The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-02-21 PC AGENDA CONTINUATION OF ADJOURNED MEETINGPlanning Commission City of Hermosa Beach Regular Meeting Agenda - Final City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Council Chambers7:00 PMTuesday, February 21, 2017 1 February 21, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in The City Hall Council Chambers THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review on the City's web site at www.hermosabch.org. Wireless access is available in the City Council Chambers for mobile devices: Network ID: CHB-Guest, Password: chbguest Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City's website. Final determinations of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the next regular City Council meeting date. If the 10th day falls on a Friday or City holiday, the appeal deadline is extended to the next City business day. Appeals shall be in written form and filed with the City Clerk's office, accompanied by an appeal fee. The City Clerk will set the appeal for public hearing before the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date possible. If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on this agenda, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible. 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call 4. Oral / Written Communications Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I CONSENT CALENDAR 5.REPORT 17-0074 Approval of The January 17, 2017 Planning Commission Action Minutes Recommendation:To approve the Planning Commission action minutes of the January 17, 2017 regular meeting. 6. Resolution(s) for Consideration - None Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/21/2024 2 February 21, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final *************************************************************************************************************** **** THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED BELOW ARE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF AND ARE RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY. THE FINAL DECISION ON EACH ITEM RESTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. *************************************************************************************************************** **** 17-0075 Information Only: Public Hearing Notice and Projects Zoning Map Section II PUBLIC HEARING 7.REPORT 17-0104 PDP 16-6 / CUP 16-2 / PARK 16-7 -- Precise Development Plan to Allow a Food and Beverage Market (Lazy Acres Market) within an existing 29,653 square foot building at 2510 Pacific Coast Highway; Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Dining Accessory to the Proposed Food and Beverage Market; and a Parking Plan to Allow Parking Requirements to be Met with a Shared Parking Arrangement with the Two Adjacent Buildings at 950 Artesia Boulevard (currently a multi-tenant office building), and 24210 Pacific Coast Highway (Hope Chapel Church), and the Parking Lot currently used by Hope Chapel at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway Recommendation:Continue the public hearing to March 21, 2017. 8.REPORT 17-0112 PARK 17-2 - Parking Plan to Allow a Parking Arrangement with Mechanical Parking Lift and Compact Sized Guest Stalls for a New Single-Family Residence at 260 31st Street, and Determination that the Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Recommendation:Adopt the attached resolution approving a Parking Plan, allowing the proposed parking arrangement, which uses alternative methods, including a mechanical parking lift and compact sized guest stalls, as a means to provide adequate parking for residents and guests of a new single-family residence, and determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Section III HEARING Page 3 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/21/2024 3 February 21, 2017Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda - Final 9.REPORT 17-0105 CON 17-1 -- Request to extend the expiration date of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 73308 for a six-unit residential condominium project for one year at 1906-1918 Pacific Coast Highway. Recommendation:To extend the expiration date of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 73308 for a six-unit residential condominium project one year, to February 21, 2018, by minute order at 1906-1918 Pacific Coast Highway. Section IV 10. Staff Items a)REPORT 17-0110 C-36 -- Receive Report for Semi-Annual On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Review Process Recommendation:Receive the semi-annual report as informational matter only. The semi-annual review for July - December 2016 will be agenized for March 21, 2017. Based on the information in the report, no businesses have reached the "Standard Initiating Planning Commission Review." b)17-0109 Report on City Council Actions c)17-0108 Status Report on Major Planning Projects d)REPORT 17-0073 March, 2017 Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Items Recommendation:To receive and file the March, 2017 Planning Commission tentative future agenda items. e)REPORT 17-0072 Community Development Department Activity Report of December, 2016 Recommendation:To receive and file the December, 2016 Community Development Department activity report. f)17-0113 Brief Overview of Conflict of Interest Rules 11. Commissioner Items 12. Adjournment to February 22, 2017 Page 4 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/21/2024 4 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 17-0074 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 Approval of The January 17, 2017 Planning Commission Action Minutes Recommended Action: To approve the Planning Commission action minutes of the January 17,2017 regular meeting. Attachment: 1.January 17,2017 Planning Commission action minutes Respectfully Submitted by: Yu-Ying Ting, Administrative Assistant Concur:Kim Chafin, Senior Planner Approved: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™5 1 Planning Commission Action Minutes January 17, 2017 ACTION MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall Council Chambers 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 January 17, 2017 7:00 P.M. Michael Flaherty, Chairperson Rob Saemann, Vice Chair Marie Rice David Pedersen Peter Hoffman 1. Call to Order at 7:04 P.M. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Hoffman, Pedersen, Rice, Saemann, Chairperson Flaherty Absent: None Also Present: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Lauren Langer, Assistant City Attorney Kim Chafin, Senior Planner Yalini Sivapathasundarum, Associate Planner Nicole Ellis, Assistant Planner Kathy Khang, Assistant Planner 4. Oral / Written Communications Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I CONSENT CALENDAR 5. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 12, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES. Recommendation: To approve the Planning Commission action minutes of the December 12, 2016 regular meeting. ACTION: To approve the December 12, 2016 action minutes as presented. 