254 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $162.80 1.00Building $118.40 1.00Building Plan Check $0.50 1.00Seismic Fees Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $281.70 $281.70 $0.00 Page 444 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 MECHANICAL PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: M22-00086 Issued 06/07/2022 06/07/2023 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3414 & 3418 Hermosa Avenue (aka 3415 Palm Drive) Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Other Description: A/C Add on's 2 Daikin fit (Heat Pumps) Lot Size: # Units: Valuation: # of Meters: # Stories: Use Zone: # Bldgs: Owner: FERRARO,TONY AND RENARDA L MISSISSAUGA CAN L5B, W2 99999-9999 Phone: Contractor: SOUTHWEST HVAC INC DOWNEY, CA 90241 Phone: License: 932164 Fee Item Item TotalUnit $74.00 1.00Mechanical Fee for Issuing Each P $104.00 2.00Heating, Ventilations, Air Condition $38.00 2.00Gas Piping System of 1 to 5 Outle $52.00 1.00Repair/Alter/Addition to Heating Ap Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $268.00 $268.00 $0.00 Page 445 of 630 Redaction Log Reason Page (# of occurrences)Description no reason 1 (3)--- Page 446 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan i May 16, 2024 Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Historic Aerials Aerial Photo 1928 Page 447 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1938 Page 448 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1947 Page 449 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv May 16, 2024 s Aerial Photo 1953 Page 450 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan v May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1963 Page 451 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1972 Page 452 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1977 Page 453 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1983 Page 454 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1989 Page 455 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan x May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1994 Page 456 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2002 Page 457 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2005 Page 458 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2009 Page 459 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiv May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2012 Page 460 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xv May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2016 Page 461 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvi May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2020 Page 462 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvii May 16, 2024 Sanborn Insurance Maps Sanborn Insurance Map 1912 Page 463 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xviii May 16, 2024 Sanborn Insurance Map 1927 Page 464 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xix May 16, 2024 Sanborn Insurance Map 1946 Page 465 of 630 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xx May 16, 2024 Sanborn Insurance Map 1960 Page 466 of 630 Historic Resource Assessment 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 ATTACHMENT E: DPR Records Page 467 of 630 Page1of 2 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA P1. Other Identifier: ____ DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date *P2. Location:Not for PublicationUnrestricted *a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' QuadDateT; R; of of Sec; B.M. c. Address City 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA Zip 90254 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone, mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 4181-033-017 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) There are two buildings on the parcel. Both buildings are two-stories tall and rectangular in plan with flat roofs. The Hermosa Avenue elevation (with address of 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) has a roof with a front eave that is slightly pitched with a flat roof with a deck behind the eave. The front elevation is symmetrically balanced with two garage doors at the first level and with a tripartite window above each of the garage doors. The building is stucco clad except for the upper level of the front (west) elevation which projects out slightly and is clad with vertical siding. The building that faces Palm Drive with the address of 3415-17, has a projecting upper level with two windows. The lower level has two garage doors. The area between the buildings has mechanical and support equipment. Wood stairways with lattice lead to the upper-level units. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP3 *P4. Resources Present:X Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) April 2024 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: X Historic Prehistoric Both 1956 *P7. Owner and Address: *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 2526 18thSt., Santa Monica, CA 90405 *P9. Date Recorded: 5/2024 Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Historic Resources Survey, 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 5/2024 *Attachments:NONELocation MapContinuation SheetBuilding, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological RecordDistrict RecordLinear Feature RecordMilling Station RecordRock Art Record Artifact RecordPhotograph Record Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 50400290175040029017 Page 468 of 630 1*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA *NRHP Status Code: 6Z Page2of2 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) 2100 N Cahuenga Blvd B1Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Multi-Family Dwelling B4. Present Use: Multi-family Dwelling *B5. Architectural Style: None *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) In1956 a building permit was taken out to construct a four-unit apartment building with a four-car garage. The owner was Harry Sac (a 1967 permit notation lists owner as “Sax”). There was no architect listed. The contractor was Vincent Pickett. The address for the project was 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue on the 1956 permit card. The buildings are vernacular in style and do not reference any specific architectural style. It appears there are two buildings on the parcel. It is unclear if the smaller building facing Palm Drive was a four-car garage originally. Currently there are two garage doors on the Hermosa Avenue elevation and two garage doors on the Palm Drive elevation. It is possible the Palm Drive building originally was the garage for the property, as it is a smaller structure, but there is no documentation confirming that. Currently the residential units are on the upper story of each building and parking in the first-floor garages. It is unclear whether the configuration of parking is original of if it was originally all in the building facing Palm Drive. Building permit records list that the buildings were re-roofed in 1987. Permits list that the building was sandblasted in 1980 and 1992. A number of building permits were taken out in the period between 1997 and 1999. These included statements about remodeling, interior alterations, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work, and addition of a roof deck. *B7. Moved? No Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: None b. Builder: Vincent Pickett *B10. Significance: Theme Multi-family Residential Development Area: Period of Significance: 1895-1970 Property Type: Multi-family dwelling Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity. The buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive/3414-18 Hermosa Avenue are not an example of any historic or significant architectural style. They do not display any architectural details or references to any historic architectural style and neither possesses high artistic values. The buildings are not representative of any specific period. There is no evidence that the building was designed by a master architect. The workmanship is not that of a master craftsman. There is no evidence that anyone of historic significance or historic events associated with the property. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Historic Resources Survey, 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 5/2024 B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen Kaplan *Date of Evaluation: 5/2024 Page 469 of 630 Historic Resource Assessment 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 ATTACHMENT F: Resumes/Qualifications Page 470 of 630 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Historic Preservation Kaplan Chen Kaplan is an award-winning architecture and planning firm with a specialty in historic preservation. Historic resources are touchstones to the past that tell the stories of our diverse cultures. Kaplan Chen Kaplan believes that a thoughtful and balanced approach to historic preservation shapes the best designs and enhances communities. For over 20 years KCK has been providing services ranging from identifying historic resources for planning and environmental review to preserving and rehabilitating historic resources to ensure their future as useful, sustainable buildings and places. Historic preservation planning services include historic research and resource assessments, including CEQA level reports for environmental review, on a wide range of property types. Other services include development of historic contexts, HABS documentation, preparation of landmark designation nominations for local, state and federal levels, Mills Act and Federal Tax Act applications, master planning of historic resources, coordination with governmental agencies and reviews including Section 106 compliance. Architectural services include rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic resources. development of concept documents for approvals and fundraising efforts, architectural design and construction documents, specifications for treatment of historic structures and materials, as well as comprehensive construction phase services. We utilize the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Structures and State Historical Building Code to assist in analyzing and preserving original historic design within a safe environment. For construction projects we meet with architects, engineers, conservators and other consultants to develop an overall preservation strategy leading to detailed specifications. We meet frequently with review and plan-checking agencies as well as the State Historic Building and Safety Board. Our extensive experience with historic construction monitoring helps us anticipate and minimize the impact of unknowns Pam O'Connor and David Kaplan have worked together since 1995 on historic preservation issues, originally with Dr. Knox Mellon, former California's State Historic Preservation Officer. David Kaplan, licensed Architect, studied Architecture at University of Pennsylvania and received his graduate degree from UCLA. Pam O’Connor, planner and architectural historian, holds a Master of Science degree in Historic Preservation Planning from Eastern Michigan University. Kaplan Chen Kaplan meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Historic Architect and Architectural Historian. Kaplan Chen Kaplan is identified as qualified for historic architecture and architectural history by the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and as qualified for CEQA level historic resource assessments in the City of Los Angeles. Page 471 of 630 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners Selected Architectural Projects Greystone Mansion (NRHP), Comm'l. Kitchen, HVAC, ADA and Library Restoration, City of Beverly Hills, 2010-2020 Fairfax HS Arts Gallery Project, Historic Resource Impacts Evaluation, 201 Fire Station15 Relocation and Adaptive Re-Use, USC School of Cinema Arts, 2014-2016 Biscuit Lofts (Nabisco Building) Landmark & Mills Act, Maintenance Plan 2007-2020 LAUSD Fort McArthur Naval Station Buildings, Assessment, Relocation & Rehabilitation, 2010-2016, Documentation & Monitor 2013-2014 El Pueblo Siqueiros Mural & Interpretive Center, Historic Architect. 2010–2013 El Palacio & Lotus Apartments, West Hollywood, Mills Act Maintenance Plan update, 2009 Chinese American Museum, Condition Assessment Report, Los Angeles, 2005 LAUSD Armory - Annenberg Science Center, CEQA Monitor, Historic Architect, 2000–2005 LAUSD Ambassador Hotel, Historic Documentation, Supplemental EIR & Monitor, 2006-2009 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Historic CEQA Monitor, 1997-2001, and Historic Architect, Project Restore, Council Chambers & Furniture, 2001 University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Historic Documentation, Construction Monitoring, Seismic Repair: Powell Library, Kerckhoff Hall, Royce Hall, Haines Hall, Kinsey Hall, Men’s Gym, Kaufman Hall (Dance), Mira Hershey Hall, Geffen Playhouse, Chancellor’s Residence, Clark Library, 1995-2007 University of Southern California, Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Seismic Repair: Doheny Memorial Library, Student Union, Mudd Hall, Kerckhoff House, Cockins House, Town & Gown, Physical Education, Business Administration, North Science, Hancock Hall, and Alumni House (Relocation) 1995-2019 Selected Historic Resource Assessment Projects Institutional facility, McLaren Hall, El Monte, Historic Resource Assessment, County of Los Angeles, 2020 Residence, 1711 Tropical Avenue, Beverly Hills, Historic Resource Assessment and Secretary of Interior’s Compliance Evaluation, 2020 Garden apartment complex, Dorset Village, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2020 Mixed use building, Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 College Campus, Los Angele Trade Technical College, Los Angeles, Auditorium Building and Campus, Historic Resource Assessment, 2019 Car wash, 7617 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Office building, 6464 Canoga Avenue, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Historic Context, Cathedral City Historic Context and Resource Report, 2017 Residence, 11100 Chalon Road, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2017 Motel, 15485 Ventura Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Business district, Swarthmore Avenue Historic Resource Assessment and HABS documentation, Pacific Palisades, 2016 Airport, Burbank Bob Hope Airport Historic Resource Evaluations, Burbank, 2014 Historic Resource Assessments for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 40 properties Historic Resource Assessments for West Hollywood properties, approximately 50 properties Page 472 of 630 Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 David Kaplan Principal Historic Architect David Kaplan is a registered architect with 30 years of experience working on historic preservation in Southern California. He brings a wide range of experience working in all phases of historic preservation including evaluations, assessments, documentation, and analysis of potential project impacts through construction monitoring. His knowledge of historic properties is furthered by his firm’s own design and construction documents for historic projects. Mr. Kaplan meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture and Architectural History. His work includes: CEQA level Historic Resource Assessments;; Secretary of Interior’s Standards compliance; HABS documentation, Mills Act submittals and local, state and federal landmark nominations. Selected Projects Greystone Mansion (NRHP), Comm'l. Kitchen, HVAC, ADA and Library Restoration, City of Beverly Hills, 2010-2020 HRA for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 40 properties 2016-2020 HRA for West Hollywood properties, approximately 30 properties, 2016–2019 Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 Residence, Venice Canal District, Historic Resource Assessment, 2020 MLK Jr. Medical Center, CEQA Cultural Resource Assessment & Monitor, 2015- 2020 Fairfax HS Arts Gallery Project, Historic Resource Impacts Evaluation, 2016 7617 Santa Monica Boulevard Carwash – EIR Cultural Resources Review, 2018 Fire Station15 Relocation and Adaptive Re-Use, USC School of Cinema Arts, 2014- 2016 Biscuit Lofts (Nabisco Building) Landmark & Mills Act, Maintenance Plan 2007-2020 LAUSD Fort McArthur Naval Station Buildings, Assessment, Relocation & Rehabilitation, 2010-2016 Sixth & Lucas Adaptive Re-use (1926, 8 story) Cultural Resource Assessment, Historic Documentation & Monitor 2013-2014 El Pueblo Siqueiros Mural & Interpretive Center, Historic Architect. 2010–2013 El Palacio & Lotus Apartments, West Hollywood, Mills Act Maintenance Plan, 2009 Chinese American Museum, Condition Assessment Report, Los Angeles, 2005 LAUSD Armory - Annenberg Science Center, CEQA Monitor, Historic Architect, 2000–2005 LAUSD Ambassador Hotel, CEQA Historic Documentation, Supplemental EIR & Mitigation Monitor, 2006-2009 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Historic CEQA Monitor, 1997-2001, and Historic Architect, Project Restore, Council Chambers & Furniture, 2001 Page 473 of 630 Architects & Planners David Kaplan Principal Historic Architect Page 2 University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Historic Documentation, Construction Monitoring, Seismic Repair: Powell Library, Kerckhoff Hall, Royce Hall, Haines Hall, Kinsey Hall, Men’s Gym, Kaufman Hall (Dance), Mira Hershey Hall, Geffen Playhouse, Chancellor’s Residence, Clark Library, 1995-2007 University of Southern California, Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Seismic Repair: Doheny Memorial Library, Student Union, Mudd Hall, Kerckhoff House, Cockins House, Town & Gown, Physical Education, Business Administration, North Science, Hancock Hall, and Alumni House (Relocation) 1995-2019 Awards California Preservation Foundation, USC Historic Resources Restoration & Maintenance, 2017 Los Angeles Conservancy, American Tropical, Presidents Award, 2013 California Preservation Foundation, UCLA Kaufman Hall Rehabilitation, 2007 Los Angeles Conservancy, Wallis Annenberg Bldg. for Science (Armory), Honor Award, 2006 Los Angeles Conservancy, Geffen Playhouse Rehabilitation, Honor Award, 2006 Los Angeles Conservancy, USC Mudd Hall Seismic Upgrade, Honor Award, 2004 California Preservation Foundation, USC Doheny Library Seismic Renovation, 2002 Governor's Award for Historic Preservation, Powell Library Ceiling Restoration, UCLA, 1997 Additional Qualifications and Experience NPS Qualifications: Historic Architecture, Architecture History CHRIS - Historic Architect & Architectural History Registered Architect, State of California C12875, LEED AP Kaplan Chen Kaplan, Santa Monica, California, Principal, 1987 to present Knox Mellon and Associates, Riverside, California, Consultant, 1994 - 2000 Moore Ruble Yudell Architects and Planners, Santa Monica, Associate, 1986 - 1993 Urban Innovations Group, Los Angeles, California, Designer, 1977 – 1980 Education University of California, Los Angeles, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Master of Architecture, 1979 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Bachelor of Arts in Design of the Environment, honors major, cum laude, 1975 Page 474 of 630 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 Pam O’Connor Preservation Planner and Architectural Historian Pam O’Connor is a preservation planner and architectural historian with 30 years of experience working in California. She brings a multi-disciplinary approach with experience in historic preservation planning, cultural geography, and architectural history as well as experience in planning policy and municipal governance to her work. Ms. O’Connor meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards for Architectural History. Professional Services: Historic Resource Assessments (including CEQA level); Development of Historic Context Statements; Impacts Analyses and Secretary of Interior’s Standards compliance; Historic documentation; Section 106 review; Local, state and federal landmark nominations Property types: Educational facilities and campuses: UCLA, USC, LATTC, CSU Channel Islands, LACC Institutional facilities and medical centers: Mc Laren Hall, MLK Jr. Medical Center Commercial buildings: office, retail, car wash, restaurant, banks, motels/hotels Industrial buildings and facilities: manufacturing, aerospace facilities, airports, automobile dealership Residential: single-family, multi-family, garden apartments, mixed use buildings Education: Master of Science, Planning/Historic Preservation, Eastern Michigan University Master of Liberal Studies, Technology Management, Eastern Michigan University Bachelor Science, Journalism, Southern Illinois University Awards: California Preservation Foundation (CPF) Design Awards: USC Doheny Library, 2002; CSU Channel Islands, 2000; UCLA Royce Hall, 1998; UCLA Powell Library, 1997, CPF Milton Marks Legislator of the Year Award, 1999. LA Conservancy Award, UCLA Royce Hall, 1999. Governor’s Award for Historic Preservation, UCLA Powell Library Ceiling Restoration, 1996. Public Service: Director (Alternate) Metrolink, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (2018-present); State of California Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee (2015-preent); Councilmember, City of Santa Monica (1994-2018; Mayor 1997, 1999, 2005, 2013-14); Director, Los Angeles County Metro (2001-2015); Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council (1996-2017); California Coastal Commission (Alternate, 2010- 2012); President, California Association of Councils of Governments (2015-2017) Page 475 of 630 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners Pam O’Connor Preservation Planner and Architectural Historian Page 2 Select Consulting Projects: Darrow Building by John Lautner, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2022 Los Angeles Daily News, 14539 Sylvan Street, Van Nuys, Historic Resource Assessment, 2021 Dorset Village Garden Apartments, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2021 HRA for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 50 residential properties 2016-2023 HRA for West Hollywood properties, approximately 30 residential properties, 2016–2023 McLaren Hall, El Monte, Historic Resource Assessment, Los Angeles County, 2020 Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 Los Angele Trade Technical College, Los Angeles, Auditorium Building and Campus, Historic Resource Assessment, 2019 Car Wash, 7617 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Aerospace HQ, 6464 Canoga Avenue, Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Motel, 15485 Ventura Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Cathedral City Historic Context and Resource Report, 2017 Swarthmore Avenue Business District, Pacific Palisades, Historic Resource Assessment and HABS documentation, 2016 Martin Luther King Jr. Medical Center, Historic Documentation, 2015 Burbank Bob Hope Airport Historic Resource Evaluations, Burbank, 2014 Aerospace industrial facility, (37 Buildings), San Fernando Road, Burbank, CA, 2013 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Site Monitoring, 1998-2001 Page 476 of 630 Page 477 of 630 Page 478 of 630 Page 479 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1.A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d)(5). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES. 2.REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-18), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-15), AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84662 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS AT 1011MANHATTAN AVENUE, WITHIN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE AND COASTAL ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYACT GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alison Becker, AICP Community Development Director Page 480 of 630 City News & Press Releases Notice of Public Hearing | Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 2025 Post Date:08/27/2025 6:00 PM City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1. A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d)(5). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES. 2. REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-18), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 24-15), AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 84662 FOR A NEW TWO-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 30 FEET IN HEIGHT, DEVELOPED AS CONDOMINIUMS AT 1011 MANHATTAN AVENUE, WITHIN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE AND COASTAL ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303 (c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. Notice of Public Hearing | Planning Commission Meeting September 16... https://www.hermosabeach.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4355/... 1 of 3 8/28/2025, 10:28 AM Page 481 of 630 Return to full list >> PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alison Becker, AICP Community Development Director Legal Notice PC Sept 16 2025 Sign up to receive the latest news from Hermosa Beach Email Address Notice of Public Hearing | Planning Commission Meeting September 16... https://www.hermosabeach.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4355/... 2 of 3 8/28/2025, 10:28 AM Page 482 of 630 212 3412 235250247229 3402 201 20921022121622323624024933353320 3314 3414 3408 3404 3313373306 325 32163232218 22522022723123224124224524832053204310314 32252152002052112082302342372432523030 21922422624429062918 2072172142222924 2920 1221271301381422901 2930 3026 3022 3018 3010 30023020119 1501473130 3122 3112 120128135310131253224 3206 115 121126132139136320132173316 3312 3302 330014014433133324 3510 3504 35153501108 3430 3422 3410 111 123118125124133 137 3419 3518 3411 3417 3423 3435 34363443 3405 3330 3318 3310 3301 3233 3231 3222 3220 3207 3133 3124 3116 3108 3104 3100 3035 3033 3031 3007 3129 3003 33rd St Manhattan AveHi ghland Ave 34th St 29th St 33rd Pl Palm D r HermosaA ve 34th Pl Cr est Dr35th St 31st StBayviewDr 30th St Longfell o w A v e 30th Pl 3 4 th S t34th Pl 31st Pl 32nd Pl 35th Pl Neptune 35th S t The S tr a n d3415 300' RADIUS MAP ADDRESS: 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 r Page 483 of 630 Community Development Department Planning Division, Attn: Jake Whitney City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Assessor Parcel Number 4181-033-017 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to consider the request described below. A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d)(5). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860 Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 eComment - Submit an eComment by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items and must be sent to planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item & meeting date in the subject line & must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. As a courtesy, the City will broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only & not guaranteed to be technically feasible. To guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in person. If you experience technical difficulties, please try another viewing platform. View agendas at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254 Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda Alison Becker, AICP Community Development Director Page 484 of 630 Page 485 of 630 34th St Hi ghl andAve33rd PlThe S t rand Manhat t an AvePalm D r 33rd St 34th Pl Cr es t Dr35th St BayView D r Hermo sa Ave 3 4 th S tLongfell o w A v e 34th Pl 31st Pl 31st S t 32nd Pl 35th Pl Neptun e A v e 35th S t Project Zoning MapPlanning CommissionSeptember 16, 2025 Description 3415 Palm Drive APN: 4181-033-017 Zone: R-3 Multiple Family Residential 5-unit project, Precise Development Plan Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) 300' Notification Radius Page 486 of 630 Linda and Peter Biche **************nd Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 *******@verizon.net | ********@verizon.net June 1, 2025 Planning Commission & City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: June 17, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting – 3414–3418 Hermosa Ave. (3415 Palm Dr.) Builder’s Remedy / Housing Element – Opposition Letter Dear Commissioners and Councilmembers, We strongly oppose the proposed project at 3414–3418 Hermosa Avenue under the Builder’s Remedy. Despite the city’s housing element delay, this project threatens the character, safety, and livability of Hermosa Beach—and legal grounds to deny or modify it remain. This development would tower over its surroundings, strain public infrastructure (parking, sewers, water, electricity), and degrade historical vistas and coastal light. It is incompatible with the neighborhood’s scale and charm, and it does not meaningfully address the housing crisis. A full environmental and community review is necessary. Local zoning, community input, and sustainability values are being bypassed. The project’s environmental impact—including congestion and coastal ecosystem disruption—must not be overlooked. Alternatives that meet housing goals while preserving community character should be prioritized. Legal pathways remain open, including the California Coastal Act (to protect scenic views), CEQA review, and health and safety exemptions. Experts believe this project is not automatically entitled, and over 90% of public feedback is opposed. We urge the city to stand with its residents and use all available legal and procedural tools to reject or significantly revise this project. Let’s not let a procedural loophole permanently damage our coastal community. Thank you for your continued commitment to protecting Hermosa Beach. Sincerely, Linda and Peter Biche From: Michael Newman <*********@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 10:12 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: I oppose the building project at 3415 Palm Drive To the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission: I strongly oppose the five story building project at 3415 Palm Drive. This building should not be exempted from the current city height restriction. Allowing the construction of this building will affect all the residents of our city. Please do not let plans for this construction move forward. Michael Newman 310-4************ ***** H***** Ave, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Letters, eComments & Emails - 3415 Palm Drive Page 487 of 630 From: Hayes Noel <********l@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2025 11:54 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 53’ building! Please deny approval of the proposed building at 3415 Palm Drive. It is way out of character for Hermosa to have an apartment building 20’ above code limits. We fear it will change our neighborhood irretrievably. Thank you. Hayes Noel 2**********0 Strand Hermosa Beach Sent from my iPhone From: Dana Jacobs <**********@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2025 9:24 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 50 foot tower in Hermosa Beach? Really This cannot be allowed to happen. How do you miss a deadline like this? Dana Jacobs 1** 2*th St. From: renee wright <*************@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 3:07 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive proposed development Dear Planning Department I am asking you to PLEASE leave our Hermosa Beach town intact by denying such a monstrosity from being built in our beach town. We have so few small bungalows remaining to keep the beach image of our town alive. Building such a tall building with so many resident will impact our image, our traffic, our living density and block the view of so many residents who call this their home and treasure their living space Please…. YOU must STOP this and any future similar buildings from destroying our homes, our beaches, out beach town. I beg you! Sincerely, Renee Wright 5********* street Hermosa Beach Page 488 of 630 From: Zach Warren <*********@icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2025 11:29 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Planned 50 foot luxury rental My name is Zachary Warren. I live at 2***** Hermosa Ave . I am strongly opposed to the development of 3415 Palm as a 50 foot luxury apartment building that would destroy the character of our neighborhood, create traffic and fire risk, and hurt every Hermosa Beach resident who played by the roles in development of their own properties. We built our house from 2010 to 2013 and played by the 30 foot rule like everyone else has. Please stop this ridiculous project that would create awful precedent. Thanks, Zach From: Harari, PJ <******i@mlaglobal.com> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2025 4:14 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Opposition to 50-foot development at 3415 Palm Drive We are opposed to the 50-foot development at 3415 Palm Drive / for what it means for our community in general, not just for this project, but also for this project. PJ Harari and Dan Kircher - homeowners in Hermosa Beach for 26 years Partner 310-***-1*** cell From: mclough44 <m*******@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 11:34 AM To: City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov>; Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Development Hello City Councel and HB Planning Commission- I just wanted my voice to be heard concerning the proposed development of a 50ft structure at 3415 Palm Drive. Our building (*********) is directly behind this lot and everyday I spend hours in my west facing kitchen preparing meals and reveling in my beachfront life. I stare out at the surfers, the dolphins, the birds, and feel so grateful for moving from Colorado to enjoy this stunning view and enjoy this amazing town. At night I watch the sunset from my window and the neighboring roofs hover just below the horizon, but enough for me to watch the sun set over the water. The thought of that being taken away because of someone’s greed and ability to find a loophole in the system makes my blood boil. The coastal zone has to be protected at all costs because this town is too special to be overtaken by monstrosities like this and it is opening up a can of worms if this project is approved. Other developers will be chomping at the bit and this is NOT a low income housing area. We all pay a lot of money to live here and that should not be diminished. I have confidence that you will do everything possible to preserve the integrity of this quaint beach town that we have all come to love and cherish. Kind Regards, Mandy Clough Page 489 of 630 From: George Buckley <**********d.com> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2025 1:58 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Janet Buckley <*********o.com> Subject: Proposed 50 Foot Building As long term residents of Hermosa Beach we were shocked to see that there was a proposal for such a project. Having built our home in 1997 in Hermosa Beach, I believe we were limited to a 25 foot height limit. It’s absurd to even consider such a project. Obviously it will affect their neighbors very negatively. It will also look totally out of place in the neighborhood. This should be denied swiftly and unanimously to insure other such ridiculous proposals are not forthcoming. Janet & George Buckley 1******** Street Hermosa Beach 310-********* From: Candy Stubbs <***********@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 11:48 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive I am begging you to use all legal means to deny the building of the proposed 53' foot apartment building at 3415 Palm Dr. If this building is allowed to exceed the height limits, many more may follow. This will destroy the small, beach-city feel we all love. Please DO NOT allow this to happen. Thank you, Candy Stubbs, resident since 1969 From: Rehan K. <r************@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 9:27 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: SUPPORT for Ferraro's 53' High Development Good evening, Hello! I hope you are all doing well and having a good start to the week. As a nearby resident (Redondo and Hermosa border), I ran by and saw this sign saying this development was irresponsible. I read more and was originally opposed as I learned about a multi-family home property being taken down for a single-family home. HOWEVER, after seeing the plans converted to include an additional unit (from 4 units to 5 units), I WANT TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT for this project moving forward. As we know, there is a housing shortage in our beautiful state and city that causes upward pressure on rent and housing prices. Every additional unit goes that much further into helping alleviate this situation and to applying downward pressure onto people's living circumstances. I am aware of others expressing displeasure with the height of the development, but as multiple sources state, this is technically allowed under Builder's Remedy and was done before Hermosa developed their own code. Legally, it seems to be fine to continue ahead. Furthermore, many people expressed their feelings about "opening the flood gates". While understandable, we also must acknowledge that the new Hermosa Code will, for better or worse, not allow for situations like this one to arise again. Page 490 of 630 Either way, I look forward to hearing more moving forward. Best of luck with this situation and continue to have a great day and week! Best, Rehan -----Original Message----- From: Scott Gauch <********@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 7:28 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 53 foot structure in residential area This is ridiculous. The City of Hermosa is all over long term residents for every knit and now you are potentially allowing a structure 23 feet above the 30 foot limit we all have lived with. I have been a resident for over 25 years. This is absolutely crazy. Scott Gauch ********* Street, HB, CA From: Michael Beuder <***********r@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 3:18 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: APN 4181-033-017 We own the 3 adjacent Hermosa Beach properties from ****** 35th St to ****** 35th St for the last 80 years. The proposed project for the APN listed above is simply ridiculous. The City needs to step-up and block this request; nobody in our neighborhood wants a project like this. Please protect the homeowners of our neighborhood against unscrupulous developers. Thanks. Mike Beuder, Trustee, The Kohlstedt Trust From: N Schwappach <**************@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 10:42 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: PDP 24-08 3415 Palm Drive Builder's Remedy application - June 17 PC Hearing Hello Commissioners. Please see the attached letter regarding the referenced matter. Thank you for your service to the City. Best, Nancy Schwappach 310-*********** Page 491 of 630 Page 492 of 630 From: Steve Riboli <s**********@riboliwines.com> Sent: Monday, June 2, 2025 4:52 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: PDP24-08 Kin d ly accept our letter of opposition. This project is 300 feet from our home on the Strand. It is so awkward and out of place for our community. Hopefully , great City planning prevails. I am always available to speak. My cell is 818-******. My wife and I have been residents of Hermosa Beach over 15 years. We love the City and am so proud of the improvements and beautifications done to only make it a better place for all. Sincerely, Steve Riboli San Antion Winery Riboli Wine s Owner Page 493 of 630 Page 494 of 630 From: Chase Kyle <******@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 6:09 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 3415 Palm Dr (PDP 24-08) Our neighborhood has long been known for its quiet, low-density character. Introducing a five -unit, 50.5-foot-tall building at 3415 Palm Dr threatens to fundamentally change that—bringing more traffic, noise, and density than this block was designed to handle. We ask the Planning Commission to consider whether this development truly serves the long-term wellbeing of the neighborhood’s residents. We love our quite, safe, peaceful city. Chase Kyle Creative Designer | Chasekyle.com From: Pam T <********@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2025 12:49 PM To: Jake Whitney <jwhitney@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Re: Public Hearing Continuance Notice for 3415 Palm Dr- Hermosa Beach If passed, this will destroy the Hermosa Beach that we know and love. One by one these monolith structures will pop up. People bought property and many built within the 30" height limits. No one expected to lose their views because of a 50" height limit...this is so very wrong. One structure affects the views of many homeowners surrounding it. The only winner is the greedy builder. Pam Tatreau Hermosa Beach 27 year resident From: Peggy Barr <*********@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:22 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Please don't approve the plans for the 50' 3415 Palm Drive apartment project. We can't continue on a path of state mandates that want higher density cities. Hermosa is a small coastal beach town. Don't turn Hermosa Beach into Waikiki. Please keep this little beach town little! If the builders can do what ever they want, and you as a planning commission have to rubber stamp it, what's the point of having a planning commission? Thank you, Peggy Barr ************th St Page 495 of 630 From: Colleen Winfough <c***********@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 9:23 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Say no to high rise by the beach Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, As a resident and deeply invested member of the Hermosa Beach community, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development outlined in PDP 24-08 for a 50.5-foot-tall, five-unit apartment building at 3415 Palm Drive. Hermosa Beach has earned a reputation for being a quiet, safe, and family-friendly beach town. It is a place where community still matters, and where the balance between thoughtful development and quality of life has long been respected. The proposed height and scale of this new build is not only out of character for the surrounding neighborhood, but it also threatens to disrupt the very essence of what makes Hermosa so special. Renovating existing structures to meet modern standards is one thing — but introducing a high-rise of this scale sets a dangerous precedent. It raises serious concerns about increased traffic, congestion, noise, and a decline in both cleanliness and safety. Tall, high-density buildings like this may invite transient populations, strain city infrastructure, and erode the charm and tranquility that residents cherish and visitors admire. As someone who chose to live here because of the peace and safety this city provides, I am urging the Planning Commission to deny this application. We must prioritize long-term community well-being over short-term development pressure. Please help us preserve the quiet, clean, and livable character of Hermosa Beach. Thank you for your time and consideration. Colleen Winfough Actor + Photographer based in LA From: Warren Barr <*******@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:14 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Please deny the proposed project at 3415 Palm Drive and allow it to go to court. It's time we stood up to the state mandating local land use. Hermosa Beach is overly dense as it is. Keep Hermosa Hermosa. Sincerely, Warren Barr 9*********** Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Enough is Enough, Vote Libertarian! Page 496 of 630 From: D McD <******@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 9:46 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Development at 3415 Palm Drive I am sending this email to express my complete disapproval of the development currently planned at the above location. I can not fathom how something of the scope would be allowed or even considered in the beach area. It would totally disrupt quality of life for the property owners in its vicinity, damage the beach "vibe", and rob some of precious ocean views which draws us to the area. My understanding is that this project is being allowed by some sort of legaleze loophole that the property owner is utilizing. There doesn't seem to be any consideration of the impact on the community as a whole. My property is in Manhattan Beach, northeast of the site. Although the effect for me may be considered minimal, the overall consequence and potential is devastating. Particularly, if this goes through and others use this as a template to erode and evade codes in the future. I urge the City of Hermosa Beach to fight this development and not allow it to skirt current zoning and height requirements. Sincerely Dario McDonald *****Manhattan Avenue, MB From: Steve Grimmett <********@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 2:12 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Hello. I'm just writing a quick note to let you know that as a Hermosa Resident, I'm opposed to the planned 5 story apartment building being proposed for lot 3415 Palm Drive. Please do not change the landscape of Hermosa. Thanks, Steve Grimmett From: Michael Trust <m******@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:25 PM To: Alison Becker <abecker@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Planning Meeting Hello, I cannot figure out how to submit an e-comment (because I can’t find the required HTML agenda; to my knowledge, there is only one agenda items on the agenda). I tried to email to the email address in the mailer and the email bounced. So, I’m writing you here. We live on 7th Street, near this project. While we have no general objection to the proposed development, to the extent it’s been described, we do have some concerns that we want to raise for consideration: 1. This stretch of PCH is already very, very congested on a good day, particularly in this stretch from the city line to the south past Pier Avenue to the north. No lanes can be closed to accommodate this project (unlike up the road around Skechers were there is a hard closure, presumably for months if not longer, that further congests traffic during rush hour), particularly in the morning when rush hour is heading northbound, which is the same side of the street where this project is located. Page 497 of 630 2. Construction crews should not be allowed to park on 7th. 7th is already a fairly congested street when it comes to parking; it’s also a relatively narrow street; and, it has as a decent amount of traffic with residents coming and going. We do not want to have ingress/egress and congestion issues on the street. 3. Construction vehicles should not park nor stage on 7th Street, nor on PCH, in a manner that takes away a traffic lane. The morning no parking/no stopping restriction should remain, and remain after the project is completed. 4. Noise and dust: this project abuts a residential neighborhood, where people live and work (from home). Excessive dust and noise would not be good. Respect for the neighbors will be paramount. (certainly, there will be hammering and demolition and other construction noises; however these noises should be confirmed to hours that do not wake people up nor keep people up, and to the greatest extent possible, *minimized*. Loud music – whether from the crews cars’ or onsite, should be prohibited where feasible. Dust – same issues). While the parcel itself is zoned for commercial, the surrounding properties on 7th Street are residential, and the character of the “quiet use and enjoyment” of residential property should be maximized. 5. The project should be started and completed as quickly as possible, to avoid these disruptions, which may be problematic in the current time, when there is a significant labor shortage in the construction industry to due the action of the federal government. 6. Depending on the ultimate use of the property once the project is done, adequate parking should be provided on site to avoid congesting 7th and surrounding streets with visitors/customers/tenants of the property. In other words, the ultimate usage of the property should not create more density related issues in this otherwise residential neighborhood; sufficient ingress and egress, and parking, for anyone and everyone who will be using the property should be provided for on the property itself. 7. We have overall concerns about overall density changes. We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in. Thank you. Michael & Roxanne Trust _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Barbara Catino <*******@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 11:37 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Dr., HB Dear Sirs: I own the property at ************ Manhattan Ave., HB. and I am strongly against a building over 30' in this area. It will totally change the area & I'm sure, only be the first of many. PLEASE, do not approve anything over 30'. Thank you for your attention. BARBARA A CATINO 310-********** From: N Schwappach <nschwappach@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2025 10:24 AM To: City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov>; Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: PDP 24-08 3415 Palm Drive Continued Planning Commission Hearing 9/16/25 - Request for Public Access to application materials Good morning City Council, Planning Commission and staff. Given the "robust" public interest in this project, I respectfully request that Council direct staff to make available to the public all supplemental materials prepared by or for the City in connection with the proposed project at 3415 Palm Drive, the continued Page 498 of 630 hearing for which is scheduled for September 16, 2025. These could conveniently be uploaded to the City's "Development Projects" site which includes earlier materials related to this application. I have submitted a public records request for these items but hope that can be addressed through this channel, as that would satisfy my request and, I think, be more efficient for everyone. Providing this information as soon as possible may allow the public sufficient time to retrieve, review and digest the information in time to formulate appropriate public comments. Providing them with the staff report 72 hours before the hearing would not, I think, do so. From my below email exchange with Jake Whitney last week, and my review of my own notes of the Planning Commission hearing March 18, 2025, I believe some or all of the following materials are available and/or were requested by the Commissioners to aid in their analysis of this project: 1. A "conceptual drawing" apparently submitted by the applicant. 2. An artistic rendering/schematic showing height of proposed project related to properties to the north, south and east. 3. Shade/shadow study showing impacts on neighboring properties 4. LACounty Fire assessment of fighting this fire and rescue from 53' roof 5. Sewer capacity assessment 6. Assessment of the Housing Accountability Act and whether objective zoning standards may be imposed on this project to the extent they do not render the project infeasible 7. Coastal Act assessment related to scenic vista resources and other relevant factors 8. Comprehensive CEQA assessment 9. Assessment of solar roof-top access laws and whether this would preclude a solar array on another property 10. (Confirmation) That Council retain(ed) expert land use counsel to advise on this extraordinary application. I also note that an existing item on the site is incorrectly named Applicant Letter Dated September 4, 2025. That letter is actually dated September 4, 2024. Consider correcting this to avoid confusion with the new materials which will, hopefully, be published soon. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request. Best, Nancy Schwappach 310-489-8186 nschwappach@gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jake Whitney <jwhitney@hermosabeach.gov> Date: Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 7:50 AM Subject: RE: 3415 Palm Drive To: N Schwappach <nschwappach@gmail.com> The applicant prepared a conceptual alternative plan. Though a formal application amendment has thus far not been made. Therefore, unless the applicant decides to formally amend the application, we will be presenting the original proposal back to the Commission for consideration. Page 499 of 630 Jake Whitney | Associate Planner City of Hermosa Beach Community Development 1315 Valley Dr., Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 o: 310-318-0237 e: jwhitney@hermosabeach.gov From: N Schwappach <nschwappach@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 7:45 AM To: Jake Whitney <jwhitney@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Re: 3415 Palm Drive Thanks Jake. Has the applicant submitted revised plans? Nancy On Aug 28, 2025, at 7:34 AM, Jake Whitney <jwhitney@hermosabeach.gov> wrote: Hi Nancy, The staff report analysis and associated attachments are currently in review with our management and legal teams. I can follow up on status next week with respect to that and what items will be available and when. Jake Whitney | Associate Planner City of Hermosa Beach Community Development 1315 Valley Dr., Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 o: 310-318-0237 e: jwhitney@hermosabeach.gov Page 500 of 630 From: N Schwappach <*********@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 10:32 PM To: Jake Whitney <jwhitney@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Re: 3415 Palm Drive Hi again. Sorry for the two step but a neighbor pointed out a clarification may be helpful. If the applicant has submitted a redesign, which still does not conform to zoning and land use laws, it seems Planning Commission, and the public, would want the same information as above with respect to the revised plan to the extent it does not so conform. Thank you. Nancy Schwappach On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 9:26 PM N Schwappach <nschwappach@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Jake. Has the applicant submitted a new design, or any other info, on this project, in anticipation of the Sept 16 continued hearing? I watched again the video of the 3/18/25 Planning Commission Hearing and understand that Commissioners requested the following additional information. Can you let me know when that information will be made available to the public? As you know, a basis for continuing the prior hearing was the public received information without sufficient time to review, digest and comment on it. 1. Artistic rendering/schematic showing height of proposed project related to properties to the north, south and east. 2. Shade study showing impacts on neighboring properties 3. LACounty Fire assessment of fighting this fire and rescue from 53' roof 4. Sewer capacity assessment 5. Assessment of the Housing Accountability Act and whether objective zoning standards may be imposed on this project to the extent they do not render the project infeasible 6. Coastal Act assessment related to scenic vista resources and other 7. Comprehensive CEQA assessment 8. Assessment of solar roof-top access laws and whether this would preclude a solar array on another property 9. 10. That Council retain expert land use counsel to advise on this extraordinary application. There may well be more, this is just the list I put together on a quick review of the video. Thank you. Nancy Schwappach ******** Hermosa Ave 310-********* ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 501 of 630 From: ELKA WORNER <************@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 6:48 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3514 Palm Drive Hi Jake, I hope you are well. You were quoted in the Easy Reader saying: “The applicant is developing a redesign option that would reduce the height limit and density of the project." Did the applicant on the Palm Drive project submit new plans? We have not received a formal submittal, however, the applicant has indicated that they have a reduced scope project that they are considering presenting to the Planning Commission. What is the deadline for submitting a resign option if the Planning Commission meeting is on Sept. 16? There is no deadline as the applicant is free to present a reduced option up and until the Planning Commission meeting. Also, will the agenda come out tomorrow? The agenda for the September 16th meeting is expected to be posted by Thursday, September 11th. Thanks so much. Elka ________________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Robert Devers <r*********@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2025 2:02 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am opposed to the 50-foot apartment proposed project on Palm Drive. This project is out of scale with our community and should be denied. Here are some of the reasons why this project is harmful: 1. Out of scale – At 50 feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town. 2. Safety concerns – It is unclear whether our fire department has the equipment to fight a fire in a building of this height. 3. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 4. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. 5. Environmental and legal review – The project raises CEQA and Coastal Commission concerns that must be addressed. The city should hire an experienced land use attorney to ensure every legal to advise on legal options to fight this project. Page 502 of 630 I urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, Rob Devers Hermosa Beach Resident Mobile: 310****** From: Dr. Cassandra Giornali Sorrell, LMFT <*********@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2025 2:15 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Opposition to 50-foot Apartment Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project I am opposed to the 50-foot apartment proposed project on Palm Drive. This project is out of scale with our community and should be denied based upon multiple safety and community considerations. Here are some of the reasons why this project is harmful: 1. Out of scale – At 50 feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town. 2. Safety concerns – It is unclear whether our fire department has the equipment to fight a fire in a building of this height. 3. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, especially given the seven spots allocated for the proposed five residential units, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 4. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. 5. Environmental and legal review – The project raises CEQA and Coastal Commission concerns that must be addressed. The City should hire an experienced land-use attorney to ensure and advise on all relevant legal options to fight this project. I urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, Cassandra Sorrell ******* Prospect Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Page 503 of 630 From: Joe Starzec <******@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2025 2:59 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed 50-foot apartment project on Palm Drive. As a Hermosa Beach resident, I am deeply concerned that this project is completely out of scale with the fabric of our community and threatens the character that makes Hermosa such a special place to live. Here are my concerns: Out of scale with Hermosa’s character – At 50 feet, this building would stand more than 20 feet higher than nearby homes and permanently change the look and feel of our small beach town. Hermosa is defined by its human scale, charm, and livability — not oversized development. Public safety risks – I am not confident that our fire department has the equipment or resources to fight a fire in a building of this height. Approving a project without clarity on emergency preparedness puts both future tenants and neighbors at risk. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure strain – Our community already faces congestion and limited parking. A project of this size would add to those challenges while placing additional stress on our sewers, water lines, and other infrastructure. Negative impact on property values – Overbuilt projects that are out of character with their surroundings can erode property values for existing homeowners. This project prioritizes developer profit at the expense of long-term community health. Environmental and legal review – The project raises significant CEQA and Coastal Commission issues. The City must retain an experienced land use attorney to carefully evaluate and, if necessary, challenge this development to protect Hermosa Beach. I urge you to stand with residents and preserve the unique scale, charm, and safety of Hermosa Beach by denying this project. Sincerely, Joe Starzec From: R BLACKMAN <**********@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2025 4:33 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am opposed to the 50-foot apartment proposed project on Palm Drive. This project is out of scale with our community and should be denied. Here are some of the reasons why this project is harmful: 1. Out of scale – At 50 feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town. 2. Safety concerns – It is unclear whether our fire department has the equipment to fight a fire in a building of this height. 3. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 4. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. Page 504 of 630 5. Environmental and legal review – The project raises CEQA and Coastal Commission concerns that must be addressed. The city should hire an experienced land use attorney to ensure every legal to advise on legal options to fight this project. I urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, Robert Blackman ************ Hermosa Beach Resident rom: Scott Gauch <*******@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2025 4:35 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am completely opposed to the 50+ foot apartment proposed project on Palm Drive in Hermosa Beach. This project is unfair to long term residents who have supported this community and built with the strictest of height restrictions. A structure this tall is out of scale with our community and must be denied. I oppose for the following reasons: 1. Out of scale – At 50+ feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town. It will create an eye sore and spark lots of resentment among residents with a two tiered compliance system. 2. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 3. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. 4. Environmental and legal review – The project raises CEQA and Coastal Commission concerns that must be addressed. The city should hire an experienced land use attorney to ensure every legal to advise on legal options to fight this project. I urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, D. Scott Gauch From: Nicassio <*********@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2025 7:17 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Palm Dr. Building Dear Commissioners, Your job is to advocate for us residents in Hermosa. I suspect that the great majority of residents do not want this 5- story tower. The reasons are the same reasons underpinning our longtime zoning laws in Hermosa and those really don't bear reciting because they are so obvious. Additionally though, how much is all the building under the Housing Page 505 of 630 Element going to cost the city in terms of consultants, lawyers, overtime, etc? How crazy is it that we residents will have to pay for those things when we oppose these buildings? It's like taxing us to pay for waste to be poured on our beaches! Surely you must agree on a personal and professional level that these taller buildings in residential neighborhoods are a mistake. Please be strong and resist the state's efforts to shove these things down our throats. Thank you, Betsy Nicassio ************ Hermosa Beach, CA ______________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Juan Turcios <**********@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2025 7:52 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Opposition to Proposed 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed 50-foot apartment development at 3415 Palm Drive. I believe this project is fundamentally incompatible with the scale, character, and infrastructure capacity of our community, and I respectfully urge the Commission to deny the proposal. Below are several key concerns: 1. Incompatible Scale At 50 feet in height, the proposed structure would exceed the height of surrounding properties by over 20 feet. Such disproportionate scale would significantly and permanently alter the visual and architectural character of our small beach town. 2. Public Safety Risks It is unclear whether the Hermosa Beach Fire Department possesses the necessary equipment or resources to safely and effectively respond to emergencies—particularly fires—within a building of this height. 3. Traffic, Parking, and Infrastructure Impacts Palm Drive and the surrounding streets are already impacted by congestion and limited parking availability. This development would further strain these conditions and could place undue stress on existing infrastructure, including sewer systems and public utilities. 4. Negative Impact on Property Values The construction of an oversized, out-of-character development in a primarily low-rise residential neighborhood has the potential to negatively affect surrounding property values. 5. Environmental and Legal Considerations This project raises important questions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and may require review by the California Coastal Commission. I respectfully recommend that the City engage experienced land use counsel to evaluate all legal avenues available to challenge this development. 6. Unacceptable Precedent Approval of this project would set a troubling precedent by effectively raising the standard for allowable building heights in Hermosa Beach. This would not be an isolated case, rather, it would signal to developers that 5+ story buildings are now acceptable within our coastal community, paving the way for further incompatible high-rise developments. In closing, I urge the Planning Commission to stand with residents in preserving the unique character and livability of Hermosa Beach by denying this proposal. Sincerely, Juan Turcios, Hermosa Beach Resident Page 506 of 630 From: Rachel Kuppinger <************@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2025 8:19 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Eric Kuppinger <***********@gmail.com> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, We are opposed to the 50-foot apartment proposed project on Palm Drive. This project is out of scale with our community and should be denied. Here are some of the reasons why this project is harmful: 1. Out of scale – At 50 feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town. 2. Safety concerns – It is unclear whether our fire department has the equipment to fight a fire in a building of this height. 3. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 4. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. 5. Environmental and legal review – The project raises CEQA and Coastal Commission concerns that must be addressed. We urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, Eric & Rachel Kuppinger ************ Blvd, Hermosa Beach Page 507 of 630 From: Sarah Musgrove <************@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2025 8:42 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am adamantly opposed to the 50-foot apartment proposed project on Palm Drive. This project is out of scale with our community and should be denied. Here are some of the reasons why this project is harmful: 1. Out of scale – At 50 feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town and set an ongoing precedent that would cause a host of issues. 2. Safety concerns – It is unclear whether our fire department has the equipment to fight a fire in a building of this height. Can our police department handle an influx of residents? I understand this is only one development but the precedent will then be set and others will follow increasing our city population. 3. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 4. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. 5. Environmental and Legal Review – The project raises concerns under CEQA and the Coastal Commission that must be addressed. The city should hire an experienced land use attorney to ensure every legal to advise on legal options to fight this project. One of the reasons my family chose Hermosa Beach is because of the quaint community feel. By allowing these large developments, you change the entire personality of our already cozy town. I urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, Sarah Musgrove Albarado Hermosa Beach Resident Page 508 of 630 From: Beth Bohl <B****@dlcinc.com> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2025 11:29 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 50-Foot Development on Palm Drive Dear Commissioners, Please do not approve the huge development being proposed near our beach. Traffic is already a severe problem getting across Valley and this will just further acerbate the traffic verses pedestrian issues. More importantly, I don’t think anyone who lives in Hermosa wants our city to turn into Santa Monica. Please help keep Hermosa Hermosa. Thanks for your consideration, Beth Fasola ************ Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ rom: Susan Moore <***********@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2025 12:45 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am opposed to the 50-foot apartment proposed project on Palm Drive. This project is out of scale with our community and should be denied. Here are some of the reasons why this project is harmful: 1. Out of scale – At 50 feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town. 2. Safety concerns – It is unclear whether our fire department has the equipment to fight a fire in a building of this height. 3. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 4. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. 5. Environmental and legal review – The project raises CEQA and Coastal Commission concerns that must be addressed. The city should hire an experienced land use attorney to ensure every legal to advise on legal options to fight this project. I urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, Susan Moore Hermosa Beach Resident Page 509 of 630 From: Dexter Brown <**********@thebrowns.com> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2025 6:53 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am opposed to the 50-foot apartment proposed project on Palm Drive. This project is out of scale with our community and should be denied. My parents are also against it. Here are some of the reasons why this project is harmful: 1. Out of scale – At 50 feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town. Cmonnnn 2. Safety concerns – It is unclear whether our fire department has the equipment to fight a fire in a building of this height. 3. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 4. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. 5. Environmental and legal review – The project raises CEQA and Coastal Commission concerns that must be addressed. The city should hire an experienced land use attorney to ensure every legal to advise on legal options to fight this project. It’s bad for the environment mkay. I urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, Dexter Brown Local Hermosa Beach Resident Page 510 of 630 From: oanh knollenberg <o*********g@hotmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2025 12:31 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I am 25+ year Hermosa Beach resident and I am writing to oppose to the proposed 50-foot apartment project on Palm Drive. This project is out of scale with our community and should be denied. Our small beach town is considered by many who live here a gem. Long time residents appreciate the small town feel Hermosa Beach has to offer. Allowing one large scale building complex to be built will open the flood gates to additional large-scale buildings down the road. This will adversely affect the Hermosa Beach community with increase population, pollution, traffic, and much more that will not be revealed until too late; after our small little beach gem will be inundated with infrastructure issues in addition to the issues stated below. Here are some of the reasons why this project is harmful: 1. Out of scale – At 50 feet, this building would tower over surrounding properties by more than 20 feet. It will permanently alter the character of our small beach town. 2. Safety concerns – It is unclear whether our fire department has the equipment to fight a fire in a building of this height. 3. Traffic, parking, and infrastructure impacts – This project would impact already congested streets, strain limited parking, and place additional stress on sewers and other infrastructure. 4. Decreased property values – Oversized, incompatible development could reduce surrounding home values. 5. Environmental and legal review – The project raises CEQA and Coastal Commission concerns that must be addressed. The city should hire an experienced land use attorney to ensure every legal to advise on legal options to fight this project. I humbly and strongly urge you to stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by denying this development. Sincerely, Oanh Knollenberg Hermosa Beach Resident Page 511 of 630 From: Rory Barish <**********@aol.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2025 3:10 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; Mayor Rob Saemann <rsaemann@hermosabeach.gov>; Councilmember Ray Jackson <rjackson@hermosabeach.gov>; Councilmember Dean Francois <dfrancois@hermosabeach.gov>; Councilmember Michael Keegan <mkeegan@hermosabeach.gov>; Mayor Pro Tem Mike Detoy <mdetoy@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: REGARDING 3415 PALM DRIVE.....FOR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPT 16 Sept 8, 2025 Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I wanted to be put on record, once again that I am vehemently opposed to the development plan at 3415 Palm Drive. I ask that this project be denied. This project is completely out of scale for the neighborhood and shows a total disregard for the landscape of Hermosa Beach and for its neighbors. I would doubt that the Coastal Commission would look favorably upon this proposed plan. Obscuring views not only from personal residences but from public corridors, causing traffic and parking concerns, casting shadows on neighboring properties and raising concerns about fire safety are just a few reasons why this project should be denied. There are people who bought properties with homes in front of them knowing that the so called "protected" height limit was 30 ft and that their big views would not be obstructed. This was documented as per city zoning. This height restriction added to their value. But now, because of a loophole that is being taken advantage of for all of the wrong reasons, these property owners with big views will be harmed because their home value will decrease. I know this better than many as I have been in the real estate business for 40 years and know how much views add to the value of a home. Ask any appraiser and they will tell you the same thing. To deliberately and knowingly want to devalue your neighbor's property whether there is a loophole or not, is shameful, disrespectful and quite shocking to me. The neighborhood and surrounding area is up in arms to say the least. Planning has indicated that the applicant delayed the project multiple times because they heard the concerns of the neighbors and were working on reducing the scale. The letter that I received in the mail and the posting on the building shows no such willingness to reduce the scale. Whether there was a concept of a plan or not, there is no such change in their application that reflects this. So why the multiple delays? To wear the opposition down? The neighbors will not be worn down and you just have to walk up and down the streets, near and far to see signs, banners and posters opposing this project. I cannot honestly see why the applicant would not want to adhere to present height restrictions and would not want to be in good grace with all of their neighbors. They could build down and a perfect example of this is just a mere two doors away under construction...showing them what can be done. There is something else that I would like to point out. In other cities when I attend meetings on proposed projects, West Hollywood, Los Angeles.... for example, when there is a presentation of the developer/applicants plan, the developer, attorney, P.R. firm or rep of the developer presents the project to the public. This is NOT what the city planner does. At the last planning commission meeting, staff presented the project. I not only find this odd but it does not appear to the public that planning is neutral when doing so. It seems to be a conflict of interest. The planning department staff does not work for the developer. Staff's role as I see it is to advise the planning commission and to answer questions from the public with regards to the project. But surely it is not a good look for the city planner to present the project on behalf of the applicant. It not only appeared that staff was pushing the project during the presentation but it also appeared that staff was acting defensive by some public comments that were made and questions asked. This made me feel very uneasy and others as well. I would appreciate you looking into this. There is a posting on the subject property as seen in the attachment below. It states that the subject property qualifies for an exemption per section 15303 (B) of CEQA. Has the City hired a land use attorney to determine this to be fact? Does planning have legal authority to determine and post this? I am no attorney but reading this section, I question that this qualifies for an exemption. This project does not have to be approved and you have the ability to deny it for all of the right reasons instead of allowing the applicant to build it for all of the wrong reasons. Thank You, Rory Barish, Hermosa Beach resident Page 512 of 630 From: Betty Lou Bender <***********@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2025 4:47 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Charles Bender <*****@mac.com>; PATRICIA MURRAY <********@aol.com>; Glena Carroll <********@hotmail.com> Subject: The 53 foot monster!!!! It is inconceivable that you, our own planning commission, might not be protecting the integrity of Hermosa Beach…! The very idea that this skyscraping monstrosity might be approved by you is a gut punch! It is beyond imagining that you overlooked the destructive implications. How did the builder’s remedy go unnoticed? Why would the owners disregard how this absurd plan would affect their neighbors and the surrounding community? Once this is approved it opens the pathway for others. It sets the stage for high rises all along our pristine shoreline. And, it will be your legacy! Sent from my iPhone Page 513 of 630 Email Comments Received May 6th – September 10, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Branden McBirney <bmcbirney@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 2:28 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: No Highrises in Hermosa Hello Planning and Council, Hope you are doing well. The strong enforcement of height restrictions has been difficult at times but has kept Hermosa feel small town and not overdeveloped. It is imperative that we continue to keep that restriction in place, especially along the coast. If somehow this does get approved it is your responsibility to help the residents understand in clear uncomplicated terms why the council and planning commission had to allow this to be approved. Personally I think the building looks nice in renderings but it is not work the slippery slope and damage it will cause our community Best, Branden ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: chris myers To: Planning Subject: 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach: 53" Foot high five story apartment building Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 6:56:44 AM You don't often get email from cdmyers43@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Please stop this nonsense of building an unprecedented 5-story building so close to the beach. This makes no sense. 30’ feet is the limit and for good reason. In south Hermosa, a brown 4-story house was built years ago (around 4th st on the Strand). It is an embarrassing eye-sore structure and is completely out of place. Visitors comment on it all the time. Allowing a five-story 53’ foot high building so close to the Strand would be an even bigger eye-sore. We must stop this immediately. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Anastasia Brien Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 3:24 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive AKA 3414-18 Hermosa Ave Hello, I am writing about the issue of the 60’ building potentially being built in our lovely town. I request that the commission make detailed findings as to how and whether this project conforms to zoning and other relevant City Codes. If you find it does not conform, we hope to see detailed findings which require the project be materially modified. The concept of the “builder’s remedy” does not make sense to the residents of our beach town and we find it impossible to understand how such an anomaly might end up an eyesore on our otherwise beautiful shoreline. Anastasia Brien Hermosa Beach ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 514 of 630 -----Original Message----- From: chris myers Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 12:14 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach: 53' Foot high five story apartment building Officials: Please stop this nonsense of building an unprecedented 5-story building so close to the beach. This makes no sense. 30’ feet is the limit and for good reason. In south Hermosa, a brown 4-story house was built years ago (around 4th st on the Strand). It is an embarrassing eye-sore structure and is completely out of place. Visitors comment on it all the time. Allowing a five-story 53’ foot high building so close to the Strand would be an even bigger eye-sore. Stop this and use all of your collective wisdom and power and funds to do it. Best, Chris Myers 207 Homer Street 310-7**-3*** ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Patricia Noel Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 7:05 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Dr. proposed building Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to express my dismay at the proposed building at 3415 Palm Drive in Hermosa. It is way out of character for Hermosa to have an apartment building 20’ above code limits. It will be unsightly and we fear it will change our neighborhood irretrievably. Please deny approval. Thank you. Patricia Noel 2*** Strand Hermosa Beach CA 90254 -- Patricia Noel, PhD ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jules Brownell Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:53 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Keep Hermosa Hermosa Dear HB Planning Commission, Page 515 of 630 As someone who is raising my sons in Hermosa Beach and who has family that has called this town home for generations, I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed apartment development currently under review. My grandparents settled on Silverstrand Avenue in 1951, and our family has been deeply rooted in this community ever since. I grew up riding my bike along the Strand, working at Good Stuff and enjoying the unique spirit that makes Hermosa Beach feel like more than just a place—it’s a way of life. Even now, as an adult, I continue to cherish the sense of community and character that shaped me. What’s being proposed isn’t just another building—it represents a break from the values that have defined Hermosa Beach for generations. The scale and design of the project are completely inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and it’s being pushed forward by exploiting a legal technicality rather than respecting the community’s vision and long-term interests. This development is not about thoughtful or sustainable growth. It’s about short-term gains at the cost of what makes this town special. If approved, it would mark a turning point—ushering in a wave of overdevelopment that threatens the very identity of Hermosa Beach. Please don’t let that happen. You hold the unique capability to help shape the future of our town - protect what makes Hermosa exceptional and deny this project. Sincerely, Jules Brownell ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Katy Jenssen Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:27 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Opposition to 1315 Valley Drive development Subject: Opposition to Out-of-Scale Development in Hermosa Beach Dear HB Planning Commission, I’m writing to strongly oppose the proposed apartment development currently under consideration in Hermosa Beach. My family built our home on Silverstrand in 1951. For over 70 years, multiple generations of my family have lived, grown up, and built their lives here. We continue to call Hermosa Beach home because of its unique charm, small-town feel, and close-knit beachside community. The proposed development is not just out of scale—it’s out of character. It exploits a loophole to push through a structure that disregards the very identity of Hermosa Beach. While it may technically satisfy certain legal criteria, it completely violates the spirit and intent of our local planning values. This kind of construction is not responsible growth—it’s opportunistic overreach. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent and accelerate a shift toward overdevelopment that would permanently damage the character of our town. Hermosa Beach is cherished as "the best little beach town" for a reason. Let’s not trade away that identity for a short-sighted development that benefits a few at the long-term expense of the community. I urge you to protect the integrity of Hermosa Beach and deny this project. Katy Jenssen Page 516 of 630 Mosaic Surf Art ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Todd Hara Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:06 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive For decades the residential height limit in Hermosa Beach has been 30 feet. Let's keep it that way. Does Hermosa need affordable housing? Yes. Is raising the height limit to 50-feet for residential developments the answer? No. Drive down the Esplanade or Catalina in Redondo Beach and you will see how the city damaged the beach community. They will never get that back. We can do better. Best. Todd Hara - Hermosa Beach home owner 1*** Corona St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Erik Jackson Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 7:40 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Jackson Jackson Subject: Fwd: Fw: 3415 Palm - Plan to build 50 feet high Sorry - that was a little harsh. I’m just concerned and would like to understand this situation better. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jackson, Erik L. Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 6:51:24 PM To: planning@hermosabeach.gov <planning@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Njej Subject: 3415 Palm - Plan to build 50 feet high I'm a homeowner at 2** 34th Street HB 90254. My family home is right behind the planned 50 foot development. I just purchased my home 3 years ago for a lot of money - read HB tax revenues - based on the fact that height restrictions in front of me are 30 feet. Why would the City of Hermosa Beach destroy our neighborhood for a 50 foot tall development right at the beach? Please deny this permit application. We have lived in HB and MB for 30 years. Please confirm that no one that is able to vote for this is able to take money from developers for any direct or indirect reason. I would think that approving this would create needless litigation that is a waste of City taxpayer money. Please keep HB as it is. Page 517 of 630 Thank you. Nadine and Erik Jackson ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Kay Moore Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 11:52 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: STOP 50 foot height building at 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach Dear Planning Committee, I am writing this letter as a homeowner at 1*** Third Street in Hermosa Beach for the last 50 years. This is definitely one change in our city that I vehemently oppose. A 50 foot high apartment building at 3415 Palm, HB will be out of scale to other surrounding buildings, increase density, decrease property value, block views and destroy our small town atmosphere. I urge you to oppose this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Katherine Moore 1138 Third Street Hermosa Beach, CA ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: B. T. Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 1:59 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: STOP 3415 Palm Drive Hello I am 100% against this property owner being allowed to build over our 30 foot height requirement. This is a slap in the face to anyone who has built a house in Hermosa and anyone who lives in Hermosa. You should be embarrassed for missing the deadline to submit: Hermosa Beach’s state-mandated Housing Element on time I think you should all be recalled and removed immediately from the positions you currently hold. Your incompetence has opened a Pandora's box. You may have single-handedly destroyed the history of Hermosa Beach. We will not allow this build to exceed 30 feet so do your damn job and STOP this. Barry Turner Hermosa Beach ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Dana Jacobs Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 9:19 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm I am 100% against construction above 30 feet. I will vote against any part of the council who allows 3415 to be built higher than that. Page 518 of 630 Dana Jacobs 1** 29th St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Charles Jensen Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:22 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Stop 3415 Palm Drive Development My name is Charles Jensen and I live at 3** Longfellow Avenue in Hermosa Beach, CA. I ask you to please Stop development of the proposed highrise that is proposed to be build at 3415 Palm Drive. This would be absolutely destructive to our community and other developers would do the same thing. If we don’t stop this now we will lose control of our city. Regards, Charles A. Jensen ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Cindy Zielinski Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 3:34 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach, please do not allow an apartment building to be built that is 23 feet above the current 30’ high restrictions. It will ruin the Hermosa Beach coastal skyline and pave the way for more high rises in our city. It will only benefit the developers and the wealthy people who can afford to rent there. It will not provide affordable housing that the state is mandating since the rents are likely to be over $10K a month. I can’t believe the Coastal Commission will allow this since they restrict almost everything else that happens west of Highland Ave. This building will add to the parking shortages for visitors to our city since the developer is not required to provide adequate spaces for all residents. Please do not allow our city to be negatively impacted permanently for the benefit of greedy developers by requiring the building to stay within the 30” height limit. We as residents are held to these standards, so why should the developers, who likely don’t even live in Hermosa Beach not be treated the same? Thank you. Cindy Zielinski 2** 35th St Hermosa Beach ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jay Philbrick Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 2:18 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 55 foot structure This is a ridiculous plan to allow buildings in residential neighborhoods to exceed local codes Stop this nonsense! ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Eloise O'Donnell Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 8:27 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Please don't let this 53' high building proceed I want to share my opinion with you about the 53' high five-story apartment building planned for 3415 Palm Drive. A building that high in this neighborhood would really be an eyesore in the community. It would block the ocean view to so many people. Please employ all your legal options in preventing this building from proceeding. My husband and I Page 519 of 630 purchased our duplex at 4** 28th St, Hermosa Beach in March of 2007 and love Hermosa Beach so much. Please don't let this building proceed. Thank you. Eloise O'Donnell, MS, RDN, CDCES Registered Dietitian Nutritionist, Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist & COPE Certified Health Coach 310-2**-91** eloiseodonnell.com Thrive Every Day! ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Elizabeth Mann Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 5:30 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 5 Story Apartment Building on Hermosa Ave - awful idea! Dear council and commission members. We live at 1** 33rd Street. One of the features of the home that brought us here from Manhattan Beach was the stunning views, and the knowledge that the governing height limit was 30 feet. People rely on these zoning and property use rules to make long term family home decisions. We u understand that you are considering permitting the developer of 3415 Palm Drive to construct a 5-story apartment building, which violates the City’s zoning laws, parking requirements and height limits. This is a TERRIBLE idea, and probably illegal. We strongly urge you to follow the law and the community understandings and rules that we all appreciate and respect. Elizabeth Mann. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Kelly McNearney Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:29 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: �� No to 3415 Palm Drive Hello there. Just a note to express my strong opposition to the 50 foot structure at 3415 Palm Drive. I'll be at the meeting on May 20th to oppose in person as well. Thank you! Kelly McNearney 3** 33rd St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Resident and Homeowner since 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Pat Donahue Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 9:28 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: No HIgh-rises There is no place for a highrise in Hermosa Beach. Stand up to the state and govern our city as you were elected or appointed to do. City planning and building commissions along with the council are stewards of the city. The city has building codes. This is a small beach community. A high-rise apartment building destroys the views and values of the neighboring properties. This building does nothing to promote affordable housing. This is a property owner angry he/she couldn't develop a large single family home due to the state bill SB330 that is now sticking it to the locals. Stand together and decline this ridiculous project. Pat Donahue 2*** Silverstrand Ave Hermosa Beach Page 520 of 630 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Harry Collyns Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 8:28 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: No high-rises in Hermosa To Whom It May Concern, We are writing to voice our concern at the plan to build a 53’ high five-story apartment building just 6 blocks north of us on Hermosa Avenue. We understand that this proposal is only being considered because the City failed to obtain timely approval of its “Housing Element”, even though the building is otherwise in violation of all local height limits, zoning laws and parking requirements. We respectfully request that you use every available legal means to deny this project, unless/until it is amended to comply with all local laws, limits and restrictions. Yours, Harry & Sue Collyns 2*** Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Andree Friedman Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:32 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Demand Immediate Action to Stop the Oversized Development at 3415 Palm Drive Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing to demand that the City of Hermosa Beach immediately take action to reject the grossly oversized, out-of-character five-story development proposed for 3415 Palm Drive (3414–3418 Hermosa Ave). At 53 feet tall and entirely comprised of market-rate luxury units, this project violates long-standing local zoning laws, height limits (30 feet), and parking requirements. It does not include a single affordable or attainable unit, and it offers nothing in the way of community benefit. The City’s delay in approving its Housing Element should not serve as a loophole for developers to impose massive, out-of-scale buildings in residential neighborhoods. “Builder’s Remedy” was not intended to justify reckless development, and you have a duty to your constituents to use all legal means to fight this abuse of state housing law. If you fail to act, you send a clear message that Hermosa Beach is open to overdevelopment, gridlock, and the erosion of its unique coastal character. We are watching. We will remember who stood up for our community—and who did not. Sincerely, Andree Friedman 2*** The Strand, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 521 of 630 From:Barbara Catino To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Dr., HB Date:Friday, August 29, 2025 11:36:46 AM You don't often get email from barbara.catino@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important Dear Sirs: I own the property at 3415/3417 Manhattan Ave., HB. and I am strongly against a building over 30' in thisarea. It will totally change the area & I'm sure, only be the first of many. PLEASE, do not approveanything over 30'. Thank you for your attention. BARBARA A CATINO310-245-4345 Page 522 of 630 From:Melanie Hurtado To:Jake Whitney Subject:FW: 3415 Palm Drive Proposed Structure Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 5:23:34 PM -----Original Message----- From: julia webb <juliatwoomey@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 5:23 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Proposed Structure [Some people who received this message don't often get email from juliatwoomey@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, As a twenty year plus Hermosa Resident and property owner (3419 Manhattan Ave), my husband and I were shocked to learn that the city is considering approving a 53 foot structure at 3415 Palm Ave. When we remodeled our house in 2011 we were forced to make many compromises in our architectural design to meet the 30ft limitation. How is it possible to approve a 53ft structure that is as we understand it is a commercial resident property with limited parking and would block views from our property and our neighbor’s property who have all invested significant sums of money in improving the structures in our city and doing so at current height limits? We ask that the planning commission does everything within their power to only allow the project to proceed at the 30ft limit that all other neighbors must comply with. Thank you, Brian & Julia Twoomey Mobile: 818-398-9061 Page 523 of 630 From:Candy Stubbs To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 11:47:59 AM You don't often get email from clstubbs64@gmail.com. Learn why this is important I am begging you to use all legal means to deny the building of the proposed 53' footapartment building at 3415 Palm Dr. If this building is allowed to exceed the height limits, many more may follow. This will destroy the small, beach-city feel we all love. Please DONOT allow this to happen. Thank you, Candy Stubbs resident since 1969 Page 524 of 630 From:Chase Kyle To:Planning Subject:Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 3415 Palm Dr (PDP 24-08) Date:Wednesday, July 23, 2025 6:09:00 PM You don't often get email from chasealexkyle@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Our neighborhood has long been known for its quiet, low-density character. Introducing afive-unit, 50.5-foot-tall building at 3415 Palm Dr threatens to fundamentally change that— bringing more traffic, noise, and density than this block was designed to handle. We ask the Planning Commission to consider whether this development truly serves the long-term wellbeing of the neighborhood’s residents. We love our quite, safe, peaceful city. – Chase Kyle Creative Designer | Chasekyle.com Page 525 of 630 From: Christa Lyons <christa*******@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 5:44 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Ave Hello, Please see below the notice posted at 3415 Palm Ave. How are they able to decrease the density from 10 units to 5? Please the attached listing fro 2010 stating there are 10 units and showing the total rents collected. This is very unfair considering how many people have been financially impacted by the density laws. Why is this being allowed? And why is this particular owner allowed to build so high? 50’ 6” is much much higher than height limit. My understanding is that it's a family that simply wants to build 5 units for each family member. This seems extremely unfair to the neighboring properties. CHRISTA LYONS REALTOR® | CalDRE#0148**** D + 310.722.7******** I have not and will not verify or investigate the information supplied by third parties. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Christa Lyons <christamlyons@gmail.com> Subject: 3415 Hermosa Ave Date: March 10, 2025 at 5:25:37 PM PDT To: Christa Lyons <christamlyons@gmail.com> Page 526 of 630 Page 527 of 630 Christa Lyons Sent from my iPhone Page 528 of 630 From:Colleen Winfough To:Planning Subject:Say no to high rise by the beach Date:Friday, July 25, 2025 9:23:43 AM You don't often get email from colleen.winfough@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, As a resident and deeply invested member of the Hermosa Beach community, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development outlined in PDP 24-08 for a 50.5-foot-tall, five-unit apartment building at 3415 Palm Drive. Hermosa Beach has earned a reputation for being a quiet, safe, and family-friendly beachtown. It is a place where community still matters, and where the balance between thoughtful development and quality of life has long been respected. The proposed height and scale of thisnew build is not only out of character for the surrounding neighborhood, but it also threatens to disrupt the very essence of what makes Hermosa so special. Renovating existing structures to meet modern standards is one thing — but introducing a high-rise of this scale sets a dangerous precedent. It raises serious concerns about increasedtraffic, congestion, noise, and a decline in both cleanliness and safety. Tall, high-density buildings like this may invite transient populations, strain city infrastructure, and erode thecharm and tranquility that residents cherish and visitors admire. As someone who chose to live here because of the peace and safety this city provides, I amurging the Planning Commission to deny this application. We must prioritize long-term community well-being over short-term development pressure. Please help us preserve the quiet, clean, and livable character of Hermosa Beach. Thank you for your time and consideration. Colleen WinfoughActor + Photographer based in LA IMDB Page 529 of 630 From: CYNTHIA TINDLE <cmtindle@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 7:41 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: HighRise [Some people who received this message don't often get email from cmtindle@aol.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] I can’t imagine why you would even entertain the idea of High Rise in our town!!! Are you all just greedy ? You need to be replaced if you cannot see the harm this project would mean to the basis of our town. This town was never meant to be the French Riviera! We are small, intimate, laid back community. You should fight to keep it that way. It’s bad enough that you made the second story of a building eligible to be build within 2 feet of the back line of the property. I live with one of those houses hanging practically over the fence of my neighbor. What are you thinking when you allow that? Sent from my iPhone Page 530 of 630 From:Dana Jacobs To:Planning Subject:50 foot tower in Hermosa Beach? Really Date:Sunday, April 13, 2025 9:25:07 AM You don't often get email from djacobs16828@gmail.com. Learn why this is important This cannot be allowed to happen. How do you miss a deadline like this? Dana Jacobs123 29th St. Page 531 of 630 From:dkb To:City Council; Planning Cc:archive28@duck.com Subject:Opposed to 50ft development at 3415 Palm Dr Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 12:51:11 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from deannabradshaw@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Hello Hermosa Beach City Council and Planning Commission, Please join Hermosa's residents to oppose the 50-foot development onPalm Drive. Hermosa's voters have successfully fought excessive development in thepast. When residents, the council, and the commission stand together, wehave the clout to bring about compromise with developers. Please jointhe fight. Thank you, Deanna Bradshaw 3320 Highland Ave Page 532 of 630 From:Denni Kopelan To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive Date:Wednesday, May 14, 2025 11:19:56 AM [You don't often get email from dkjackrules@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] To Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach, I highly protest this 53 Ft high apartment building planned a few blocks from my house. How horrible to change the face of Hermosa Beach that we all love and live in and set a horrific building president in our neighborhood. The owners of 3415 Palm drive do not care about the beauty of our neighborhood as they are not residents of this area!!! Thank you Denise Kopelan Sent from my iPhone Page 533 of 630 From:FRED ZUELICH To:Planning Subject:50foot building Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 10:00:19 AM You don't often get email from zfred1@aol.com. Learn why this is important My name is Fred Zuelich and I am a long time resident as well as a local full time Realtor. We have had a great city for many years. We have continued to show the other cities of beach communities how it should be with regards to keeping a safe and enjoyable lifestyle. Ihave sold many properties in the city and one of the many points that my clients enjoy is the consistent restriction of building kept at the 30 feet high maximum. This helps keep everyonewho owns a home to continue to enjoy life at the beach knowing they can still keep at least some peak view of the beautiful Pacific Ocean. 30 feet is reasonable to create a sizable livingspace while preserving the benefits of the sunshine and at least some partial view. Allowing 50 foot high structures of any kind will not stay within the fair neighborhood guidelines andbecome an eyesore, intrusive structure, and a conduit to possible future builds of the same kind. This is really not a good plan to allow as the future of our beachside community is atstake. I suggest the community fathers take this in consideration and don’t allow a mistake to get a hold on our precious city.Fred Zuelich Fred G. Zuelich '40 years of selling fine beach properties"310 245 4898 #00669414 www.zuelichhomes.com Page 534 of 630 From:Hayes Noel To:Planning Subject:53’ building! Date:Friday, April 11, 2025 11:54:36 AM [You don't often get email from hayesanoel@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Please deny approval of the proposed building at 3415 Palm Drive. It is way out of character for Hermosa to have an apartment building 20’ above code limits. We fear it will change our neighborhood irretrievably. Thank you. Hayes Noel 2800 Strand Hermosa Beach Sent from my iPhone Page 535 of 630 From:George Buckley To:Planning Cc:Janet Buckley Subject:Proposed 50 Foot Building Date:Thursday, April 24, 2025 1:58:58 PM [You don't often get email from gbuckley8@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] As long term residents of Hermosa Beach we were shocked to see that there was a proposal for such a project.Having built our home in 1997 in Hermosa Beach, I believe we were limited to a 25 foot height limit. It’s absurdto even consider such a project. Obviously it will affect their neighbors very negatively. It will also look totally outof place in the neighborhood. This should be denied swiftly and unanimously to insure other such ridiculousproposals are not forthcoming. Janet & George Buckley125 25th StreetHermosa Beach310-292-1830 Page 536 of 630 From:Jay Philbrick To:Planning Subject:Highrise in Hermosa Beach Date:Thursday, June 12, 2025 10:48:34 AM [You don't often get email from jayphilbrick@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] The proposed 50 building project on palm dr would be a disaster for our community not to mention blocking my view of the ocean. I would request you not approve this project. Sent from my iPhone Page 537 of 630 Page 538 of 630 From: Katy Jenssen <jenssenkaty@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 2:12 PM To: HB Connnect <HBConnect@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Strong opposition to PDP 24–08 Attention Planning Manager, Alexis Oropeza, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to increasing the height allowance on the apartment building for 3415 Palm Dr. My family has lived in Hermosa since the early 1940s, building our current family home in 1951. We have a strong desire to keep our town from becoming a high-rise nightmare. Please let me know where and how I need to make sure my voice is heard to stop this from proceeding further. Thank you, Katy Jenssen and family Mosaic Surf Art You don't often get email from jenssenkaty@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Page 539 of 630 From:Katy Jenssen To:Planning Subject:Opposition to 50 foot building height Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 7:17:17 AM You don't often get email from jenssenkaty@gmail.com. Learn why this is important As a resident of Hermosa Beach with my family building on Silverstrand in 1951, thecharacter of Hermosa Beach is near and dear to my heart. The idea that this building could be permitted is nothing short of a nightmare! I urge you todeny this proposal and save the Hermosa that we know in love! Sincerely, Katy Jenssen Mosaic Surf Art Page 540 of 630 From:Kelly Anderson To:Planning; City Council; Mayor Pro Tem Mike Detoy; Councilmember Ray Jackson; Councilmember MichaelKeegan; Councilmemberr Dean Francois; City Clerk; SouthCoast@coastal.ca.gov;StrategicPlanComments@coastal.ca.gov; hcd@hcd.ca.gov Subject:OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED 60-FOOT BUILDER"S REMEDY PROJECT AT 3415 PALM DRIVE Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 9:02:55 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kelanders@msn.com. Learn why this isimportant Kelly Anderson 1514 Manhattan Ave Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 May 3, 2025 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Honorable Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 60-foot "Builder's Remedy" project at 3415 Palm Drive. This project directly threatens our community's character, violates longstanding height restrictions, and raises serious legal concerns that demand your immediate attention. BACKGROUND: A THREAT TO HERMOSA BEACH'S CHARACTER For decades, Hermosa Beach has maintained a 30-foot height limit to preserve our city's unique coastal character, protect residents' views, and ensure neighborhood compatibility. The proposed 60-foot development would tower over surrounding structures, fundamentally altering our community's character and setting a dangerous precedent for future development. The developer is exploiting the "Builder's Remedy" provision of the Housing Accountability Act, which was triggered when Hermosa Beach temporarily lacked a certified Housing Element. While this provision does allow certain projects to bypass local zoning controls, it does NOT grant unlimited development rights, nor does it exempt projects from other crucial legal requirements, particularly those related to the California Coastal Act. LEGAL VIOLATIONS AND GROUNDS FOR DENIAL 1. California Coastal Act Violations: Builder's Remedy projects must still comply with the California Coastal Act. This development appears to violate Coastal Act provisions that protect coastal resources, public views, and community character. The Commission can and should determine that this project fails to meet Coastal Page 541 of 630 Act requirements independently from local zoning considerations. 2. Improper Environmental Review: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires thorough analysis of environmental impacts. Builder's Remedy does not exempt projects from CEQA compliance. The project's environmental review is inadequate, particularly regarding visual impacts, shading effects, traffic congestion, and public access concerns. 3. Public Health and Safety Concerns: The Housing Accountability Act specifically permits denial of projects that present genuine public health and safety concerns. The increased height, density, and resulting traffic could create significant public safety hazards, particularly regarding emergency vehicle access, evacuation routes, and pedestrian safety. 4. California Public Resources Code Section 30251: This section of the Coastal Act requires that "permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas." This 60-foot structure clearly violates these requirements. COMMUNITY IMPACTS Beyond the legal concerns, I urge you to consider the profound negative impacts this development would have on our community: View Obstruction: The excessive height would block ocean views for numerous residents. Parking and Traffic: Increased density without adequate parking provisions will worsen our already strained street parking situation. Sunlight Deprivation: Surrounding properties would experience significant shading impacts. Property Values: Neighboring properties would likely see devaluation due to impaired views and increased density. Precedent Setting: Approving this project could open the floodgates to similar oversized developments throughout Hermosa Beach. REQUESTED ACTIONS I respectfully request that the Planning Commission: 1. Deny this project based on its non-compliance with the California Coastal Act, CEQA requirements, and public health and safety concerns. 2. Involve the California Coastal Commission in reviewing this proposal, as they have jurisdiction over development in the Coastal Zone and can provide additional legal grounds for denial. 3. Initiate a thorough legal review of the project's compliance with state Page 542 of 630 environmental regulations beyond merely the Housing Accountability Act. 4. Explore legal remedies against the property owner and developer for attempting to exploit a temporary administrative issue (the delayed Housing Element certification) to permanently alter our community's character. 5. Consider pursuing legal action against individual commissioners, city staff, and council members who approve this project despite its clear legal deficiencies, as they may bear personal liability for knowingly approving a non-compliant development. CONCLUSION While addressing California's housing crisis is important, it must not come at the expense of established environmental protections, public health and safety, or community character. The Builder's Remedy provision is being exploited beyond its intended purpose. I urge the Commission to stand firm in protecting our community by rejecting this project and exploring all legal avenues to contest this abuse of the Builder's Remedy provision. Our city has now completed its Housing Element certification - there is no reason to allow this oversized development to proceed when other, more appropriately scaled housing projects can be approved. Your decisions today will shape Hermosa Beach for generations to come. Please prioritize the long-term well-being of our community over the short-term profits of a single developer. Respectfully submitted, Kelly Anderson Hermosa Beach Resident 310 721-8402 Kelanders@msn.com CC: Hermosa Beach City Council Hermosa Beach City Attorney California Coastal Commission California Department of Housing and Community Development Page 543 of 630 From:Kieran Smith To:Planning Subject:Support for 3415 Palm Drive Development Date:Tuesday, June 17, 2025 4:48:42 PM You don't often get email from krnmsmith@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Hello, Hope you are having a nice day. I just wanted to speak for the large share of Hermosa Beachresidents that don't share the anger and opposition to this build that most people who email you probably express. It would be great to see this city grow and provide more housing forother people to enjoy our culture. I know I'm not alone in this sentiment, it's just hard for us to be as vocal as the opposition. Sincerely, Kieran Smith Page 544 of 630 From:Kimberly West To:Planning Subject:Stop the Five-story Development at 3415 Palm Drive Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 11:58:13 PM You don't often get email from kimberly@thewestpage.com. Learn why this is important I oppose the five-story apartment building proposed at 3415 Palm Drive in north Hermosa. This 50-foot out-of-scaledevelopment will tower over the city and destroy our small-town character. It will alsoincrease density, decrease property values and block views. Kimberly West Homeowner 3100 The Strand HB Page 545 of 630 From:Kimberly West To:Planning Subject:Stop the Five-story Development at 3415 Palm Drive Date:Saturday, May 24, 2025 11:58:13 PM You don't often get email from kimberly@thewestpage.com. Learn why this is important I oppose the five-story apartment building proposed at 3415 Palm Drive in north Hermosa. This 50-foot out-of-scaledevelopment will tower over the city and destroy our small-town character. It will alsoincrease density, decrease property values and block views. Kimberly West Homeowner 3100 The Strand HB Page 546 of 630 Linda and Peter Biche 3220 The Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 labiche@verizon.net | pwbiche@verizon.net June 1, 2025 Planning Commission & City Council City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: June 17, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting – 3414–3418 Hermosa Ave. (3415 Palm Dr.) Builder’s Remedy / Housing Element – Opposition Letter Dear Commissioners and Councilmembers, We strongly oppose the proposed project at 3414–3418 Hermosa Avenue under the Builder’s Remedy. Despite the city’s housing element delay, this project threatens the character, safety, and livability of Hermosa Beach—and legal grounds to deny or modify it remain. This development would tower over its surroundings, strain public infrastructure (parking, sewers, water, electricity), and degrade historical vistas and coastal light. It is incompatible with the neighborhood’s scale and charm, and it does not meaningfully address the housing crisis. A full environmental and community review is necessary. Local zoning, community input, and sustainability values are being bypassed. The project’s environmental impact—including congestion and coastal ecosystem disruption—must not be overlooked. Alternatives that meet housing goals while preserving community character should be prioritized. Legal pathways remain open, including the California Coastal Act (to protect scenic views), CEQA review, and health and safety exemptions. Experts believe this project is not automatically entitled, and over 90% of public feedback is opposed. We urge the city to stand with its residents and use all available legal and procedural tools to reject or significantly revise this project. Let’s not let a procedural loophole permanently damage our coastal community. Thank you for your continued commitment to protecting Hermosa Beach. Sincerely, Linda and Peter Biche 3220 The Strand Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 labiche@verizon.net | pwbiche@verizon.net Page 547 of 630 From:Ma Rad To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive - OPPOSITION Date:Wednesday, June 25, 2025 3:10:21 PM You don't often get email from rad2kma1@gmail.com. Learn why this is important This is outrageous and needs to be stopped. Please add my name as a Hermosa Beach resident to the list in opposition to allowing this orany other buildings to be built in our city in excess of current, existing height limits. Mark Radville 2966 La CarlitaHermosa Beach 310.606.0837 mobile Page 548 of 630 -----Original Message----- From: Matt Kunitz <mattkunitz@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 7:10 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive [You don't often get email from mattkunitz@me.