6 2 Planning Commission Action Minutes January 17, 2017 MOTION by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. RESOLUTION(S) FOR CONSIDERATION - None Section II PUBLIC HEARING 7. CON 16-19 -- TO REINSTATE AN EXPIRED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72883 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 605-607 LONGFELLOW AVENUE, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Recommendation: To adopt the attached Resolution approving the reinstatement of expired Tentative Parcel Map No. 72883 for a two-unit condominium project at 605-607 Longfellow Avenue, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By approving the reinstatement, the expiration date of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 72883 will be January 17, 2019. Coming forward to speak: Elizabeth Srour. ACTION: To adopt the resolution, as presented, approving the reinstatement of expired Tentative Parcel Map No. 72883 for a two-unit condominium project at 605-607 Longfellow Avenue, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By approving the reinstatement, the expiration date of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 72883 will be January 17, 2019. MOTION by Commissioner Pedersen and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Hoffman, Pedersen, Rice, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 8. CON 16-20 -- TO REINSTATE AN EXPIRED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 73031 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 609-611 LONGFELLOW AVENUE, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Recommendation: To adopt the attached Resolution approving the reinstatement of expired Tentative Parcel Map No. 73031 for a two-unit condominium project at 609-611 Longfellow Avenue, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By approving the reinstatement, the expiration date of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 73031 will be January 17, 2019 7 3 Planning Commission Action Minutes January 17, 2017 Coming forward to speak: None. ACTION: To adopt the resolution, as presented, approving the reinstatement of expired Tentative Parcel Map No. 73031 for a two-unit condominium project at 609-611 Longfellow Avenue, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By approving the reinstatement, the expiration date of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 73031 will be January 17, 2019. MOTION by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Pedersen. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Hoffman, Pedersen, Rice, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 9. CON-16-21 -- TO REINSTATE AN EXPIRED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72959 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 4 MEYER COURT, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Recommendation: To adopt the attached Resolution approving the reinstatement of expired Tentative Parcel Map No. 72959 for a two-unit condominium project at 4 Meyer Court, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By approving the reinstatement, the expiration date of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 72959 will be January 17, 2019. Coming forward to speak: None. ACTION: To adopt the resolution, as presented, approving the reinstatement of expired Tentative Parcel Map No. 72959 for a two-unit condominium project at 4 Meyer Court, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By approving the reinstatement, the expiration date of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 72959 will be January 17, 2019. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Pedersen. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Hoffman, Pedersen, Rice, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 8 4 Planning Commission Action Minutes January 17, 2017 10. CON 16-22 -- TO REINSTATE AN EXPIRED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72886 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1638-1642 HERMOSA AVENUE AND 1635 PALM DRIVE, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Recommendation: To adopt the attached Resolution approving the reinstatement of expired Tentative Parcel Map No. 72886 for a two-unit condominium project at 1638-1642 Hermosa Avenue and 1635 Palm Drive, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By approving the reinstatement, the expiration date of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 72886 will be January 17, 2019 Coming forward to speak: None. ACTION: To adopt the resolution, as presented, approving the reinstatement of expired Tentative Parcel Map No. 72886 for a two-unit condominium project at 1638-1642 Hermosa Avenue and 1635 Palm Drive, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). By approving the reinstatement, the expiration date of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 72886 will be January 17, 2019 MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Rice. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Hoffman, Pedersen, Rice, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Section III 11. Staff Items a) REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. b) STATUS REPORT ON MAJOR PLANNING PROJECTS. ACTION: The Planning Commission consensus was to set Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. as the public hearing for PLAN Hermosa and recommendation on certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. c) FEBRUARY, 2017 PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. d) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF NOVEMBER, 2016 12. Commissioner Items 9 5 Planning Commission Action Minutes January 17, 2017 13. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:46 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of December 12, 2016. Michael Flaherty, Chairperson Ken Robertson, Secretary Date 10 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 17-0075 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 Information Only: Public Hearing Notice and Projects Zoning Map Attachments: 1.Public Notice 2.Projects Zoning Map City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™11 Easy Reader Run Date: February 9, 2017 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, February 21, 2017, to consider the following: 1. Parking Plan to consider alternative methods of providing required parking for a new single-family residence at 260 31st Street, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS shall be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at these hearings at the above time and place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 prior to Thursday, February 16, 2017, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at (310) 318-0242 or fax to (310) 937-6235. The Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Please contact a staff planner to discuss any project on the Planning Commission agenda. A copy of the staff report(s) in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of the business day on Thursday, February 16, 2017, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department, Public Library, and on the City’s website at www.hermosabch.org. Relevant Municipal Code sections are also available on the website. Elaine Doerfling City Clerk f:95\cclerk\legads\display\2017\planning\pc02-21-17 12 ZONING DESIGNATIONS R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1A LIMITED ONE-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 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-3/AH-O GENERAL COMMERCIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY 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 USES) SPA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (COMMERCIAL USES) Projects Zoning MapPlanning Commission Meeting February 21, 2017 1906-1918 PCHVesting TentativeTract Map ExtensionZone: R-2 260 31st StParking PlanZone: R-1 13 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 17-0104 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 PDP 16-6 / CUP 16-2 / PARK 16-7 -- Precise Development Plan to Allow a Food and Beverage Market (Lazy Acres Market) within an existing 29,653 square foot building at 2510 Pacific Coast Highway; Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Dining Accessory to the Proposed Food and Beverage Market; and a Parking Plan to Allow Parking Requirements to be Met with a Shared Parking Arrangement with the Two Adjacent Buildings at 950 Artesia Boulevard (currently a multi-tenant office building), and 24210 Pacific Coast Highway (Hope Chapel Church), and the Parking Lot currently used by Hope Chapel at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Bristol Farms Sam Masterson 951 E. 230th Street Carson, CA 90745 Recommended Action: Continue the public hearing to March 21, 2017. Background: On November 15, 2016, the Planning Commission continued to December 12, 2016 the public hearing for the above-referenced applications. Because additional time was needed to revise the plans and update the environmental documents in order to address comments made in November, on December 12, 2016 the Planning Commission approved the applicant’s request to continue the public hearing to February 21, 2017. The applicant has advised that they will be ready to present their revised plans in March, and request that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to March 21, 2017. Attachments: 1.Applicant’s email requesting public hearing be continued to 3-21-17 Respectfully Submitted by: Kim Chafin, Senior Planner Approved: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™14 1 Kim Chafin From:Sam Masterson <SMasterson@goodfoodholdings.com> Sent:Monday, February 06, 2017 3:05 PM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson Cc:Darin Eng (DEng@littleonline.com); Henry Kwon Subject:REVISED PDP REVIEW - REQUESTED CONTINUANCE Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged We are not going to have our complete revised PDP package ready for submittal in adequate time to make the February 21, 2017 Planning Commission agenda. We would like to request a continuance to the March 21, 2017 Planning Commission meeting at which time we will present our revised package. This should give us adequate time to appropriately address the concerns of the Planning Commission and the community. Let me know if you see any issues with this. ‐Sam Sam Masterson Executive Vice President Chief Development Officer Good Food Holdings smasterson@goodfoodholdings.com (310) 233‐4743 15 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 17-0112 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 PARK 17-2 - Parking Plan to Allow a Parking Arrangement with Mechanical Parking Lift and Compact Sized Guest Stalls for a New Single-Family Residence at 260 31st Street, and Determination that the Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Applicant: Anton and Mardi Watts 260 31st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution approving a Parking Plan, allowing the proposed parking arrangement, which uses alternative methods, including a mechanical parking lift and compact sized guest stalls, as a means to provide adequate parking for residents and guests of a new single-family residence, and determine the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Background: The City recently responded to an inquiry from a neighbor concerned that construction underway at 260 31st for a new home was proceeding with only a one-car garage on the alley. After reviewing the plans, staff discovered that regrettably the plans were approved in error by allowing a mechanical parking lift for stacking two cars within this garage, rather than meeting parking requirements consistent with standards in the zoning code. Staff immediately notified the owner that this stacked method of tandem parking is not expressly allowed by the code. Since the City cannot authorize construction that does not meet standards (even if plans are approved in error), staff met with the owner and design team and discussed the following options to correct the situation: 1) Redesign the project and make necessary changes to meet code; or 2) Request Planning Commission approval of a Parking Plan to allow the proposed parking arrangement, which uses alternative methods, including a mechanical parking lift and compact sized guest stalls, as a means to provide adequate parking facilities for residents and guests of the new single-family residence. Since the home is under construction with the first floor framing almost finished, the applicant chose the option of the Parking Plan, believing that the mechanical lift is viable and will be functional. The home was specifically designed and space allocated with this approach to parking, also based on early consultation with one member of staff who interpreted the code in error. The parking lift for two vehicles is easily accommodated in a garage that has an interior dimension of 10.5 feet wide by 20 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™16 Staff Report REPORT 17-0112 feet long and a height clearance of 12.5 feet to accommodate the lift. Section 17.44.210, Parking Plans, of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) allows Planning Commission consideration of a “reduction in the number of spaces required” if it is shown that adequate parking is otherwise provided. In this case, the request is for consideration of a mechanical car lift as a method for two parking spaces in the garage, and also to consider that the 9-foot setback provided along the alley for the full width of the lot potentially accommodates two guest spaces. Thus, the Commission is being asked whether the new single-family residence is adequately parked by providing parking spaces for four cars (instead of three) in an alternate configuration than what would otherwise be allowed under the HBMC. The subject property is located on a walk-street, within an R-1 district with several 2100 square-foot lots (30’X70’) that are considered “small lots” in the R-1 zone (Section 17.08.040). This small, four- block neighborhood is otherwise surrounded by R-2 zoned properties. While the code recognizes the challenges of applying R-1 standards on these small lots by providing a different open space standard than typical R-1 lots, both allowing a smaller dimension (seven feet rather than ten feet) and to use their front yard towards ground level open space, these lots are not provided any different requirements for parking. This particular R-1 district is not located within the Coastal Zone, but is located within the City’s preferential parking district. Analysis: Pursuant to Section 17.44.020, a single-family residence requires two off-street parking spaces plus one guest parking space. Additional sections in Chapter 17.44 provide for minimum dimensions and locational requirements for this parking, including the allowance of tandem parking. Tandem parking is defined as “one automobile parked after or behind another in a lengthwise fashion” and is limited one automobile behind another. Since the parking for this project