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] My family have become new Hermosa Beach residents after the Pacific Palisades fire. We love it here and are making plans to stay. I urge you to keep the charm of this town and not allow this over height project to continue. Page 549 of 630 From: Michael Newman <mknewman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 10:13 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: I oppose the building project at 3415 Palm Drive To the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission: I strongly oppose the five story building project at 3415 Palm Drive. This building should not be exempted from the current city height restriction. Allowing the construction of this building will affect all the residents of our city. Please do not let plans for this construction move forward. Michael Newman 310-469-8762 650 Hermosa Ave, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Page 550 of 630 From:Michael Treidl To:Planning Cc:salazar gomez isabel cristina Subject:Concern Regarding Proposed Development at 3415 Palm Drive Date:Friday, June 6, 2025 1:57:48 PM You don't often get email from mtreidl@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear Planning Commission, As a longtime resident of Hermosa Beach, I am writing to respectfully express my concern regarding the proposed 50-foot development at 3415 Palm Drive. One of the defining characteristics of our community is its small-town charm and scale, whichI believe should be thoughtfully preserved. I encourage the city to explore every available avenue to prevent this development and to consider solutions that align with the values andcharacter of our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Michael Treidl1216 2nd st Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Page 551 of 630 From:Michael Beuder To:Planning Subject:APN 4181-033-017 Date:Tuesday, May 20, 2025 3:18:19 PM You don't often get email from mikebeuder@gmail.com. Learn why this is important We own the 3 adjacent Hermosa Beach properties from 121 35th St to 133 35th St for the last80 years. The proposed project for the APN listed above is simply ridiculous. The City needs to step-up and block this request; nobody in our neighborhood wants a project like this. Pleaseprotect the homeowners of our neighborhood against unscrupulous developers. Thanks. Mike Beuder, Trustee, The Kohlstedt Trust Page 552 of 630 From:mike mike Subject:Stop construction Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 6:41:28 PM You don't often get email from smm6w7@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important Hi I’m emailing to express my concern with the 50-foot development at 3415 Palm Drive. Please stop construction and protect our community. Thank you l! Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Page 553 of 630 Nancy Schwappach Hermosa Beach, CA May 26, 2025 Planning Commission City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Planning Commissioners: On June 17 the Planning Commission will hold a continued hearing on the “Builder’s Remedy” application for 3415 Palm Drive (aka 3414-3418 Hermosa Ave). At the continued hearing, I think it would be helpful to the public if the Commission made detailed findings and an assessment of conformance with the City’s General Plan, and then, if it makes a decision at that hearing, provide a detailed explanation of its recommendation to Council. Of course, to enable it to do so, the Commission would be greatly assisted by, and, in fact, it seems would require, advice from expert outside land use counsel, which I continue to strongly encourage the City retain. At the March 18 hearing, the staff report and proposed resolution were very general as to the findings. While the proposed resolution listed the 10 applicable findings, it then states simply: “While the City finds some of the above findings can be met for the project, the proposed project is inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking, and open space. However, these inconsistencies do not rise to the threshold needed to deny this project as the project is eligible for protections under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. . . .” I think the public would appreciate it if the Commission went through each finding in detail. Finding 10 would be particularly helpful: “Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole.” Section 11 of the draft resolution from March 18 also has an analysis of consistency with the City’s General Plan – but only references provisions which are recited to be consistent. It then goes on to say: “While the proposed project is not consistent with several of the City’s General Plan Standards, the proposed project may not be denied due to this inconsistency as the project is eligible for protections under the Builders Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act. . . .” Again, I think the public would appreciate the Commission providing a detailed recital as to conformance, and lack thereof, with the City’s General Plan. Finally, after making all appropriate findings about the application, and a detailed assessment of conformance, and lack thereof, with the General Plan, I think the public would appreciate the Commission giving a detailed explanation of why it recommends City Council should, or should not, deny the application, under Builder’s Remedy, as amended by AB 1893. For example, have all health and safety issues been considered Page 554 of 630 Planning Commission May 26, 2025 Page 2 including shadow effects, firefighting capabilities, traffic impacts, electrical and sewer capacities, etc? Have all applicable state and federal laws been considered including compliance with CEQA, the Mello Act and the Coastal Act? As required under AB 1893, can the City require the project be modified in a manner to conform more closely to objective development standards, including the height limit, without rendering the project infeasible, for example by removing the 5th floor “office and roof deck,” lowering ceiling heights throughout to 8’ and moving parking below grade, at least on Hermosa Avenue?” If desired by the applicant, could the City waive the substantial conformance requirement and allow the applicant to remove the new 5th unit while retaining their vested application, thereby further alleviating non-compliance? Retaining expert outside land use counsel, and providing this detailed record, may provide assurance the City gave due consideration to all relevant facts and law. Nancy Schwappach Hermosa Beach cc: Planning Department City Council Page 555 of 630 From:Pam T To:Planning; City Council Subject:Save Hermosa Date:Monday, June 9, 2025 11:38:57 AM The state's request for "low income housing" doesn't take into the already high density communities like Hermosa Beach. I read the March 13 Easy Reader "There goes the height limit". When it comes to low income housing, builders can ignorethe city's 30' height limit. Just because they can ignore the height limIt, it doesn'tmean that they should. One gentleman on Facebook suggested that we "Share the View". While creating a lovely view for the 5 families on Palm Dr., a 50' structure will destroy the views for many surrounding neighbors...that is NOT "sharing". Those ocean views come at a price and one's property value is bound to take a BIGhit. It will also add to the parking problems unless the builder is providing 2 spaces per unit. We ALL need to live and work together. A better solution is for builders to redesign their projects respecting the 30' height limit and not divide the community creating a hostile environment. Thank you for your time andconsideration. Pam Tatreau Hermosa Beach Page 556 of 630 From:Patti schutz To:Planning Subject:Fwd: Save Hermosa Life Date:Wednesday, June 4, 2025 7:36:55 PM You don't often get email from pattikins51@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Patti schutz <pattikins51@hotmail.com>Date: June 4, 2025 at 7:28:35 PM PDTTo: citycouncil@hermosabeach.govSubject: Save Hermosa Life My husband and I have been visitors of the Hermosa Beach area for manyyears… we adore this wonderful place…. I am saddened that City Council did notact on this, missed the deadline, or whatever the case may be. It is never too lateto turn it around… We live in Drytown California. It is home to 186 residents. Itis small and quaint and located in Amador County.People come to our area from your area as we are a tourist area as well…knownfor our gold mining towns, wineries, and small town vibes(Sutter Creek,Plymouth, Jackson). Keep your darling town, charming, and delightful as it isnow.Thank youPatti/Dan Schutz209-224-7300Sent from my iPhone Page 557 of 630 From:Harari, PJ To:Planning Subject:Opposition to 50-foot development at 3415 Palm Drive Date:Sunday, April 20, 2025 4:14:16 PM You don't often get email from pjharari@mlaglobal.com. Learn why this is important We are opposed to the 50-foot development at 3415 Palm Drive / for what it means for our community in general, not just for this project, but also for this project. PJ Harari and Dan Kircher - homeowners in Hermosa Beach for 26 yearsPartner310-901-1944 cell Get Outlook for iOS Page 558 of 630 From:renee wright To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive proposed development Date:Wednesday, April 16, 2025 3:07:46 PM [You don't often get email from wreneetnt@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Planning Department I am asking you to PLEASE leave our Hermosa Beach town intact by denying such a monstrosity from being built in our beach town. We have so few small bungalows remaining to keep the beach image of our town alive. Building such a tall building with so many resident will impact our image, our traffic, our living density and block the view of so many residents who call this their home and treasure their living space Please…. YOU must STOP this and any future similar buildings from destroying our homes, our beaches, out beach town. I beg you! Sincerely, Renee Wright 576 21 st street Hermosa Beach Page 559 of 630 From: Richard Gotthoffer <******** > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 1:48 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Richard Gotthoffer <***********@aol.com> Subject: 2nd try in case Planning Comm Re; Agenda Item 7.c. 3415 Palm Ave I request that the Commission deny this application. I hope the illustrations of City docs go through. The submission from the Feb meeting is quite extensive, & I am not a property lawyer. However, as evidenced at the last City Council meeting, I think that my questions & arguments are shared by others. I hope that the City will come prepared to address these issues. 1. It seems that as there is no intention of following the obligations of GSC 65941.1, there should be no exemption based upon that now canceled filing, with a new updated and routine building plan. 2. In addition to giving this project the height exemption – (hard to read the plans-is the roof deck FLOOR at 50’?), & referring to our own development stds, (pg6/11). why do you plan on allowing less than half of the required on-site parking? Is there an ADA parking space? Is that ever a consideration? An EV charging station?) 3. Why are you also disregarding both the Coverage% & the dwelling unit size criteria? I consider this project to be a true threat to the cities building codes, or is it as simple as that there are now State rules that effectively render local efforts null & void. Is there anything to stop the current project at 3430 Palm Ave. from holding at the demo phase and submitting a new plan? After all, as stated in the staff historical assessment (pg 10/11,) “..the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time…” How about those other R3 similar lots along the North end of Palm Ave? And so the dominoes begin to fall… Thank you for your attention, Richard Gotthoffer Page 560 of 630 Page 561 of 630 Page 562 of 630 Page 563 of 630 From: Rodger Deuerlein <rod*******@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 9:31 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive: Restart public notice process with useful, honest imagery Greetings, As a first step, the Planning Commission needs to restart the public-notice process with realistic images of what this building will look like in its actual surroundings. "50' 6" isn't very meaningful without context (and it's 53' 9" from the Hermosa Ave. sidewalk). Useful imagery would depict the proposed building together with its surrounding neighbor buildings. The drawings at the City website do not provide this. In fact, the one non-blueprint picture is outright deceptive, as it vanishes the home to the north, and replaces the home to the south with some generic fictional structure of unknown height. Regards, Rodger J. Deuerlein 2** 3*th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 310-2**-**** Page 564 of 630 Peter J. Howell Direct Dial: (714) 662-4661 E-mail: phowell@rutan.com March 18, 2025 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714-546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 planning@hermosabeach.gov Re: March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Item 7c - Precise Development Plan (PD 24-08) for 3415 Palm Drive Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter is sent on behalf of HNP Investments LLC, which owns a property in the vicinity of the proposed development at 3415 Palm Drive (“Project”) and is one of many neighbors concerned about the proposed improper use of the “Builder’s Remedy” to approve an outrageously oversized and incompatible project in a residential neighborhood. As acknowledged in the Staff Report for the Project, the Project fails to comply with numerous objective building standards; among other things, it exceeds the 30 foot height standard by more than 20 feet, significantly exceeds the maximum lot coverage, and fails to provide necessary parking. If built as proposed it would have a substantial detrimental impact on the neighborhood, blocking views from dozens of other homes and reducing property values. The City of Hermosa Beach (“City”) nonetheless seems poised to approve the Project under the mistaken assumption that it has no choice. As discussed below, the Staff Report for the Project appears to be based on the incorrect premise that the City is forbidden from applying any development standards to the Project, because it is being processed under the Builder’s Remedy. To the contrary, recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) clarify that the City may require a Builder’s Remedy project to comply with “objective, quantifiable, and written development standards,” so long as doing so does not render the project infeasible. (See Government Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A).) Simply put, assuming arguendo1 that the Project qualifies for the Builder’s Remedy and that the applicant is entitled to cram 5 units onto its 2,553 square foot lot, that does not mean that the City has to approve any 5-unit project, without any consideration of the City’s objective development standards or regard for how it will impact the surrounding neighborhood. 1 Without the complete project file, it is impossible to determine whether the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project. We have submitted a Public Records Act request for documents relating to the Project, and reserve the right to raise this issue in any further proceedings relating to the Project. Page 565 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 2 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 In addition, the HAA expressly provides that local agencies must comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the California Coastal Act (“Coastal Act”) in processing a Builder’s Remedy project application. Here, the Staff Report indicates that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA, but fails to consider whether the Project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances, including the fact that the Project is located in the City’s Coastal Zone and is adjacent to public beach access and The Strand. These circumstances, along with the fact that the Project does not comply with many of the standards designed to ensure development will not negatively impact the surrounding area, necessitate environmental review. Among other things, the Project will have significant impacts on views and conflicts with numerous land use policies. Accordingly, at a minimum, the City must prepare an initial study pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether the Project may have a significant effect on the environment (to be followed by a full environmental impact report if the initial study indicates the possibility of such an impact). Similarly, while noting the Project is subject to the Coastal Act and will require approval from the California Coastal Commission, the Staff Report fails to discuss whether the Project is consistent with the Coastal Act. As discussed below, it is not. The size and height of the Project will significantly impact coastal views. The Project is not compatible with the character of surrounding area. And the lack of parking will detrimentally impact access to the City’s public coastal resources. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reject the Project, as currently configured. The Project must be redesigned to comply with the City’s objective development standards, to the extent feasible, and the City must comply with CEQA before the Planning Commission can lawfully consider approving a revised version of the Project. A. The City Can Apply Objective, Quantifiable, and Written Development Standards to the Project. The Staff Report for the Project incorrectly suggests that the City is barred from applying any of its objective design standards to the Project. While previous versions of the Builder’s Remedy provision were ambiguous as to a local agency’s ability to apply objective development standards to a Builder’s Remedy project, the recent amendments in Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1893 make clear that local agencies are not categorically prohibited from enforcing such standards.2 Specifically, AB 1893 provides that a city may “require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant,” so long as doing so would not “[r]ender the project infeasible.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A), (B).) 2 The Staff Report indicates that the applicant has elected to proceed under the updated law to avoid providing the affordable housing required under the previous version of § 65589.5. Page 566 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 3 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Staff Report erroneously assumes that the City cannot enforce objective development standards related to minimum lot coverage, height, open space, and parking as a result of the Builders’ Remedy provisions, without attempting to demonstrate that applying such standards would reduce the proposed density or otherwise render the Project infeasible. Importantly, even a cursory review of the Project plans shows that it would be possible to build a more-compliant version of the Project without sacrificing any density. For example, the top (Fourth) floor of the Project consists mainly of office space for Unit 5, which also includes 1,640 square feet of living area on the Third Floor. An extra story for an office and rooftop deck does not further any purpose of the HAA, which is intended to encourage the development of additional, affordable residential units. Accordingly, it would be very simple to eliminate the Fourth Floor—and lower the height of the Project by approximately ten feet—without reducing the number of units. Similarly, the garage is currently at grade level. A partially below-grade garage—like that utilized in the building directly adjacent to the Project site—would lower the height of the Project by approximately 2.5 feet. Likewise, reducing ceiling heights to 8 feet would lower the overall height by another 6 feet. Thus, even a few minor changes could reduce the overall height of the Project to approximately 32 feet. Similarly, while the staff report indicates the Project complies with setback requirements, a review of the plans appears to indicate that all floors above the ground floor encroach well into the required setback, almost to the property line. (See Hermosa Beach Municipal Code § 17.46.070 [“Required yard areas shall be unobstructed from ground to sky except specifically allowed…”].) It would be possible to comply with the required 10 foot front setback from the property line without reducing the number of units by reducing the size of the living areas and bedrooms and/or eliminating a bathroom. The height and setback standards are only two examples. As indicated in the Staff Report, the Project fails to comply with numerous objective, quantifiable, and written criteria, including the standards for minimum lot area (1,320 sf per dwelling unit), lot coverage maximum (65%), height (30 ft.) parking (13 parking spaces and 10 garage spaces), and private open space (300 sf per unit). (Staff Report, pp. 6–7.) All of these standards must be enforced unless doing so would render the Project infeasible. In short, nothing in the Builder’s Remedy requires the City to entirely ignore its objective development standards and rubberstamp any project that does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the HAA, no matter the design of the project. It is indisputable that it is possible to design a feasible 5-unit project that better conforms to the City’s objective standards and that would be less impactful to the surrounding community. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should reject the Project, as currently configured, and direct staff to work with the applicant to redesign the Project to conform to the City’s objective standards to the extent possible. Page 567 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 4 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 B. The City Must Comply with CEQA Before Considering Whether to Approve the Project. Projects proceeding under the Builder’s Remedy provisions must still comply with all requirements of CEQA. (Gov. Code § 65598.5(e) [“Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).].) CEQA requires that public agencies analyze whether a project might have any significant environmental impacts before granting any approval of such a project, unless the project is clearly “exempt” from CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15004(a).) While the CEQA Guidelines set forth exemptions for several categories of projects that have been determined generally not to have any significant impacts on the environment, such “categorical exemptions” “are construed narrowly,” in keeping with the requirement that CEQA “be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment.” (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 943-944, 966.) Further, a categorical exemption may not be relied upon where there is a “reasonable possibility” that an otherwise exempt project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) Here, the Staff Report asserts that the Project is exempt from CEQA under the “Class 3” exemption for small structures, because “it consists of a multi-family residential project that is less than six units in an urbanized area.” (Staff Report, p. 10, citing CEQA Guidelines § 15303(b).) While the Staff Report correctly notes that projects that may have significant environmental impacts due to unusual circumstances cannot rely on a categorial exemption, it fails to provide any sort of analysis of this issue. The Staff Report and accompanying materials themselves demonstrate the existence of unusual circumstances that may result in significant environmental impacts. Unusual circumstances that differentiate the Project from a typical Class 3 project and give rise to at least a “reasonable possibility” that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment include the following: (1) the Project is located within the Coastal Zone near important public facilities (Staff Report, p. 6); and (2) the Project does not comply with numerous development standards that are designed, in part, to minimize potential adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Such circumstances are likely to result in adverse impacts to at least two CEQA categories: aesthetics and land use and planning. CEQA requires consideration of aesthetic impacts, including impacts on scenic views. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, section I; see also Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist., (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [even non-expert opinions regarding Page 568 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 5 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 aesthetic impacts may constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact, requiring preparation of an EIR].) As set forth in the City’s General Plan, “[t]he character and beauty of Hermosa Beach are inextricably linked to its coastal location and natural topography.” (General Plan, Ch. 5, p. 160 [“In addition to the ocean vistas, the visual character of Hermosa Beach itself is considered a unique resource.”].) Allowing a project that is only a block away from the beach to substantially exceed the maximum height limit (by more than 40 percent!) and lot coverage standard will have significant adverse impact on views from public and private viewpoints, including dozens of homes. Unfortunately, it is impossible for the public and Planning Commission to understand and evaluate the extent to which the Project will block views, because the City has not undertaken the required analysis. An expert view analysis involving view simulations from multiple vantage points and/or the use of story poles is necessary and must be completed by the City as part of its CEQA process. Such a study should also consider the cumulative impacts that could result from the Project and other future development. Nonetheless, even a rudimentary attempt to look at how the Project would impact views indicates that it will obstruct ocean views from public rights-of-way. (See, e.g., Exhibit A.)3 Moreover, while it is sometimes said that CEQA is primarily concerned with public views, impacts to private views cannot be ignored, especially when numerous members of the public will be impacted. (See, e.g., Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [“The District cites nothing in CEQA that relieves it from considering the impact of the project on private views. To say there is no common law right to a private view, is not to say that the District is relieved from considering the impact of its project on such views.”].) Thus, an analysis of the Project’s impact on views from both public and private viewpoints is required by CEQA. CEQA also requires consideration of whether a project may “conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.” (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, section XI.)4 When a project is within the Coastal Zone, this task must include an analysis of whether the project is consistent with the Coastal Act. (See, e.g., Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1233 [finding EIR adequately analyzed Coastal Act consistency].) 3 We are in the process of gathering additional evidence of view impacts that we anticipate submitting to the City in advance of further proceedings on the Project. Again, however, it is the City’s responsibility to undertake the required view analysis. 