relies on a mechanical lift, or stacked parking, the second parking space within the garage is not expressly permitted and should not have been approved as a required parking space. Therefore, the project as approved and under construction only provides one garage space and one guest space that clearly meets dimensional and locational requirement and definitions. While tandem parking is allowed, the proposed stacked tandem parking is not, and is therefore inconsistent with the requirements of Chapter 17.44. In considering the applicability of Section 17.44.210, Parking Plans, and whether consideration should be granted for the alternative methods, the section specifically provides that the Commission shall consider various factors to determine whether adequate parking is provided, including unique features of the proposed use. Lacking any other specific guidelines or criteria, it is the Commission’s judgement whether this proposed method will provide adequate parking. The key issue to consider in this case is whether the practical effect of tandem parking lengthwise is different than the effect of stacked tandem parking. In either situation the users of the parking spaces have to manage the sequencing of their trips with their cars to avoid shuffling. If shuffling the cars is needed in either case it causes delays and possible temporary obstruction of the alley. Based on the specifications for the lift in question there would be a 30-second time delay for the lift to operate which may be a little less convenient or cause only a slightly longer delay than shuffling cars parked lengthwise. City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™17 Staff Report REPORT 17-0112 Otherwise the practical implications are similar. The applicant also proposes that the 30-foot wide by 9-foot deep parking apron adjacent to the alley accommodate two angled, compact-sized guest stalls, resulting in a total of four on-site parking spaces, rather than the minimum requirement of three. The plans depict how two cars can be accommodated in that configuration using a typical Prius automobile. The applicant will provide further evidence at the hearing to address the convenience and reliability of the parking lift, but generally parking lifts are accepted in urban areas, with some cities allowing lifts as required parking. Also, Section 17.44.10(C) specifically states that when granting a Parking Plan, the Planning Commission can require a covenant to assure that any alternative method for parking is implemented and maintained. In this situation, staff recommends a condition that the covenant assure the installation, maintenance, and permanence for the life of the building for the parking lift as well as the provision within the 30-foot wide by 9-foot deep parking apron adjacent to the alley accommodate two angled, compact-sized guest stalls. Section 17.44.210, Parking Plans, is often used for a reduction in required parking for commercial projects for unique uses, and shared or common parking. Only once has a Parking Plan been used for residential property in a case where reduced parking stall dimensions for a guest space was allowed in consideration that additional guest parking was also available elsewhere on the property in the OS-O zone. The Commission has never addressed whether mechanical lifts or stacked parking would be a viable alternative for required parking in either commercial or residential parking. Therefore, there may be concern that this will set a precedent, and encourage possible misuse of Parking Plans and an influx of parking lifts rather than standard or more convenient parking. Staff believes, however, that the facts and circumstances are unusual in this case, that the use of the lift will be functional and is operation will be required for the life of the building, and the Parking Plan will help resolve an unfortunate situation of a staff person’s mistaken interpretation of the code, without compromising the parking situation in the neighborhood. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Existing Site Photographs 3. Poster Verification 4. Radius Map 5. Applicant Submittal 6. Correspondence from public Respectfully Submitted by: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™18 1 Attachment 1 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 17-X A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A PARKING ARRANGEMENT WHICH USES ALTERNATIVE METHODS, INCLUDING A MECHANICAL PARKING LIFT AND COMPACT SIZED GUEST STALLS, TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR RESIDENTS AND GUESTS FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 260 31ST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 20, BLOCK 116, SHAKESPEARE, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH. The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Anton and Mardi Watts, 260 31st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, seeking approval of Parking Plan 17-X to allow a parking arrangement which uses alternative methods to provide adequate parking for residents and guests in conjunction with a new single-family dwelling. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Parking Plan on February 21, 2017 at which time the testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. Based on the Staff Report, testimony, and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. The site is zoned R-1 and located on a walk-street such that no street parking is available and off-street parking can only be accessed from the alley. 2. The subject property is located on a walk-street, within an R-1 district with several 2100 square foot lots (30’x70’) that are considered “small lots” in the R-1 zone (Section 17.08.040). 3. The new home being constructed in accordance with approved plans included approval of a mechanical parking lift to satisfy parking requirements (which does not meet the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code parking standards for tandem spaces). To rectify the situation, the applicant has applied for a Parking Plan, pursuant to section 17.44.210 of the zoning code, to allow for the proposed parking arrangement, which uses alternative methods, including a mechanical parking lift and compact sized guest stalls, as a means to provide adequate parking for residents and guests for a new single-family residence. Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings per Section 17.44.210: 1. There are unique features of the proposed use that allow for adequate parking for residents and guests. First, the garage will include a mechanical lift to fit two cars into a one-car 19 2 garage. The practical effect of stacked tandem parking is no different than the effect of lengthwise tandem parking. In either situation, the users of the parking spaces have to manage the sequencing of their trips with their cars to avoid shuffling. If shuffling the cars is needed in either case it causes delays and possible temporary obstruction of the alley. Based on the specifications for the lift in question, there would be a 30-second delay for the lift to operate which may cause only a slightly longer delay than shuffling cars parked lengthwise. Second, the 30-foot wide by 9-foot deep parking apron adjacent to the alley is configured to accommodate two angled, compact-sized guest stalls. The applicant has provided the information to show that the parking lift and unique features of the setback area will provide space for four cars to park, and that the site is adequately parked for residents and guests. A covenant will be recorded on the property to ensure that the alternative methods of providing adequate parking are maintained for the life of the building. Section 5. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines, Section 15301 Class 1 because the Parking Plan proposal involves a negligible change from existing conditions on a developed lot in an urban area. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Parking Plan 17-X, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The location and design of the two parking spaces and guest parking areas shall be substantially consistent with the plan approved by the Planning Commission on February 17, 2017. Minor modifications to the plans that are required in order to comply with project conditions or codes may be approved by the Community Development Director provided the size and location and specifications of the parking spaces and the mechanical lift are not significantly modified. 2. The building setback area identified for parking along the alley shall be maintained for guest parking purpose. No encroachments into the parking area shall be permitted. 3. 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. 4. A covenant, with the City a party thereto, approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded assuring that a mechanical parking lift will be installed and maintained in full operability for the life the building, and that the 30-foot wide by 9-foot deep parking apron adjacent to the alley accommodate two angled, compact-sized guest stalls, to be maintained for the life of the building. 20 3 5. This grant 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. 6. This permit shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to construction of the south property wall. 7. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission, unless significant construction or improvements of 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. Section 7. 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 other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 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 attorneys’ 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 grant. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. Section 8. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal review by the City Council (Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2.52.40), must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 21 4 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing planning Commission Resolution 17-X 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 February 21, 2017. ________________________________ ________________________ Michael Flaherty, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary Date 22 Attachment 2 Existing Site Photographs – 260 31st Street 23 Attachment 2 (continued) Existing Site Photographs – 260 31st Street 24 Attachment 3 Photo Verification of Legal Posting – 260 31st Street 25 Attachment 3 (continued) Photo Verification of Legal Posting – 260 31st Street 26 214 259 3232562302523232272412453205333231337225315 23025034030735031826023134133021722522231032225530123924634733231922733024231536024922130234531131125923521733734735824333224224231431825426023435135730335234434632720733834532932132222632220522520035433135734024425533230135833523431721620920122521933933033630231031023724321822422124524434524829183020 3 0 3 0 2472012452112082223202320431043 1 s t P l3 1 s t S t 3 0 t h P l3 3 r d P l2 9 t h S t 3 0 t h S t 3 3 r d S t 3 2 n d P l2 9 t h C t Mor ni ngsi de DrManhat t an AveL o n g f e llo w A v e 3 4 t h P l Hi ghl and AvePal m Dr 3 4 th S t Vista DrCrest Dr± 260 31st St300' Radius 27 2/9/17 Parking Plan Description The proposed project was to remove an existing two story, single family residence with a detached, non-conforming garage that had no guest parking. After receiving plan check approval the existing residence has already been removed. and is being replaced with a two story, single family residence with an attached garage with guest parking. This Parking Plan is not requesting a reduction in required parking. It is however proposing to have Planning Commission approve a parking plan layout that was already plan checked, approved, and partially constructed as approved. The Parking Plan illustrates the use of a Mechanical Stacker to provide the required two offsite standard size parking spaces within an enclosed, onsite, New Single Family Residence 10’-6” x 20’-0” garage. The required one guest space is provided within the Prop- erty Lines at the rear yard adjacent to the 31st Place alley. This fulﬁlls the parking counts per Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 17.44.020 (Off Street Parking - Residential Use). The stacker information is included in the “plans” package. The manufacturer speciﬁcation indicates the speed of rise is 30 seconds therefore using the stacker would be convenient and fairly expedient. Some municipalities including San Diego already explicitly include mechanical stackers in their munici- pal code to fulﬁll parking requirements wherever tandem parking is allowed. This residence will be compatible with properties in the surrounding area, including but not limited to, scale, mass, orientation, size and location of setbacks, and height. There will no signiﬁcant detrimen- tal impact to surrounding neighbors, including but not limited to impacts to privacy, pedestrian and vehicular accessibility, light, and air. In addition the smaller garage door width occupies less square footage on the rear elevation which has less visual and aesthetic impact to the neighbors and com- munity. The use of stacker parking is a good solution especially for small lots like this property. ras-a inc. 2507 190th St. Redondo Beach, CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 www.ras-a.com 28 S1.1Topographical Lot Survey01Survey Scale: 1/4” : 1' (Enlarged to 1”=4” for 24x36 sheet)2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 29 Waste Recycle 19'-0" (Turning Radius) 7'-0"54’-0”9'-0"3'-0"24'-0"3'-0"7'-0"54’-0”9'-0" 3'-0"24'-0"3’-0”3’-0”8'-0" FRONT SETBACK REAR SETBACK SY SETBACKSY SETBACKFRONT SETBACK REAR SETBACKSIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACK5’-0”5'-0"TO STREET C.L.TO STREET C.L. 2% 1'-0"10'-6" (Parking Stall Width)20'-0" (Parking Stall Length) 9' (Parking Apron)30’ (Parking Apron)2ND FL ABOVE BALCONY ABOVE 20'-0"5'-0" P3 B B 112.30’ FF Master Suite Level 98.64’ FF T/ Slab Garage (low point) 99.16’ FF T/ Slab Den Level 98.96’ PC 97.56’ PC A1.2Site Plan/ Parking Plan01Parking Plan Scale: 1/4" : 1' SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING W/ ATTACHED GARAGE 3 1 s t S T R E E T3 1 s t P L A C EGarage N 65º07’07” E (30.00’)RN 24º56’35” W (70.00’)R N 24º57’02” W (70.00’)R N 65º08’00” E (30.00’)RPermeable Pavers Driveway TYP.1% Gravel Yard Gravel Yard Gravel Yard Patio BENDPAK PL-7000XR DUAL COLUMN PARKING LIFT 97.56’ PC 98.96’ PC 98.85’ PC 100.32’ PC 1% 3.6% P1 P2 P1 P2 PARKING LEGEND Parking Spot 1 Parking Spot 2 (above on lift) Parking Spot 3 (guest parking) Bonus Parking Spot P3 02Alley Elevation (shown with door open) Scale: 1/4" : 1' P.L.P1 P2 P3 A33 D A33 D 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 30 2ND FL ABOVE 2X4 PONY WALL (NO DRYWALL) 24'-1 3/4"9'-0"20'-11"11'-5"3'-0"12'-7"FINISH20'-11"27'-0"6'-1 3/4"24'-0"5"10'-10 1/2"2'-2" 5'-4 1/2"13'-6"13'-6"4'-8"4'-11"2'-8"2"9'-5 1/2"3'-0"10'-6" (Parking Stall Width)20'-0" (Parking Stall Length) 7'-0"54'-3/4"9'-0"3'-0"24'-0"3'-0"3’-0”3’-0”FRONT SETBACK REAR SETBACK SIDESETBACKSIDE SETBACKSIDESETBACKSIDE SETBACK3'-0"11'-6"8’-2 ½”DIMENSION LINE TO FRAMED WALL (NOT CMU)VIF6'-8 1/2"7'-5"9'-0" (Parking Apron)30'-0" (Parking Apron)8'-0"1'-0" TYP. 01First Floor Scale: 1/4" : 1' A2.1Floor PlansA32 C A32 C A33 D A33 D A31 B A31 B A31 A A31 A Living Dining Patio Kitchen Entry Den Bath 1 Garage A31 02 A31 01 A33 04 A32 03 Garden Permeable Paver Drive Gravel Yard Gravel YardGravel Yard UP 2'-3"2'-3"GRAPHIC LEGEND : 2x4 Wood Stud Full Height Wall : 2x4 Wood Stud Partial Height Partition : 2x4 Wood Stud w/ High Window FUR OUT WALL W/ 2X4 FILLED CORE AT SLIDER JAMB. 8”x8” NON-STRUCTURAL, NON-LOAD BEARING CMU WALL- BLOCKS TURNED ON FACE TO EXPOSE OPEN CORE. DN DN 1% BENDPAK PL-7000XR FREESTANDING DUAL COLUMN PARKING LIFT N 24º56’35” W (70.00’)R N 24º57’02” W (70.00’)R N 65º08’00” E (30.00’)R97.56’ PC 98.96’ PC N 65º07’07” E (30.00’)R98.85’ PC 100.32’ PC 2ND FLOOR BALCONY ABOVE RECESSED ELEC METER - PROVIDE CONDUIT FROM ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL TO ROOF GATE/ SCREEN FOR TRASH AREA (N) Ipe Patio to Match (E) Adjacent 2ND FLOOR BALCONY ABOVE (E) ROW PATIO TO REMAIN UNCHANGED NOT IN CONTRACT NOT PART PART OF PERMIT EDGE OF 2ND FL OPENING ABOVE HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING @ THESE INTERIOR WALLS WALLS ALIGN ABOVE NOTE: DIMENSIONS ON FLOOR PLAN ARE TO FACE OF FRAMING U.N.O. A34 E A34 E A34 F A34 F STEEL POST PER STRUCT CL Coat Closet 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 31 02Second Floor Scale: 1/4" : 1' 12'-5 1/2" 28'-11" 8'-5 1/2"3'-0" 9'-0"27'-1 3/4" 12'-10 1/4"11'-3 1/2"16'-5 1/2" 3'-0"9'-0"18'-0"6'-5 1/2"1'-4"7'-5 1/2"8'-0" 28'-11" 13'-5 1/2" 9'-0" 3'-0" 24'-1 3/4" 11'-3 1/2"12'-10 1/4" 5'-6"2'-3"3'-0"24'-0"11'-5"3'-0"3'-11"FINISH5'-5"1'-7 1/2"3'-11"4'-0"3'-0"4'-0" 8'-2"3'-5"2'-3"8'-2"3'-5"2'-3"26”FINISHTYPICAL26”FINISHTYPICALA2.2Floor PlansLibrary Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Terrace Study Laundry Broom Bath 2 Master Suite Master Bath Wardrobe A32 C A32 C A33 D A33 D A31 B A31 B A31 A A31 A A31 02 A31 01 A33 04 A32 03 GRAPHIC LEGEND : 2x4 Wood Stud Full Height Wall : 2x4 Wood Stud Partial Height Partition : 2x4 Wood Stud w/ High Window DN UP UP St Stl Floor Drain - Route concealed within roof, down within wall & daylight to pop-up drain in landscaping 2%2%PARTIAL HEIGHT PARTITION 7’-0”AFF TO T.O.W. PARTIAL HEIGHT PARTITION 7’-0”AFF TO T.O.W. St Stl Floor Drain - Route concealed within roof, down within wall & daylight to pop-up drain in landscaping N 24º56’35” W (70.00’)R N 24º57’02” W (70.00’)R N 65º08’00” E (30.00’)R97.56’ PC 98.96’ PC N 65º07’07” E (30.00’)R98.85’ PC 100.32’ PC Balcony NOTE: DIMENSIONS ON FLOOR PLAN ARE TO FACE OF FRAMING U.N.O. OPEN TO BELOW FUR OUT WALL W/ 2X4 2X6 STUDS AT HATCHED WALL 6'-0"A34 E A34 E A34 F A34 F FUR OUT WALL BELOW SILL 2”. STEAMER FOR SHOWER CONT. NICHE SEE A5.2 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 32 03Roof Scale: 1/4" : 1' 2%A2.3Floor PlansRoof Deck A32 C A32 C A33 D A33 D A31 B A31 B A31 A A31 A A31 02 A31 01 A33 04 A32 03 2%2%2%2%Secondary Overﬂow Scupper Skylight LARR #25885 Typ Scupper Scupper w/ Rain Chain Secondary Overﬂow Scupper Scupper w/ Rain Chain Secondary Overﬂow Scupper St Stl Floor Drain Deck Below Deck Below TYPICAL Skylight LARR #25885 Typ N 24º56’35” W (70.00’)R N 24º57’02” W (70.00’)R N 65º08’00” E (30.00’)R97.56’ PC 98.96’ PC N 65º07’07” E (30.00’)R98.85’ PC 100.32’ PC CP3 = 122.43 Proposed 123.26 Max CP4 = 122.43 Proposed 123.02 Max CP5 = 122.93 Proposed 122.99 Max CP2 = 123.59 Proposed 123.88 Max CP1 = 123.59 Proposed 124.32 Max CP6 = 121.43 Proposed 123.42 Max Provide conduit from roof to electrical service panel A34 E A34 E A34 F A34 F 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 33 A3.0RenderingsPerspective from Walk-Street Perspective from Alley ¾ Perspective from Northwest Perspective from West sideyard Perspective from East sideyard 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 34 110.88’ FF Kids Rooms Level 120.09’ Finished Surface @ Deck 99.68’ FF T/ Slab Main Level 112.30’ FF Master Suite Level 98.64’ FF T/ Slab Garage (low point) 99.16’ FF T/ Slab Den Level 99.68’ FF T/ Slab Main Level 99.68’ FF T/ Slab Main Level 01 98.85’ PC 100.32’ PC 98.96’ PC 97.56’ PC Top of Joists Second Floor (NOT Deck) Bottom of Joists Top of Joists Second Floor Bottom of Joists 25'-0"25.00'25'-0"8'-3 5/8"11'-5/8"11'-5/8"8'-3 5/8"1'-3"2'-8"Typ 01North Elevation Scale: 1/4" : 1' A3.1Elevations & Sections02South Elevation Scale: 1/4" : 1' AASection Scale: 1/4" : 1' BBSection Scale: 1/4" : 1' T&G WRC (Western Red Cedar) Siding01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 ½” Tempered Glass Guardrail St. Stl. Building Address Numbers - plainly visible & legible from street per CRC R319.1 Galvalume Parapet Cap Galvalume Scupper w/ Rain Chain - Light Fixture per Schedule WRC Picket Guardrail Gate per Schedule Hot-dip Galvanized Steel Handrail KEYNOTES 11 8”x8” CMU Wall Blocks turned on face to expose open core 12 - 13 - 14 Tile 03 07 07 02 02 02 03 P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L. CP4 = 122.43 Proposed 123.02 Max CP5 = 122.93 Proposed 122.99 Max CP1 = 123.59 Proposed 124.32 Max MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT CP6 = 121.43 Proposed 123.42 Max 07 01 08 11 11 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 35 112.30’ FF Master Suite Level 99.16’ FF T/ Slab Den Level 99.68’ FF T/ Slab Main Level 99.68’ FF T/ Slab Main Level 110.88’ FF Kids Rooms Level 120.09’ Finished Surface @ Deck Top of Joists Second Floor (NOT Deck) Bottom of Joists 99.16’ FF T/ Slab Den Level Top of Joists Master Suite Bottom of Joists 12'-11 7/8"9'-2 1/2"8'-3 5/8"11'-5/8"1'-6"Typ 03West Elevation Scale: 1/4" : 1' A3.2Elevations & SectionsCCSection Scale: 1/4" : 1' 02 02 T&G WRC (Western Red Cedar) Siding01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 ½” Tempered Glass Guardrail St. Stl. Building Address Numbers - plainly visible & legible from street per CRC R319.1 Galvalume Parapet Cap Galvalume Scupper w/ Rain Chain - Light Fixture per Schedule WRC Picket Guardrail Gate per Schedule Hot-dip Galvanized Steel Handrail KEYNOTES 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 Tile P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.25'-0"25'-0"EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED FINISHED SURFACE CP3 = 122.43 Proposed 123.26 Max CP4 = 122.43 Proposed 123.02 Max CP5 = 122.93 Proposed 122.99 Max CP2 = 123.59 Proposed 123.88 Max CP1 = 123.59 Proposed 124.32 Max MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT CP6 = 121.43 Proposed 123.42 Max 07TYPICAL 14 niche 01 08 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 36 99.68’ FF T/ Slab Main Level98.64’ FF T/ Slab Garage (Low Point) 110.88’ FF Kids Rooms Level 120.09’ Finished Surface @ Deck 99.68’ FF T/ Slab Main Level98.64’ FF T/ Slab Garage (low point) 111.59’ FF Master Suite Level 98.96’ PC Top of Joists Master Suite Bottom of Joists Bottom of Joists Top of Joists Second Floor 11'-5/8"8'-3 5/8"13'-6 1/8"9'-2 1/2"2'-8"1'-6"07 07 05 05 Typ A3.3Elevations & SectionsDDSection Scale: 1/4" : 1' 04East