4 Notably, while the Staff Report purports to include an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan “for reference purposes” (Staff Report, p. 10), it fails to analyze numerous relevant General Plan policies, including those discussed herein. Page 569 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 6 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Project is inconsistent with numerous City General Plan goals and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating aesthetic impacts, including, but not limited to the following: • Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced. The culture and identity of Hermosa Beach is defined in part by scenic value. The City seeks to maintain and enhance the beauty of Hermosa Beach, and to ensure future development does not substantially detract from identified scenic public viewpoints or uninterrupted viewing areas, particularly within the Coastal Zone. • Policy 5.2 Visual character. Accommodate economic growth and new buildings in a way that is consistent with and reflects the visual character of the community. • Policy 5.3 Building site and design. Massing, height, and orientation of new development adjacent to Prominent Public Viewpoints and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas shall be evaluated and, to the extent reasonable, new development will be sited and designed to minimize additional obstructions of public coastal views to and along the ocean and scenic areas. As discussed above, the Project is located within the Coastal Zone, just a block from the ocean, yet it fails to comply with building height and massing standards designed to protect views as well as the visual character of the area. The Project is likewise inconsistent with General Plan policies designed to protect public access to the City’s coastal resources, including: • Goal 6. The coast and its recreational facilities are easily accessible from many locations and by multiple transportation modes. Providing and maintaining public access both to and along California’s coast is a central premise of the California Coastal Act. The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to maintaining and enhancing public access through the provision of multiple access points, increased visibility and signage, and increased opportunities for alternative modes to safely travel to the beach. • Policy 6.7 Minimal impact to access. Require new development and substantial redevelopment projects to minimize impacts to existing public access to and along the shoreline. (See also General Plan, Ch. 3, p. 116 [“Provide measures to expand coastal access through sufficient parking and alternative transportation.”]; General Plan, Ch. 5, p. 160 [“Provide measures to ensure new development does not impede access and is compatible with public access areas.”].) Page 570 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 7 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Project is adjacent to public beach access as well as a pedestrian/bicycle path that runs along The Strand.5 Parking in such area is limited and already difficult to find, particularly during the summer. Nonetheless, the Project only provides about half of the parking required by the City’s zoning code, meaning residents of the Project will be forced to use the limited street parking along Hermosa Ave, 34th Street, 35th Street, and Manhattan Ave. (See Staff Report, p. 6.) Moreover, the parking proposed by the Project is even worse than suggested by the numbers, because it includes driveway spaces that would block access to the garage, thus encouraging additional street parking to avoid inconvenience. Accordingly, the Project will reduce the amount of parking available to members of the public seeking to visit the beach and reduce public access to the coast. As discussed further below, the Project is also inconsistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act. In sum, the Project clearly has the potential to have significant aesthetic and land use impacts due to usual circumstances. As a result, the City may not lawfully approve the Project in reliance on a categorical exemption. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c) [“A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”].) Instead, the City must prepare an initial study to analyze the Project’s potential impacts (or alternatively, commence preparation of a full environmental impact report). (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15063.) C. The Builders’ Remedy Does Not Excuse Compliance With the Coastal Act. As with CEQA, the HAA expressly provides that Builder’s Remedy projects are subject to the Coastal Act. (Gov. Code § 65598.5(e) [“Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).”].) While the Staff Report notes that the Project is located within the Coastal Zone and will require separate approval from the California Coastal Commission, it fails to provide any discussion of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act was enacted to provide “a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.” (Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobil Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 793; see also Pub. Res. Code § 30001.) The Coastal Act expressly requires the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas to be considered and protected as a resource of public importance: Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the 5 The City’s General Plan recognizes The Strand as “a feature unique to this beach front residential area.” (General Plan, p. 83.) Page 571 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 8 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. (Pub. Res. Code, § 30251.) Here, the Project both fails to protect views and is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. The Project sits within an existing residential neighborhood, but would not comply with many objective development standards designed to ensure new development is compatible with the neighborhood and does not adversely affect existing residents. (See Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1009, quoting Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 517–518 [“A zoning scheme, after all, is similar in some respects to a contract; each party foregoes rights to use its land as it wishes in return for the assurance that the use of neighboring property will be similarly restricted, the rationale being that such mutual restriction can enhance total community welfare.”].) At more than 50 feet tall6—some 20 feet taller than permitted by Code—it will tower over its neighbors, blocking views and casting shade upon adjacent properties. However, despite this significant deviation in height, the Staff Report does not analyze, or even mention, the potential impacts such a large building may have on the surrounding area. The Coastal Act also requires development in the Coastal Zone to “maintain and enhance public access to the coast.” (Pub. Res. Code § 30252.) To achieve this goal, the Coastal Act requires developments to provide “adequate parking facilities” to ensure access to coastal resources is preserved. (Ibid.) As currently proposed, the Project includes six less parking spaces and six less garage spaces than would be required by the City’s objective design criteria. As a result, vehicle traffic from the Project will have to use limited street parking to meet demand. Considering the Project is adjacent to a public entrance to the beach and the Strand, this lack of parking necessarily limits available parking in the area for those seeking to access the City’s coastal resources. The lack of parking for the Project will necessarily require residents to compete with the public and beachgoers for parking in this area. Therefore, the Project fails to comply with mandatory provisions of the Coastal Act and should be rejected or conditioned on compliance with these provisions. The Project’s lack of consistency with the Coastal Act is both a CEQA impact that precludes reliance on a categorical exemption and an independent basis for denying the Project. (See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at 1233 [finding EIR adequately analyzed Coastal Act consistency].) * * * 6 While the Staff Report indicates a maximum height of 50.5 feet, the Project plans appear to indicate a total height of 53.9 feet. Page 572 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 9 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 For the reasons set forth above, the Planning Commission should reject the Project, as concurrently configured. Any future redevelopment of the property must be compliant with the Coastal Act and, to the extent feasible, the City’s objective development standards. Further, any such project can only be considered after the City completes the necessary CEQA review. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Peter J. Howell Enclosure: Exhibit “A” cc: City Attorney Patrick Donegan - Patrick.Donegan@bbklaw.com City Clerk Myra Maravilla - cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov Page 573 of 630 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714-546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 EXHIBIT “A” Page 574 of 630 -1- Exhibit A Taken March 16, 2025 from 35th Street between Manhattan Ave. and Highland Ave. Red box indicates approximate project location. Page 575 of 630 -2-Page 576 of 630 From:Steve Grimmett To:Planning; City Council Subject:3415 Palm Drive Date:Wednesday, August 13, 2025 2:11:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from zendozer@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant Hello. I'm just writing a quick note to let you know that as a Hermosa Resident, I'm opposedto the planned 5 story apartment building being proposed for lot 3415 Palm Drive. Please do not change the landscape of Hermosa. Thanks, Steve Grimmett Page 577 of 630 From:Susan Sims To:Planning; City Council Subject:High Rise...again??? Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 1:22:41 PM [You don't often get email from scsims@me.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] What the hell is wrong with you-all of you? This doesn’t belong in Hermosa Beach. What about the neighbors…these residents will be looking down and into their neighbors living space. It is terribly congested in our sweet & priceless community. Hermosa Beach is also one of the highest rated - DENSITY communities and Not just Beach community. You do this and or you allow this, YOU will ruin and destroy the charm that we all purchased homes in the first place! You feel so compelled to build “Affordable Housing” WHERE??? I have a suggestion for the City…go ask LA for land to build by Dockweiler Beach and Play del Rey adjacent to the airport. The City of Los Angeles bought that land from the residence that owned homes there, because of the airport noise and expansion. Well they’ve expanded and the land was going to go to use, as a public golf course. They stopped talking about that some 10 years after they purchased the land. SO, let’s force the City/County of Los Angeles and the State of California …to get out of our business of Hermosa Beach! While at it, why not ask Major Bass to sell all the buildings she’d bought for the homeless and to date only 30 some have been completed, and LOVELY they don’t want to live in them. She purchased with State Tax dollars and paid over 1/3 -1/2 more for Old and dilapidated buildings and they have sat dormant. SELL them ALL OF THEM. Olympics are coming to Los Angeles and they are asking the Federal government for money to hold the 2028 Olympic in our City of Los Angeles. Have you seen the filth, disgusting mess in ALL of Los Angeles…Lets not forget San Francisco. There is nothing to be Proud of showing off to the world what a SLUM California has converted to…These politicians should all be ashamed of the destruction and poor waste of tax dollars, not to forget Pacific Palisades-Malibu. These are signature community’s …YOU want to do that to us?? While I’m on a roll, our City Manager-Suja, she makes a hell of a lot of money! She doesn’t ever show her face, some employee of the city! Isn’t she the one that supporter the Million $$ bathroom for what Toddlers?? That is a poor use of our TAX dollars. Not unless she paid for it with her own monies, then Thank you, but unnecessary absorbent amount of money Poorly used. Shame on the City that allowed this kind of money for a toddlers bathroom…SHAME ON ALL OF YOU! All of you are responsible for the use of City spending and to use it wisely. This is not about building the Taj Mahal. DON”T forget, you are Elected and to serve wisely! And why isn’t our City offices open 5 days a week? At least 4 1/2 making Friday a half day…WHY?? WHY NOT? Especially when City manager is making the kind of money that she is So maybe now is the time to get a NEW City Manager. Do something about this idiotic parking pass too! You’re acting like we are all criminals and it’s simply to park a blasted car in a community in which we live and adore. This is nonsense and a pure waste of time for city employees and residents. Sincerely, Susan Sims Page 578 of 630 From:Teri Jones To:Planning; City Council Cc:Teri Jones Subject:High Rise Apartment proposed at 3415 Palm Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:47:02 PM [You don't often get email from tj4cody@aol.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear City officials, I am a 71 year old resident that has resided in my same home for the last 56 years. Never in my wildest dreamswould I think I’d be drafting an email to the city council and planning commission urging you to please do whateverit takes to block/deny the permits to construct a 5 story, 50 foot apartment building in our 1.4 square mile town! It is already horrible some of the monstrosities that have been built on postage stamp lots. Parking and traffic ishorrendous as it is. I added on to my home about 30 years ago and it was a challenging and costly process to get a 742 sf addition on mysingle story home. My, have times changed. I’m still waiting to see the undergrounding of utilities to be enforcedafter I incurred a tremendous expense to underground mine 100% of the costs on me. Hermosa is small. It’s already lost so much of that quaint beach charm over the years I’ve been here. Please, it’s inyour power to keep Hermosa the gem of the South Bay. I would really doubt Manhattan would allow monstrositylike this. I look forward to the meeting on May 20. Sincerely , Teri Jones310-529-4783Sent from my iPhone Page 579 of 630 From:Alexis Oropeza To:Jake Whitney Subject:Fw: 3415 Palm Drive Date:Wednesday, June 4, 2025 4:53:02 PM From: Terry Nolan <terrymnola@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 7:43 PM To: City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov>; Ann Yang <anny@hermosabeach.gov>; Steve Napolitano <snapolitano@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive [Some people who received this message don't often get email from terrymnola@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] To Whom it may concern- I am not educated on how this project got to the point where someone other than the owner of thisproject thought it made any type of sense to allow a project of this height in a neighborhood where Ihad to lower a a roof deck guard rail an inch because it was 1 inch over the 30 foot limit. A 50 footbuilding will be a complete eyesore that will block many of our views to the beach and oceanincluding mine. Allowing it to be built couldn’t be any less fair when everyone else new to the neighborhood over the last couple of decades has had to comply with a 30 foot limit. We all boughtand did our remodels with knowledge of what our neighbors would be able to build around us andchanging those rules for this project harms us. None of us would have paid what we did for ourproperties if we knew monstrosities like this building could be built around us. Hermosa Beach is one of the most population dense cities in the United States and adding more unitsand population to an already packed in neighborhood is absurd. It is especially absurd when itdamages the quality of life of the neighbors who have complied by building codes over the years only to be damaged by someone who seems to get to build under different rules than they are. Please do what you need to do to stop this horrible project and the precedent it sets. If the City hasmessed up somehow to allow this project to get this point, have the City do and pay what it needs to in order to get beyond this nightmare but don’t allow anything past 30 feet to go up there. Thank you, Terrence Nolan209 33rd Street Page 580 of 630 From:Warren Barr To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive Date:Tuesday, July 29, 2025 12:14:11 PM You don't often get email from wbarrod@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Please deny the proposed project at 3415 Palm Drive and allow it to go to court. It's time westood up to the state mandating local land use. Hermosa Beach is overly dense as it is. Keep Hermosa Hermosa. Sincerely, Warren Barr922 17th St Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Enough is Enough, Vote Libertarian! www.LP.org Page 581 of 630 From:Zach Warren To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive Planned 50 foot luxury rental Date:Thursday, April 17, 2025 11:30:17 AM [You don't often get email from zachwarren@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] My name is Zachary Warren. I live at 2812 Hermosa Ave . I am strongly opposed to the development of 3415 Palm as a 50 foot luxury apartment building that would destroy the character of our neighborhood, create traffic and fire risk, and hurt every Hermosa Beach resident who played by the roles in development of their own properties. We built our house from 2010 to 2013 and played by the 30 foot rule like everyone else has. Please stop this ridiculous project that would create awful precedent. Thanks, Zach Page 582 of 630 Page 583 of 630 Page 584 of 630 Email Comments Received through September 10, 2025 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Branden McBirney <bmcbirney@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2025 2:28 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: No Highrises in Hermosa Hello Planning and Council, Hope you are doing well. The strong enforcement of height restrictions has been difficult at times but has kept Hermosa feel small town and not overdeveloped. It is imperative that we continue to keep that restriction in place, especially along the coast. If somehow this does get approved it is your responsibility to help the residents understand in clear uncomplicated terms why the council and planning commission had to allow this to be approved. Personally I think the building looks nice in renderings but it is not work the slippery slope and damage it will cause our community Best, Branden ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: chris myers To: Planning Subject: 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach: 53" Foot high five story apartment building Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 6:56:44 AM You don't often get email from cdmyers43@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Please stop this nonsense of building an unprecedented 5-story building so close to the beach. This makes no sense. 30’ feet is the limit and for good reason. In south Hermosa, a brown 4-story house was built years ago (around 4th st on the Strand). It is an embarrassing eye-sore structure and is completely out of place. Visitors comment on it all the time. Allowing a five-story 53’ foot high building so close to the Strand would be an even bigger eye-sore. We must stop this immediately. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Anastasia Brien Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 3:24 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive AKA 3414-18 Hermosa Ave Hello, I am writing about the issue of the 60’ building potentially being built in our lovely town. I request that the commission make detailed findings as to how and whether this project conforms to zoning and other relevant City Codes. If you find it does not conform, we hope to see detailed findings which require the project be materially modified. The concept of the “builder’s remedy” does not make sense to the residents of our beach town and we find it impossible to understand how such an anomaly might end up an eyesore on our otherwise beautiful shoreline. Anastasia Brien Hermosa Beach ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 585 of 630 -----Original Message----- From: chris myers Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 12:14 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach: 53' Foot high five story apartment building Officials: Please stop this nonsense of building an unprecedented 5-story building so close to the beach. This makes no sense. 30’ feet is the limit and for good reason. In south Hermosa, a brown 4-story house was built years ago (around 4th st on the Strand). It is an embarrassing eye-sore structure and is completely out of place. Visitors comment on it all the time. Allowing a five-story 53’ foot high building so close to the Strand would be an even bigger eye-sore. Stop this and use all of your collective wisdom and power and funds to do it. Best, Chris Myers 207 Homer Street 310-7**-3*** ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Patricia Noel Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 7:05 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Dr. proposed building Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to express my dismay at the proposed building at 3415 Palm Drive in Hermosa. It is way out of character for Hermosa to have an apartment building 20’ above code limits. It will be unsightly and we fear it will change our neighborhood irretrievably. Please deny approval. Thank you. Patricia Noel 2*** Strand Hermosa Beach CA 90254 -- Patricia Noel, PhD ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jules Brownell Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:53 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Keep Hermosa Hermosa Dear HB Planning Commission, Page 586 of 630 As someone who is raising my sons in Hermosa Beach and who has family that has called this town home for generations, I’m writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed apartment development currently under review. My grandparents settled on Silverstrand Avenue in 1951, and our family has been deeply rooted in this community ever since. I grew up riding my bike along the Strand, working at Good Stuff and enjoying the unique spirit that makes Hermosa Beach feel like more than just a place—it’s a way of life. Even now, as an adult, I continue to cherish the sense of community and character that shaped me. What’s being proposed isn’t just another building—it represents a break from the values that have defined Hermosa Beach for generations. The scale and design of the project are completely inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and it’s being pushed forward by exploiting a legal technicality rather than respecting the community’s vision and long-term interests. This development is not about thoughtful or sustainable growth. It’s about short-term gains at the cost of what makes this town special. If approved, it would mark a turning point—ushering in a wave of overdevelopment that threatens the very identity of Hermosa Beach. Please don’t let that happen. You hold the unique capability to help shape the future of our town - protect what makes Hermosa exceptional and deny this project. Sincerely, Jules Brownell ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Katy Jenssen Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 8:27 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Opposition to 1315 Valley Drive development Subject: Opposition to Out-of-Scale Development in Hermosa Beach Dear HB Planning Commission, I’m writing to strongly oppose the proposed apartment development currently under consideration in Hermosa Beach. My family built our home on Silverstrand in 1951. For over 70 years, multiple generations of my family have lived, grown up, and built their lives here. We continue to call Hermosa Beach home because of its unique charm, small-town feel, and close-knit beachside community. The proposed development is not just out of scale—it’s out of character. It exploits a loophole to push through a structure that disregards the very identity of Hermosa Beach. While it may technically satisfy certain legal criteria, it completely violates the spirit and intent of our local planning values. This kind of construction is not responsible growth—it’s opportunistic overreach. Approving this project would set a dangerous precedent and accelerate a shift toward overdevelopment that would permanently damage the character of our town. Hermosa Beach is cherished as "the best little beach town" for a reason. Let’s not trade away that identity for a short-sighted development that benefits a few at the long-term expense of the community. I urge you to protect the integrity of Hermosa Beach and deny this project. Katy Jenssen Page 587 of 630 Mosaic Surf Art ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Todd Hara Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 2:06 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive For decades the residential height limit in Hermosa Beach has been 30 feet. Let's keep it that way. Does Hermosa need affordable housing? Yes. Is raising the height limit to 50-feet for residential developments the answer? No. Drive down the Esplanade or Catalina in Redondo Beach and you will see how the city damaged the beach community. They will never get that back. We can do better. Best. Todd Hara - Hermosa Beach home owner 1*** Corona St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Erik Jackson Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 7:40 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Jackson Jackson Subject: Fwd: Fw: 3415 Palm - Plan to build 50 feet high Sorry - that was a little harsh. I’m just concerned and would like to understand this situation better. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jackson, Erik L. Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 6:51:24 PM To: planning@hermosabeach.gov <planning@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Njej Subject: 3415 Palm - Plan to build 50 feet high I'm a homeowner at 2** 34th Street HB 90254. My family home is right behind the planned 50 foot development. I just purchased my home 3 years ago for a lot of money - read HB tax revenues - based on the fact that height restrictions in front of me are 30 feet. Why would the City of Hermosa Beach destroy our neighborhood for a 50 foot tall development right at the beach? Please deny this permit application. We have lived in HB and MB for 30 years. Please confirm that no one that is able to vote for this is able to take money from developers for any direct or indirect reason. I would think that approving this would create needless litigation that is a waste of City taxpayer money. Please keep HB as it is. Page 588 of 630 Thank you. Nadine and Erik Jackson ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Kay Moore Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2025 11:52 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: STOP 50 foot height building at 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach Dear Planning Committee, I am writing this letter as a homeowner at 1*** Third Street in Hermosa Beach for the last 50 years. This is definitely one change in our city that I vehemently oppose. A 50 foot high apartment building at 3415 Palm, HB will be out of scale to other surrounding buildings, increase density, decrease property value, block views and destroy our small town atmosphere. I urge you to oppose this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Katherine Moore 1138 Third Street Hermosa Beach, CA ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: B. T. Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 1:59 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: STOP 3415 Palm Drive Hello I am 100% against this property owner being allowed to build over our 30 foot height requirement. This is a slap in the face to anyone who has built a house in Hermosa and anyone who lives in Hermosa. You should be embarrassed for missing the deadline to submit: Hermosa Beach’s state-mandated Housing Element on time I think you should all be recalled and removed immediately from the positions you currently hold. Your incompetence has opened a Pandora's box. You may have single-handedly destroyed the history of Hermosa Beach. We will not allow this build to exceed 30 feet so do your damn job and STOP this. Barry Turner Hermosa Beach ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Dana Jacobs Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 9:19 AM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm I am 100% against construction above 30 feet. I will vote against any part of the council who allows 3415 to be built higher than that. Page 589 of 630 Dana Jacobs 1** 29th St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Charles Jensen Sent: Monday, May 12, 2025 7:22 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Stop 3415 Palm Drive Development My name is Charles Jensen and I live at 3** Longfellow Avenue in Hermosa Beach, CA. I ask you to please Stop development of the proposed highrise that is proposed to be build at 3415 Palm Drive. This would be absolutely destructive to our community and other developers would do the same thing. If we don’t stop this now we will lose control of our city. Regards, Charles A. Jensen ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Cindy Zielinski Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 3:34 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach, please do not allow an apartment building to be built that is 23 feet above the current 30’ high restrictions. It will ruin the Hermosa Beach coastal skyline and pave the way for more high rises in our city. It will only benefit the developers and the wealthy people who can afford to rent there. It will not provide affordable housing that the state is mandating since the rents are likely to be over $10K a month. I can’t believe the Coastal Commission will allow this since they restrict almost everything else that happens west of Highland Ave. This building will add to the parking shortages for visitors to our city since the developer is not required to provide adequate spaces for all residents. Please do not allow our city to be negatively impacted permanently for the benefit of greedy developers by requiring the building to stay within the 30” height limit. We as residents are held to these standards, so why should the developers, who likely don’t even live in Hermosa Beach not be treated the same? Thank you. Cindy Zielinski 2** 35th St Hermosa Beach ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Jay Philbrick Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 2:18 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 55 foot structure This is a ridiculous plan to allow buildings in residential neighborhoods to exceed local codes Stop this nonsense! ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Eloise O'Donnell Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 8:27 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Please don't let this 53' high building proceed I want to share my opinion with you about the 53' high five-story apartment building planned for 3415 Palm Drive. A building that high in this neighborhood would really be an eyesore in the community. It would block the ocean view to so many people. Please employ all your legal options in preventing this building from proceeding. My husband and I Page 590 of 630 purchased our duplex at 4** 28th St, Hermosa Beach in March of 2007 and love Hermosa Beach so much. Please don't let this building proceed. Thank you. Eloise O'Donnell, MS, RDN, CDCES Registered Dietitian Nutritionist, Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist & COPE Certified Health Coach 310-2**-91** eloiseodonnell.com Thrive Every Day! ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Elizabeth Mann Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 5:30 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 5 Story Apartment Building on Hermosa Ave - awful idea! Dear council and commission members. We live at 1** 33rd Street. One of the features of the home that brought us here from Manhattan Beach was the stunning views, and the knowledge that the governing height limit was 30 feet. People rely on these zoning and property use rules to make long term family home decisions. We u understand that you are considering permitting the developer of 3415 Palm Drive to construct a 5-story apartment building, which violates the City’s zoning laws, parking requirements and height limits. This is a TERRIBLE idea, and probably illegal. We strongly urge you to follow the law and the community understandings and rules that we all appreciate and respect. Elizabeth Mann. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Kelly McNearney Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 10:29 PM To: Planning <Planning@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: �� No to 3415 Palm Drive Hello there. Just a note to express my strong opposition to the 50 foot structure at 3415 Palm Drive. I'll be at the meeting on May 20th to oppose in person as well. Thank you! Kelly McNearney 3** 33rd St, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Resident and Homeowner since 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Pat Donahue Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 9:28 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: No HIgh-rises There is no place for a highrise in Hermosa Beach. Stand up to the state and govern our city as you were elected or appointed to do. City planning and building commissions along with the council are stewards of the city. The city has building codes. This is a small beach community. A high-rise apartment building destroys the views and values of the neighboring properties. This building does nothing to promote affordable housing. This is a property owner angry he/she couldn't develop a large single family home due to the state bill SB330 that is now sticking it to the locals. Stand together and decline this ridiculous project. Pat Donahue 2*** Silverstrand Ave Hermosa Beach Page 591 of 630 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Harry Collyns Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 8:28 AM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: No high-rises in Hermosa To Whom It May Concern, We are writing to voice our concern at the plan to build a 53’ high five-story apartment building just 6 blocks north of us on Hermosa Avenue. We understand that this proposal is only being considered because the City failed to obtain timely approval of its “Housing Element”, even though the building is otherwise in violation of all local height limits, zoning laws and parking requirements. We respectfully request that you use every available legal means to deny this project, unless/until it is amended to comply with all local laws, limits and restrictions. Yours, Harry & Sue Collyns 2*** Hermosa Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Andree Friedman Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:32 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Demand Immediate Action to Stop the Oversized Development at 3415 Palm Drive Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing to demand that the City of Hermosa Beach immediately take action to reject the grossly oversized, out-of-character five-story development proposed for 3415 Palm Drive (3414–3418 Hermosa Ave). At 53 feet tall and entirely comprised of market-rate luxury units, this project violates long-standing local zoning laws, height limits (30 feet), and parking requirements. It does not include a single affordable or attainable unit, and it offers nothing in the way of community benefit. The City’s delay in approving its Housing Element should not serve as a loophole for developers to impose massive, out-of-scale buildings in residential neighborhoods. “Builder’s Remedy” was not intended to justify reckless development, and you have a duty to your constituents to use all legal means to fight this abuse of state housing law. If you fail to act, you send a clear message that Hermosa Beach is open to overdevelopment, gridlock, and the erosion of its unique coastal character. We are watching. We will remember who stood up for our community—and who did not. Sincerely, Andree Friedman 2*** The Strand, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Page 592 of 630 From: Michael Treidl <***********l@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2025 12:11 PM To: Planning Commission <Planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: 3415 Palm Drive Project Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, I oppose the 50-foot apartment project on Palm Drive. It is out of scale with our community and should be denied. •Height/scale – At 50 feet, it would loom 20 feet above nearby homes, permanently changing our small-town character. •Safety – It is unclear if our fire department can handle a building of this height. •Traffic & infrastructure – Added congestion, parking strain, and stress on sewers. •Property values – Oversized development risks lowering nearby home values. •Legal/environmental review – CEQA and Coastal Commission issues demand expert legal oversight. Please stand with residents and protect Hermosa Beach’s unique character by rejecting this proposal. Sincerely, Michael Treidl ******** St Hermosa Beach CA 90254 Page 593 of 630 From:renee wright To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive proposed development Date:Wednesday, April 16, 2025 3:07:46 PM [You don't often get email from wreneetnt@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Planning Department I am asking you to PLEASE leave our Hermosa Beach town intact by denying such a monstrosity from being built in our beach town. We have so few small bungalows remaining to keep the beach image of our town alive. Building such a tall building with so many resident will impact our image, our traffic, our living density and block the view of so many residents who call this their home and treasure their living space Please…. YOU must STOP this and any future similar buildings from destroying our homes, our beaches, out beach town. I beg you! Sincerely, Renee Wright 576 21 st street Hermosa Beach Public Comments from Previous Meetings Page 594 of 630 From:Hayes Noel To:Planning Subject:53’ building! Date:Friday, April 11, 2025 11:54:36 AM [You don't often get email from hayesanoel@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Please deny approval of the proposed building at 3415 Palm Drive. It is way out of character for Hermosa to have an apartment building 20’ above code limits. We fear it will change our neighborhood irretrievably. Thank you. Hayes Noel 2800 Strand Hermosa Beach Sent from my iPhone Page 595 of 630 From:Dana Jacobs To:Planning Subject:50 foot tower in Hermosa Beach? Really Date:Sunday, April 13, 2025 9:25:07 AM You don't often get email from djacobs16828@gmail.com. Learn why this is important This cannot be allowed to happen. How do you miss a deadline like this? Dana Jacobs123 29th St. Page 596 of 630 From:Christa Lyons To:Planning; City Council Subject:3415 Palm Ave Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 5:44:34 PM You don't often get email from christamlyons@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Hello, Please see below the notice posted at 3415 Palm Ave. How are they able to decrease the density from 10units to 5? Please the attached listing fro 2010 stating there are 10 units and showing the total rentscollected. This is very unfair considering how many people have been financially impacted by thedensity laws. Why is this being allowed? And why is this particular owner allowed to build so high? 50’ 6” is muchmuch higher than height limit. My understanding is that it's a family that simply wants to build 5 unitsfor each family member. This seems extremely unfair to the neighboring properties. CHRISTA LYONS REALTOR® | CalDRE#01489213 D + 310.722.7115 https://mattmorrisrealestategroup.com I have not and will not verify or investigate the information supplied by third parties. Begin forwarded message: From: Christa Lyons <christamlyons@gmail.com> Subject: 3415 Hermosa Ave Date: March 10, 2025 at 5:25:37 PM PDTTo: Christa Lyons <christamlyons@gmail.com> Page 597 of 630 Page 598 of 630 Page 599 of 630 Page 600 of 630 Page 601 of 630 From:Rodger Deuerlein To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive: Restart public notice process with useful, honest imagery Date:Thursday, March 13, 2025 9:31:53 AM You don't often get email from rodger.deuerlein@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Greetings, As a first step, the Planning Commission needs to restart the public-notice process withrealistic images of what this building will look like in its actual surroundings. "50' 6" isn't very meaningful without context (and it's 53' 9" from the Hermosa Ave. sidewalk). Useful imagerywould depict the proposed building together with its surrounding neighbor buildings. The drawings at the City website do not provide this. In fact, the one non-blueprint picture isoutright deceptive, as it vanishes the home to the north, and replaces the home to the south with some generic fictional structure of unknown height. Regards, Rodger J. Deuerlein236 34th Street Hermosa Beach, CA310-245-8954 Page 602 of 630 Planning Comm Re; Agenda Item 7.c. 3415 Palm Ave I request that the Commission deny this applicaAon. I hope the illustraAons of City docs go through. The submission from the Feb meeAng is quite extensive, & I am not a property lawyer. However, as evidenced at the last City Council meeAng, I think that my quesAons & arguments are shared by others. I hope that the City will come prepared to address these issues. 1. It seems that as there is no intenAon of following the obligaAons of GSC 65941.1, there should be no exempAon based upon that now cancelled filing, with a new updated and rouAne building plan. 2. In addiAon to giving this project the height exempAon – (hard to read the plans-is the roof deck FLOOR at 50’?), & referring to our own development stds, (pg6/11). why do you plan on allowing less than half of the required on-site parking? Is there an ADA parking space? Is that ever a consideraAon? An EV charging staAon?) 3. Why are you also disregarding both the Coverage% & the dwelling unit size criteria? I consider this project to be a true threat to the ciAes building codes, or is it as simple as that there are now State rules that effecAvely render local efforts null & void. Is there anything to stop the current project at 3430 Palm Ave. from holding at the demo phase and submidng a new plan? Aeer all, as stated in the staff historical assessment (pg 10/11,) “..the project would not result in a significant cumulaAve impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over Ame…” How about those other R3 similar lots along the North end of Palm Ave? And so the dominoes begin to fall… Thank you for your ajenAon, Richard Gojhoffer Page 603 of 630 Page 604 of 630 From:Richard Gotthoffer To:Planning Cc:Richard Gotthoffer Subject:2nd try in case Date:Sunday, March 16, 2025 1:48:34 PM Attachments:Devlpmt Stds table.pngKaplan comment.pngScreenshot 2025-03-16 at 10.56.27 AM.png You don't often get email from wysurfin@aol.com. Learn why this is important Planning Comm Re; Agenda Item 7.c. 3415 Palm Ave I request that the Commission deny this application. I hope the illustrations of Citydocs go through. The submission from the Feb meeting is quite extensive, & I am not a propertylawyer. However, as evidenced at the last City Council meeting, I think that myquestions & arguments are shared by others. I hope that the City will come preparedto address these issues. 1. It seems that as there is no intention of following the obligations of GSC65941.1, there should be no exemption based upon that now canceled filing, with a new updated and routine building plan. 2. In addition to giving this project the height exemption – (hard to read the plans-is the roof deck FLOOR at 50’?), & referring to our own development stds,(pg6/11). why do you plan on allowing less than half of the required on-site parking? Is there an ADA parking space? Is that ever a consideration? An EVcharging station?) 3. Why are you also disregarding both the Coverage% & the dwelling unit sizecriteria? I consider this project to be a true threat to the cities building codes, or is it as simpleas that there are now State rules that effectively render local efforts null & void. Is there anything to stop the current project at 3430 Palm Ave. from holding at thedemo phase and submitting a new plan? After all, as stated in the staff historical assessment (pg 10/11,) “..the project would not result in a significant cumulativeimpact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time…” How about those other R3 similar lots along the North end of Palm Ave? And so thedominoes begin to fall… Thank you for your attention, Richard Gotthoffer wysurfin@aol.com Page 605 of 630 From:donotreply@escribemeetings.com on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To:Jake Whitney Subject:Public Comment Received Date:Monday, March 17, 2025 11:08:28 AM User John Rogers has enter the following comment(s): I have lived at my residence since 1983. With my location at 125 34th st. I have lost view afterview of the ocean. Without buying on the strand you are susceptible to this loss of view. I can accept this because it's the Hermosa Beach building guide lines. To keep the city small andquaint, unlike Santamonica with its high rise building plan.The planned 5 story building at 3415 Palm Drive North Hermosa will disrupt this City plan. A building 20 feet above the 30'height limit will start the decay of Small and Quaint Hermosa, a reason we live here. for REQUEST TO APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO ALLOWA NEW FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO THE HOUSINGACCOUNTABILITY ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5 - 25-CDD-008 in PLANNING COMMISSION 3/18/2025 7:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s). Page 606 of 630 From:HB Connnect To:Planning Subject:Fw: Strong opposition to PDP 24–08 Date:Tuesday, March 18, 2025 3:19:38 PM Hi Planning Division, I am forwarding an email that may be related to your department. Thank you! Community Resources Department City of Hermosa Beach O: 310-318-0280 E: hbconnect@hermosabeach.gov From: Katy Jenssen <jenssenkaty@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 2:12 PM To: HB Connnect <HBConnect@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Strong opposition to PDP 24–08 You don't often get email from jenssenkaty@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Attention Planning Manager, Alexis Oropeza, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to increasing the height allowance on theapartment building for 3415 Palm Dr. My family has lived in Hermosa since the early 1940s, building our current family home in 1951. We have a strong desire to keep our town from becoming a high-rise nightmare. Please let me know where and how I need to make sure my voice is heard to stop this fromproceeding further. Thank you, Katy Jenssen and family Mosaic Surf Art Page 607 of 630 Peter J. Howell Direct Dial: (714) 662-4661 E-mail: phowell@rutan.com March 18, 2025 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714-546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 planning@hermosabeach.gov Re: March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Item 7c - Precise Development Plan (PD 24-08) for 3415 Palm Drive Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter is sent on behalf of HNP Investments LLC, which owns a property in the vicinity of the proposed development at 3415 Palm Drive (“Project”) and is one of many neighbors concerned about the proposed improper use of the “Builder’s Remedy” to approve an outrageously oversized and incompatible project in a residential neighborhood. As acknowledged in the Staff Report for the Project, the Project fails to comply with numerous objective building standards; among other things, it exceeds the 30 foot height standard by more than 20 feet, significantly exceeds the maximum lot coverage, and fails to provide necessary parking. If built as proposed it would have a substantial detrimental impact on the neighborhood, blocking views from dozens of other homes and reducing property values. The City of Hermosa Beach (“City”) nonetheless seems poised to approve the Project under the mistaken assumption that it has no choice. As discussed below, the Staff Report for the Project appears to be based on the incorrect premise that the City is forbidden from applying any development standards to the Project, because it is being processed under the Builder’s Remedy. To the contrary, recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) clarify that the City may require a Builder’s Remedy project to comply with “objective, quantifiable, and written development standards,” so long as doing so does not render the project infeasible. (See Government Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A).) Simply put, assuming arguendo1 that the Project qualifies for the Builder’s Remedy and that the applicant is entitled to cram 5 units onto its 2,553 square foot lot, that does not mean that the City has to approve any 5-unit project, without any consideration of the City’s objective development standards or regard for how it will impact the surrounding neighborhood. 1 Without the complete project file, it is impossible to determine whether the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project. We have submitted a Public Records Act request for documents relating to the Project, and reserve the right to raise this issue in any further proceedings relating to the Project. Page 608 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 2 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 In addition, the HAA expressly provides that local agencies must comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the California Coastal Act (“Coastal Act”) in processing a Builder’s Remedy project application. Here, the Staff Report indicates that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA, but fails to consider whether the Project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances, including the fact that the Project is located in the City’s Coastal Zone and is adjacent to public beach access and The Strand. These circumstances, along with the fact that the Project does not comply with many of the standards designed to ensure development will not negatively impact the surrounding area, necessitate environmental review. Among other things, the Project will have significant impacts on views and conflicts with numerous land use policies. Accordingly, at a minimum, the City must prepare an initial study pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether the Project may have a significant effect on the environment (to be followed by a full environmental impact report if the initial study indicates the possibility of such an impact). Similarly, while noting the Project is subject to the Coastal Act and will require approval from the California Coastal Commission, the Staff Report fails to discuss whether the Project is consistent with the Coastal Act. As discussed below, it is not. The size and height of the Project will significantly impact coastal views. The Project is not compatible with the character of surrounding area. And the lack of parking will detrimentally impact access to the City’s public coastal resources. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reject the Project, as currently configured. The Project must be redesigned to comply with the City’s objective development standards, to the extent feasible, and the City must comply with CEQA before the Planning Commission can lawfully consider approving a revised version of the Project. A. The City Can Apply Objective, Quantifiable, and Written Development Standards to the Project. The Staff Report for the Project incorrectly suggests that the City is barred from applying any of its objective design standards to the Project. While previous versions of the Builder’s Remedy provision were ambiguous as to a local agency’s ability to apply objective development standards to a Builder’s Remedy project, the recent amendments in Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1893 make clear that local agencies are not categorically prohibited from enforcing such standards.2 Specifically, AB 1893 provides that a city may “require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant,” so long as doing so would not “[r]ender the project infeasible.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A), (B).) 2 The Staff Report indicates that the applicant has elected to proceed under the updated law to avoid providing the affordable housing required under the previous version of § 65589.5. Page 609 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 3 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Staff Report erroneously assumes that the City cannot enforce objective development standards related to minimum lot coverage, height, open space, and parking as a result of the Builders’ Remedy provisions, without attempting to demonstrate that applying such standards would reduce the proposed density or otherwise render the Project infeasible. Importantly, even a cursory review of the Project plans shows that it would be possible to build a more-compliant version of the Project without sacrificing any density. For example, the top (Fourth) floor of the Project consists mainly of office space for Unit 5, which also includes 1,640 square feet of living area on the Third Floor. An extra story for an office and rooftop deck does not further any purpose of the HAA, which is intended to encourage the development of additional, affordable residential units. Accordingly, it would be very simple to eliminate the Fourth Floor—and lower the height of the Project by approximately ten feet—without reducing the number of units. Similarly, the garage is currently at grade level. A partially below-grade garage—like that utilized in the building directly adjacent to the Project site—would lower the height of the Project by approximately 2.5 feet. Likewise, reducing ceiling heights to 8 feet would lower the overall height by another 6 feet. Thus, even a few minor changes could reduce the overall height of the Project to approximately 32 feet. Similarly, while the staff report indicates the Project complies with setback requirements, a review of the plans appears to indicate that all floors above the ground floor encroach well into the required setback, almost to the property line. (See Hermosa Beach Municipal Code § 17.46.070 [“Required yard areas shall be unobstructed from ground to sky except specifically allowed…”].) It would be possible to comply with the required 10 foot front setback from the property line without reducing the number of units by reducing the size of the living areas and bedrooms and/or eliminating a bathroom. The height and setback standards are only two examples. As indicated in the Staff Report, the Project fails to comply with numerous objective, quantifiable, and written criteria, including the standards for minimum lot area (1,320 sf per dwelling unit), lot coverage maximum (65%), height (30 ft.) parking (13 parking spaces and 10 garage spaces), and private open space (300 sf per unit). (Staff Report, pp. 6–7.) All of these standards must be enforced unless doing so would render the Project infeasible. In short, nothing in the Builder’s Remedy requires the City to entirely ignore its objective development standards and rubberstamp any project that does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the HAA, no matter the design of the project. It is indisputable that it is possible to design a feasible 5-unit project that better conforms to the City’s objective standards and that would be less impactful to the surrounding community. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should reject the Project, as currently configured, and direct staff to work with the applicant to redesign the Project to conform to the City’s objective standards to the extent possible. Page 610 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 4 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 B. The City Must Comply with CEQA Before Considering Whether to Approve the Project. Projects proceeding under the Builder’s Remedy provisions must still comply with all requirements of CEQA. (Gov. Code § 65598.5(e) [“Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).].) CEQA requires that public agencies analyze whether a project might have any significant environmental impacts before granting any approval of such a project, unless the project is clearly “exempt” from CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15004(a).) While the CEQA Guidelines set forth exemptions for several categories of projects that have been determined generally not to have any significant impacts on the environment, such “categorical exemptions” “are construed narrowly,” in keeping with the requirement that CEQA “be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment.” (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 943-944, 966.) Further, a categorical exemption may not be relied upon where there is a “reasonable possibility” that an otherwise exempt project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) Here, the Staff Report asserts that the Project is exempt from CEQA under the “Class 3” exemption for small structures, because “it consists of a multi-family residential project that is less than six units in an urbanized area.” (Staff Report, p. 10, citing CEQA Guidelines § 15303(b).) While the Staff Report correctly notes that projects that may have significant environmental impacts due to unusual circumstances cannot rely on a categorial exemption, it fails to provide any sort of analysis of this issue. The Staff Report and accompanying materials themselves demonstrate the existence of unusual circumstances that may result in significant environmental impacts. Unusual circumstances that differentiate the Project from a typical Class 3 project and give rise to at least a “reasonable possibility” that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment include the following: (1) the Project is located within the Coastal Zone near important public facilities (Staff Report, p. 6); and (2) the Project does not comply with numerous development standards that are designed, in part, to minimize potential adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Such circumstances are likely to result in adverse impacts to at least two CEQA categories: aesthetics and land use and planning. CEQA requires consideration of aesthetic impacts, including impacts on scenic views. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, section I; see also Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist., (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [even non-expert opinions regarding Page 611 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 5 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 aesthetic impacts may constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact, requiring preparation of an EIR].) As set forth in the City’s General Plan, “[t]he character and beauty of Hermosa Beach are inextricably linked to its coastal location and natural topography.” (General Plan, Ch. 5, p. 160 [“In addition to the ocean vistas, the visual character of Hermosa Beach itself is considered a unique resource.”].) Allowing a project that is only a block away from the beach to substantially exceed the maximum height limit (by more than 40 percent!) and lot coverage standard will have significant adverse impact on views from public and private viewpoints, including dozens of homes. Unfortunately, it is impossible for the public and Planning Commission to understand and evaluate the extent to which the Project will block views, because the City has not undertaken the required analysis. An expert view analysis involving view simulations from multiple vantage points and/or the use of story poles is necessary and must be completed by the City as part of its CEQA process. Such a study should also consider the cumulative impacts that could result from the Project and other future development. Nonetheless, even a rudimentary attempt to look at how the Project would impact views indicates that it will obstruct ocean views from public rights-of-way. (See, e.g., Exhibit A.)3 Moreover, while it is sometimes said that CEQA is primarily concerned with public views, impacts to private views cannot be ignored, especially when numerous members of the public will be impacted. (See, e.g., Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [“The District cites nothing in CEQA that relieves it from considering the impact of the project on private views. To say there is no common law right to a private view, is not to say that the District is relieved from considering the impact of its project on such views.”].) Thus, an analysis of the Project’s impact on views from both public and private viewpoints is required by CEQA. CEQA also requires consideration of whether a project may “conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.” (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, section XI.)4 When a project is within the Coastal Zone, this task must include an analysis of whether the project is consistent with the Coastal Act. (See, e.g., Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1233 [finding EIR adequately analyzed Coastal Act consistency].) 3 We are in the process of gathering additional evidence of view impacts that we anticipate submitting to the City in advance of further proceedings on the Project. Again, however, it is the City’s responsibility to undertake the required view analysis. 4 Notably, while the Staff Report purports to include an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan “for reference purposes” (Staff Report, p. 10), it fails to analyze numerous relevant General Plan policies, including those discussed herein. Page 612 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 6 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Project is inconsistent with numerous City General Plan goals and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating aesthetic impacts, including, but not limited to the following: • Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced. The culture and identity of Hermosa Beach is defined in part by scenic value. The City seeks to maintain and enhance the beauty of Hermosa Beach, and to ensure future development does not substantially detract from identified scenic public viewpoints or uninterrupted viewing areas, particularly within the Coastal Zone. • Policy 5.2 Visual character. Accommodate economic growth and new buildings in a way that is consistent with and reflects the visual character of the community. • Policy 5.3 Building site and design. Massing, height, and orientation of new development adjacent to Prominent Public Viewpoints and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas shall be evaluated and, to the extent reasonable, new development will be sited and designed to minimize additional obstructions of public coastal views to and along the ocean and scenic areas. As discussed above, the Project is located within the Coastal Zone, just a block from the ocean, yet it fails to comply with building height and massing standards designed to protect views as well as the visual character of the area. The Project is likewise inconsistent with General Plan policies designed to protect public access to the City’s coastal resources, including: • Goal 6. The coast and its recreational facilities are easily accessible from many locations and by multiple transportation modes. Providing and maintaining public access both to and along California’s coast is a central premise of the California Coastal Act. The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to maintaining and enhancing public access through the provision of multiple access points, increased visibility and signage, and increased opportunities for alternative modes to safely travel to the beach. • Policy 6.7 Minimal impact to access. Require new development and substantial redevelopment projects to minimize impacts to existing public access to and along the shoreline. (See also General Plan, Ch. 3, p. 116 [“Provide measures to expand coastal access through sufficient parking and alternative transportation.”]; General Plan, Ch. 5, p. 160 [“Provide measures to ensure new development does not impede access and is compatible with public access areas.”].) Page 613 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 7 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Project is adjacent to public beach access as well as a pedestrian/bicycle path that runs along The Strand.5 Parking in such area is limited and already difficult to find, particularly during the summer. Nonetheless, the Project only provides about half of the parking required by the City’s zoning code, meaning residents of the Project will be forced to use the limited street parking along Hermosa Ave, 34th Street, 35th Street, and Manhattan Ave. (See Staff Report, p. 6.) Moreover, the parking proposed by the Project is even worse than suggested by the numbers, because it includes driveway spaces that would block access to the garage, thus encouraging additional street parking to avoid inconvenience. Accordingly, the Project will reduce the amount of parking available to members of the public seeking to visit the beach and reduce public access to the coast. As discussed further below, the Project is also inconsistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act. In sum, the Project clearly has the potential to have significant aesthetic and land use impacts due to usual circumstances. As a result, the City may not lawfully approve the Project in reliance on a categorical exemption. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c) [“A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”].) Instead, the City must prepare an initial study to analyze the Project’s potential impacts (or alternatively, commence preparation of a full environmental impact report). (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15063.) C. The Builders’ Remedy Does Not Excuse Compliance With the Coastal Act. As with CEQA, the HAA expressly provides that Builder’s Remedy projects are subject to the Coastal Act. (Gov. Code § 65598.5(e) [“Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).”].) While the Staff Report notes that the Project is located within the Coastal Zone and will require separate approval from the California Coastal Commission, it fails to provide any discussion of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act was enacted to provide “a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.” (Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobil Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 793; see also Pub. Res. Code § 30001.) The Coastal Act expressly requires the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas to be considered and protected as a resource of public importance: Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the 5 The City’s General Plan recognizes The Strand as “a feature unique to this beach front residential area.” (General Plan, p. 83.) Page 614 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 8 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. (Pub. Res. Code, § 30251.) Here, the Project both fails to protect views and is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. The Project sits within an existing residential neighborhood, but would not comply with many objective development standards designed to ensure new development is compatible with the neighborhood and does not adversely affect existing residents. (See Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1009, quoting Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 517–518 [“A zoning scheme, after all, is similar in some respects to a contract; each party foregoes rights to use its land as it wishes in return for the assurance that the use of neighboring property will be similarly restricted, the rationale being that such mutual restriction can enhance total community welfare.”].) At more than 50 feet tall6—some 20 feet taller than permitted by Code—it will tower over its neighbors, blocking views and casting shade upon adjacent properties. However, despite this significant deviation in height, the Staff Report does not analyze, or even mention, the potential impacts such a large building may have on the surrounding area. The Coastal Act also requires development in the Coastal Zone to “maintain and enhance public access to the coast.” (Pub. Res. Code § 30252.) To achieve this goal, the Coastal Act requires developments to provide “adequate parking facilities” to ensure access to coastal resources is preserved. (Ibid.) As currently proposed, the Project includes six less parking spaces and six less garage spaces than would be required by the City’s objective design criteria. As a result, vehicle traffic from the Project will have to use limited street parking to meet demand. Considering the Project is adjacent to a public entrance to the beach and the Strand, this lack of parking necessarily limits available parking in the area for those seeking to access the City’s coastal resources. The lack of parking for the Project will necessarily require residents to compete with the public and beachgoers for parking in this area. Therefore, the Project fails to comply with mandatory provisions of the Coastal Act and should be rejected or conditioned on compliance with these provisions. The Project’s lack of consistency with the Coastal Act is both a CEQA impact that precludes reliance on a categorical exemption and an independent basis for denying the Project. (See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at 1233 [finding EIR adequately analyzed Coastal Act consistency].) * * * 6 While the Staff Report indicates a maximum height of 50.5 feet, the Project plans appear to indicate a total height of 53.9 feet. Page 615 of 630 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 9 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 For the reasons set forth above, the Planning Commission should reject the Project, as concurrently configured. Any future redevelopment of the property must be compliant with the Coastal Act and, to the extent feasible, the City’s objective development standards. Further, any such project can only be considered after the City completes the necessary CEQA review. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Peter J. Howell Enclosure: Exhibit “A” cc: City Attorney Patrick Donegan - Patrick.Donegan@bbklaw.com City Clerk Myra Maravilla - cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov Page 616 of 630 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714-546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 EXHIBIT “A” Page 617 of 630 -1- Exhibit A Taken March 16, 2025 from 35th Street between Manhattan Ave. and Highland Ave. Red box indicates approximate project location. Page 618 of 630 -2- Page 619 of 630 Rory Barish Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Delivered via "e-comment" portal on agenda posted on the City website and via email: planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov March 18, 2025 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Planning Commission Hearing March 18,2025 Agenda Item 7.c.- PDP 24-08; 3415 Palm Avenue Commissioners, I strongly oppose this development and request the Commission at the March 18 hearing to recommend City Council DENY the application or would like Commission to continue this discussion to a later date. The address given by the applicant is 3415 Palm Avenue, this property fronts on Hermosa Avenue at 3414-3418. I feel it the duty of the Planning Staff and the City to be open to working with the applicant in other ways that can help them achieve their goal of enlarging their property without putting an enormous strain on the community, defying height and zoning restrictions and ruining the coastline forever more. Just because the City failed to have its Housing Element certified in a timely manner, does not mean that Planning staff should conclude that the City does not have grounds to deny this application ("Builder's Remedy). This is not black or white. There is a middle ground to be achieved here. It might take a bit of work but it is essential that another route be considered. Why should any doors be shut? Why should the book be closed in the Commission's minds or the City's minds when there is a better solution in the next chapter of the book? I do not believe that the spirit of the Builder's Remedy was intended for this purpose. It was meant for much larger projects that included affordable housing offered to the public. This will not exist here and offers no solution to help the situation of affordable housing. In this case, it appeared to me that the applicant, wanted to increase the size of their footprint and could only think to use this Builder's Remedy because of the restrictive current state housing laws. However, I am told by the applicant that the major roadblock here was the City of Hermosa Beach whose restrictive codes and not the states, prevented him from accomplishing his goal of increasing the size of his property while at the same time respecting height restrictions of the neighborhood. That is frustrating to hear indeed. The Page 620 of 630 applicant's intention was not to build the highest home at the beach but to simply increase the size of their residence which the City would not allow. I implore the applicant to give us something to work with, other plans that conform to the neighborhood while increasing the square footage of his home. so that we all can work on this with the City. It is a lot easier to deal with Municipal codes rather than lobbying to change state laws. The neighborhood would much prefer to fight with the applicant on getting this modification accomplished rather than fighting against the applicant if this project intends to stand as it is. Some of my arguments against and regarding this project include, but are not limited to; There is an abundance of essential information that could not possibly be digested by the public to prepare for their possible arguments in the short time before the meeting on the tonight (on the18th). This only serves as a gain to the applicant and does not take the public's views into consideration. Necessary information was not given to the public in a timely manner nor was the information posted correctly. The height, for example, posted at the property at 50 .5 ft is not accurate. It is 53.9 ft, as measured from the sidewalk on Hermosa. The NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING was posted on the property (hard for most people to see) only 6 City working days before the Planning Commission Meeting on the 18th and it came in the mail to the surrounding neighbors days later. Aside from being inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking and open space (as if this isn't enough to deny this project), I strongly feel that it violates Government Code 65589.5 (d) (2), health and safety. The neighbors directly to the north, Brian and Anna Jung will be robbed of their sunlight which has been proven to have detrimental affects on physical and mental health. To my knowledge there has not been a shadow study. There needs to be one. Why have the Jungs or this issue, one of many, not been taken into consideration? What traffic studies have been done? It is not reasonable to even think that adding another vehicle parking space on Palm Drive would be a good idea. It is narrow enough for cars to get through and maneuver in and out of their garages but adding garbage trucks, mail trucks, delivery trucks, fire trucks, workmen, bikers, dogs and pedestrians into the mix, well this is a legitimate safety concern and an accident waiting to happen. And relating to the Coastal Act? Section 30251 states that scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and PROTECTED as a resource of public importance. This property with its surrounding properties will be completely inconsistent with the others and violates this provision. This charming beach town as it stands has a mix of charming beach bungalows and newly built modern homes that do not exceed 30 ft on Hermosa Avenue and 25 ft on The Strand. Its height, mass and scale will dwarf all other structures and its incompatibility is glaring and obvious. Page 621 of 630 Also, in relation to parking, does the project provide sufficient off-street parking to avoid burdening this area where public parking is in short supply? Has this been thoroughly taken into consideration as well? A lot more work needs to be done here. I believe that there are enough legal grounds to deny this project and it should be denied. At the same time, the next order of business to be done here, as stated above, is to accomplish getting the much needed square footage for the applicant while adhering to present height requirements and addressing safety and health concerns.... Thank You, Sincerely, Rory Barish Page 622 of 630 Jim and Janet Hamilton Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Delivered via “e-comment” portal on agenda posted on the City website and via e-mail: planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov March 18, 2025 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Planning Commission Hearing March 18, 2025; Agenda Item 7.c. - PDP 24-08; 3415 Palm Drive Honorable Commissioners: We have lived in our home on the Strand for over 47 years directly across Hermosa Avenue from the subject property which is currently a 4 unit, 2 story property between Palm Drive and Hermosa Avenue. Over all those years, we have enjoyed the great character and vibe of Hermosa Beach and hate to even think of its character being as dramatically changed as it would be with the completion of the proposed 5-story development on 3415 Palm Drive and 3414-3418 Hermosa Avenue. We oppose this proposed project as grossly failing to comply with and conform to many of the City’s laws and ordinances concerning residential projects, including its 5 stories and height of 53 feet, more than 75% higher than the City’s height maximum! We are shocked to learn that there is a law, the so-called Builder’s Remedy, which might possibly allow this project to proceed, dramatically altering the character of the City’s residential areas for the worse. We are even more shocked to see that there is already a detailed draft ruling prepared by the City Attorney for the Planning Commission approving this project. Last but not least, we do not understand why a hearing on this project, raising unique, complex and significant issues, has been scheduled on such short notice. This leaves us and our neighbors with insufficient time to gather all the relevant facts, obtain legal advice on the related legal issues and present all the reasons this project should not be approved. How can this be? Page 623 of 630 We have yet to receive any written notice of this hearing, though it was allegedly mailed out only 11 days ago on March 6. We only became aware of the proposed 3415 Palm development last Tuesday at about 5:30 pm when a neighbor informed us of the same. We understand that at least two residents made public records requests to the City for the documents relevant to this matter, and that no such records have been made available to date. Why the rush to move this matter to a public hearing before the Planning Commission on such short notice? Why a draft ruling in favor of this project before the public has had a fair and meaningful amount of time to present their opposition? We respectfully request that the March 18, 2025 hearing be continued for at least 30 days. Should this request be denied, we encourage the Planning Commission to carefully consider the points we understand will be made by some of our neighbors, keeping in mind that the burden is on the Applicant to establish that the proposed project truly qualifies for approval despite its huge adverse impact on the character of our neighborhood, not to mention the City as a whole. This includes the failure of the Applicant to show that this project will not create unsafe conditions by increasing the height to 53’ and five stories, over 75% higher than the City’s maximum 30-foot height limit, without adequate ingress and egress to the top floors. As we understand neighbors will advocate, the proposed project does not pass muster even under the Builder’s Remedy. From what we have been able to learn on such short notice, there are a number of reasons the pending Application should be denied, or at least deferred to allow open questions to be answered. Please do not treat this issue lightly. Please recognize its importance and make sure your decision about this project is the right decision and warranted from the evidence, with no material questions unanswered for lack of the same. Please call the question only after a full and fair hearing where all the relevant facts are known and on the record and all parties have had the opportunity to be heard. Respectfully submitted, Jim and Janet Hamilton Page 624 of 630 -----Original Message--- From: tony higgins <tony.higgins123@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 8:43 PM To: DG_PlanningCommission <DG_PlanningCommission@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Suja Lowenthal <suja@hermosabeach.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov>; Patrick Donegan <Patrick.Donegan@bbklaw.com> Subject: Re: 3415 palm edit On Mar 14, 2025, at 8:19 PM, tony higgins <tony.higgins123@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Planning Commission i sure hope you are prepared to answer public questions along these lines in the upcoming 3/25/25 meeting during the hearing on 3415 palm First, this is an interesting read that seems to suggest that the density bonus height remedies may be subject to coastal commission height and scenic view provisions. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2560 basically, the question is, regardless of the status of the above bill, what happens when state coastal comm rules conflict with state builders remedies? what is the max height allowed in hb coastal zones by the coastal commission? if builders remedy allows more height which law rules? do coastal commission scenic view rules apply to builders remedy concessions? has the planning commission or the council explained this clearly to the public? its also interesting to note the staff report says; 3. Denial or imposition of conditions on the project is required to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no other feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable. https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=9033 anyway how conflicts between coastal commission and builders remedy rules play-out is beyond my understanding but the questions is if their height or any other state law conflicts (eg height or scenic view) and what happens then? i hope you are prepared to identify all potential conflicts between the 3415 palm concessions and coastal commission rules or any other state law. the 3415 palm situation is an affront to the residents of north hermosa. a greedy builder is being allowed to suck the value out of neighboring homes and enrich himself under the guise of affordable housing even though there are no low or moderate income units. 3415 is all market rate units!!! simply outrageous! and to add insult to injury the residents have been put in this situation because the city didnt aggressively pursue hcd approval of the housing element until it was too late and builders remedy had already kicked in; and now residents are paying the price. ah Page 625 of 630 Good afternoon, I was made aware of a project at 3415 Palm Drive/3400 block of Hermosa Ave. today. I understand that there is a City Council meeting today and the planning commission is on March 18. I am not able to attend the meetings and wanted to share my opposition to this project to the commission. Please vote no on this project. The proposed project does not offer affordable or low income housing units. I m hoping the city will insure they have investigated the proposed project by: 1. Scrutinized the application and confirmed that is was a COMPLETE SB 330 application filed before the Housing Element was approved on, at latest, August 1, 2024? The preliminary application was submitted in January 2024 and the formal submittal in June 2024. HOWEVER, in January 2025 there was a formal resubmittal to remove the prior affordable housing unit and take advantage of a new law. Was that resubmittal, AFTER the Housing Element was approved and the Builder’s Remedy was no longer available in Hermosa Beach, legal? 2. Investigating if the City has any means to require the new unit (or really any of the units) actually be placed into the rental market? Could the absentee owner could simply keep one or more units for use by themselves and friends and family, as they do with units in the existing structure. 3. Determining if there health or safety issues associated with such a large project on a small lot, which will tower over the neighboring properties? Is there grounds to deny the project on health grounds, given the shadow it will cast on the property to the north? Does the proposed 3 car off- street parking on Palm Drive cause raise safety concerns as it is very narrow and already difficult to maneuver? 4. Is the proposed project, which is located in the Coastal Zone, inconsistent with any provisions of the Coastal Act which would allow the project to be denied on that basis? Because the City does not yet have delegated development approval authority from the Coastal Commission, these arguments may need to be raised with the Coastal Commission. If it had the political will, could the City oppose the project at Coastal Commission or join with or otherwise assist residents in that challenge? 5. Possibilities of violations of the Coastal Act include Section 30251, which states that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Being completely inconsistent with the surrounding properties seems violative of this provision. 6. Another possibility is a violation of Coastal Act provisions related to parking/public access. Does the project provide sufficient off-street parking to avoid burdening this area, where public parking is already in short supply? There may be more, again we believe it is the City’s responsibility to investigate these matters for the good of our community. Thank you, Jill Hewes *** Monterey Blvd. Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 310-***-67*1 Page 626 of 630 From: Katy Jenssen <jenssenkaty@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 2:12 PM To: HB Connnect <HBConnect@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Strong opposition to PDP 24–08 Attention Planning Manager, Alexis Oropeza, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to increasing the height allowance on the apartment building for 3415 Palm Dr. My family has lived in Hermosa since the early 1940s, building our current family home in 1951. We have a strong desire to keep our town from becoming a high-rise nightmare. Please let me know where and how I need to make sure my voice is heard to stop this from proceeding further. Thank you, Katy Jenssen and family Mosaic Surf Art You don't often get email from jenssenkaty@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Page 627 of 630 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: September 16, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-130 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the tentative future agenda for the Planning Commission special meeting of October 13th and regular meeting of October 21st. Attachment: Planning Commission Tentative Agenda for October Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Approved: Alison Becker, Community Development Director Page 628 of 630 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\15391951503\15391951503,,,Planning Commission Tentative Agenda for October.docx Revised 09/11/2025 3:39 PM Tentative Future Agendas PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach Monday, October 13, 2025 Special Meeting 6:00 PM Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date 3232 Hermosa Avenue 4 unit PDP Remodel; Convex Slope (Public Hearing) 10/3/25 10/13/25 74 Pier Avenue Conditional Use Permit Modification; Revocation (Public Hearing) 10/3/25 10/13/25 1100 Pacific Coast Highway (Trader Joes) Precise Development Plan; Commercial Remodel (Public Hearing) 10/3/25 10/13/25 Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date 901 Hermosa Avenue Precise Development Plan (Public Hearing) 10/11/25 10/21/25 1102 & 1110 21st Street Lot Line Adjustment (Public Hearing) 10/11/25 10/21/25 620 11th Street 2 Unit Condominium (Public Hearing) 10/11/25 10/21/25 Housing and Land Value Recapture (Study Session) n/a 10/21/25 Upcoming and Pending 960 6th Street 2-Unit Precise Development Plan (Public Hearing) 3201 Pacific Coast Highway Skechers Parking Plan & Precise Development Plan (Public Hearing) Zoning Code More Study Sessions upcoming Planning Commission Chair Rotation Occurs December 1st (Chair to Izant, Vice Chair to Flaherty) Page 629 of 630 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\15391951503\15391951503,,,Planning Commission Tentative Agenda for October.docx Revised 09/11/2025 3:39 PM Page 630 of 630