Elevation Scale: 1/4" : 1' T&G WRC (Western Red Cedar) Siding01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 ½” Tempered Glass Guardrail St. Stl. Building Address Numbers - plainly visible & legible from street per CRC R319.1 Galvalume Parapet Cap Galvalume Scupper w/ Rain Chain Recessed Electrical Meter Light Fixture per Schedule WRC Picket Guardrail Gate per Schedule Hot-dip Galvanized Steel Handrail KEYNOTES 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 Tile 02 02 07P.L.P.L.P.L.P.L.100.32’ PC CP2 = 123.59 Proposed 123.88 Max CP1 = 123.59 Proposed 124.32 Max MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 25'-0"MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 06 P1 P2 01 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 37 Model: PL‐7000XR Description: Freestanding Dual Column Parking Lift / Space Saver Standard features x Minimum footprint allows multiple installations in minimum space. x Independent lifting structures allows for staggered or offset installation. x Power‐unit and controls integrated within lift structure x Freestanding design reduces tax and permit liabilities in most counties. x Overhead power unit provides smooth quiet hydraulic operation. x Wide deck platform accommodates pickups, vans and cars. x Designed for installation on typical parking surfaces. x Durable construction for maximum stability. x Full length center panels protects bottom vehicle. x Dual hydraulic cylinders combined with heavy‐duty lifting chain. x Dual synchronization chains keep deck level at all times. x Automatic safety lock. x Maintenance free composite carriage bearings. x Maintenance free self‐lubricating chain rollers. x Audible / visual alarm during descent. OPTIONAL x Integrated key‐activated power On/Off switch. OPTIONAL MODEL PL‐7000XR Lifting Capacity 7,000 Lbs. / 3175 Kg. A ‐ Height Overall: 131” / 3327 mm. B ‐ Rise: 85” / 2159 mm. Overall Length 173‐1/2”" / 4405 mm. Platform Length 157‐1/2” / 4001 mm. Overall Width 98” / 2489 mm. Platform Width 82‐1/2” / 2094 mm. Speed of Rise 30‐Seconds Motor (*) 220 VAC / 60 Hz. 1Ph. * Special Voltages Available Upon Request. The design, material and specifications are subject to change without notice. A4.0Product Information/ PhotosProduct Speciﬁcation SheetPhotos of Proposed & Similar Lifts 2507 190th St Redondo Beach CA 90278 tel 310 937 1760 ras-a.com All drawings, speciﬁcations, and documents prepared by ras-a inc. are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project and shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without the express written permission of ras-a inc. Ras-a inc. shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law, statutory, and other reserved rights, including copyright. ©2015 Project Walk-Street HouseClient Mardi & Anton Watts260 31st StreetHermosa Beach, CA tel 310 491-8000Issue Feb 3, 2017 Parking Plan drawn by RS PM revisions 38 1 Kim Chafin From:Brian Croft <bhcroft@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:13 PM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen; Anton Watts; Mardi Watts Subject:Regarding the matter pending to be heard February 21st pertaining to construction at 260 31st Street: Some of our greatest innovations were a function of perceived errors- sometimes the mistakes lead the way. I also suspect, not having visited the municipal code as yet, that it may be determined that providing the three spaces within the property line meets requirements despite a variance in form. Last- the owners have relied upon the 'error' of the planning department (or responsible party) in good faith and incurred expense as a result of it, which has potential to grow substantially. It is reasonable to suggest that this can be attributed and/or assigned to the City - If the new mousetrap meets the objective of the municipal code and represents no harm to the community, what is the purpose of the argument other than regulation for the sake of regulation. Mistakes happen - but those responsible for the mistake should be accountable, and seek a remedy that is not at the expense of the residents who have moved forward adhering to the requirements as provided, verified and repeatedly certified by the governing body. The suggestion that property owners simply redesign their home that is already underway according to their approved plans is a reasonable solution, related in the form of a brief letter is insensitive at best, and demonstrates a lack of vision and consideration. I look forward to the proceedings, and will be in attendance in support of the Watts family, and common sense. Sincerely, Brian Croft 2245 Campus Drive El Segundo, CA 90245 O 310 252 7277 F 310 957 2411 NMLS # 332750; CA BRE # 01261065 Cath Parker - Processor/Right Hand cath@amcap.mortgage J Scott - Assistant/Left Hand jscott@amcap.mortgage Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Who is John Galt? 39 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Dave Wallis <doctorwallis@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 8:55 PM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen; anton@antonwatts.com; mardi@antonwatts.com Subject:260 31st street Good evening. My name is Dave Wallis; my family and I live at 357 31st street and I am writing in response to my understanding of issues being discussed for the residence at 260 31st. I may not have all the facts of the case, so I respectfully would ask you to let me know if I am mis‐informed. If we were having a hearing on whether to approve the plans that are at issue, then that would be one discussion‐ involving the merits and drawbacks of considering a lift as an alternative parking spot, and so on. But my understanding is that this is not the case‐ rather, these plans have already been approved, right or wrong, and that the Watts have in good faith acted upon this approved set of plans. As such, to me this meeting is really more about integrity and responsibility. I try very hard to teach my four children that they are responsible for the natural consequences of their own actions. If you didn't make lunch, you'll be hungry. If you forgot your books, your grades will suffer. Others should not have to clean up after you and pay the consequences of your mistakes. Now realistically, they are children, and so this idealized vision does not play out that way all the time, but I really would be embarrassed if our own city officials could not model the same behavior. If a mistake was made by someone in approving plans‐ especially ones where someone's life is not at stake, etc‐ then by all means: 1) clarify that this was a mistake and as such should not serve as a precedent for others seeking to do the same, 2) research how the mistake was made and put all necessary measures into place to ensure it doesn't happen again, and even 3) allow whatever consequences for this error that should happen to those who made the error. However, it would be wrong (not to mention legally actionable, according to a real estate attorney I spoke with) to ask the Watts pay the consequences for the mistake of others. They really need to be able to build it exactly as approved‐ no more, no less. Anything less‐ and they may not have torn down their house to start with. You just can't go back now‐ that ship has sailed. If I got word of a city counsel approving something and then changing their minds mid‐way through, I would have so much of an issue with the integrity involved that I would question making further investments in the community. I want my city council to reflect the same values I try to instill in my children. It's ok that someone made a mistake. We all do. That's what forgiveness is for, and that's how learning happens and we all get to a better place. Compounding one mistake with another just digs a deeper hole. Thanks for your consideration. I hope to make it to the hearing if our crazy Hermosa two career, four child schedule possibly allows.... Dave Sent from my iPhone 40 From: Kort Schnabel [mailto:schnabel@aresmgmt.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 6:05 PM To: Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen Cc: Anton Watts (anton@antonwatts.com); mardi@antonwatts.com; kmschnabel@yahoo.com Subject: 260 31st Street Dear Planning Commission, We are neighbors to Anton and Mardi Watts at 260 31st Street. We live directly across the walk street and one house to the east at 301 31st Street. We have lived at this address for 9 years and in Hermosa Beach for 16 years. I am writing in response to the action the City has taken regarding the Watts’ home construction project, specifically the rejection of their stacked parking solution as a way to provide the required amount of parking spaces. Upon hearing the facts of the situation, I am deeply disturbed by the actions the City has taken and the manner in which they’ve been taken. This family had all their plans approved, including the stacked parking, and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to demolish and partially build the structure that now sits across the street from us, only to receive a brief note that the city made an “error” in the approval process with instructions to redo the home design that has already been constructed. We are writing to voice our support for this family and for all other residents that choose to embark on the journey of home construction. First, the City is at fault here for not properly examining the plans, not the Watts. It is clear as day. If residents are asked to redo home construction projects midstream after all plans have been approved, there will surely be a reduction in home construction here in Hermosa Beach. Importantly, we are also in the process of designing a new home on our property, having completed preliminary plans with architect Jon Starr. The actions the City has taken with regards to the Watts property gives us pause to even consider building ourselves here in Hermosa Beach if the City can change its mind regarding approved plans once residents have already begun construction. We are watching this situation very closely, as are many others we know who also plan to build homes, and it doesn’t serve our community or our property values well to treat residents this way. Second, the approved plans for the Watts home with the stacked parking has absolutely zero negative impact on the neighborhood. Whether two cars are parked side by side or one top of each other does not affect others driving down the alley. I am at a loss for how anyone is harmed. I have friends who recently completed a new home project in Manhattan Beach and used stacked parking to comply with the Code, which was perfectly acceptable to the City there. Regulation is important in order to protect citizens from harming others, but here there is no harm. Enforcing regulation simply for the sake of regulation makes no sense. Third, I would point out that on our street, the lots are smaller than all other walk street lots in Hermosa Beach at 30x70, AND the height limit is also lower at 25’ vs 30’, severely limiting the options for new construction solutions for families. Due to these factors, a great many homes on our street currently only have a single car garage (without a stacker), including our own home which was built in 1926 before current zoning requirements. I also know there have been several variances granted on our street for new construction, due to the tight size restrictions of the neighborhood, many of which impact the neighborhood in much more damaging ways than having a stacked parking system (i.e. several homes were granted variances for extensions into the front yard setback or rear alley 41 setbacks). Hence, granting a variance here would not be out of keeping with the neighborhood, in particular a variance that does no harm to the neighborhood. Finally, aside from granting the Watts permission to proceed as planned, I don’t see a solution to this problem that doesn’t result in an incredible waste of money to redo the construction. Any courtroom would likely see that the City is at fault and would require Hermosa Beach to pay for all changes to the construction. As a taxpayer and longtime resident, it seems an irresponsible waste of City resources to pay for the changes to the Watts project vs just allowing them to proceed as is, especially since there is no harm to the neighborhood. Thanks for your time in reading this, my wife and I plan to attend the hearing and speak there as well. Best, Kort Schnabel Kort Schnabel Partner ARES MANAGEMENT 2000 Avenue of the Stars | 12th Floor | Los Angeles | California | 90067 |US 310.201.4162 voice | 310.201.4192 fax | kschnabel@aresmgmt.com www.aresmgmt.com This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited unless authorized by the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. 42 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Laura Fisher <daisystardust@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:17 PM To:Kim Chafin Cc:Mardi Watts; anton@antonwatts.com Subject:Request for your support - 260 31st Street Dear Ms. Chafin, Please vote in favor of Mardi and Anton Watts at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on February 21. Their proposed stacked garage is an ingenious way to maximize the living area of their new home while retaining outdoor space and guaranteeing maximum sartorial elegance. It will also provide four parking spaces, which I believe to be remarkable considering the size of the lot. The city has already approved their design, the original home has already been demolished and the build is already underway. Denying their design at this point will cost this family a fortune through no fault of their own. Thank you in advance for supporting this dynamic and well considered architectural plan. Sincerely, Laura Fisher 705 1st Street Hermosa Beach 43 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Rex Ray <rexraycrprop@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 1:11 AM To:Kim Chafin Cc:Kent Allen Subject:Mardi and Anton building permit. Kim, i understand that building permits were given to Mardi and Anton for the property in north Hermosa. They are not only a great addition to the neighborhood but, They have done everything by the rules of the city and building department. OOPS !!! The city made a mistake. Do the right thing. Thank you Rex Ray 50+ year Hermosa resident. 44 1 Kim Chafin From:Robert Crotty <bobcrotty@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 12:41 AM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen Cc:anton@antonwatts.com; mardi@antonwatts.com Subject:260 31st Street - Concerned Neighbors Dear Planning Commission Team and City Planners, My family and I live on 31st Street in Hermosa Beach. It has recently come to our attention that our neighbors and good friends, Anton and Mardi Watts, have been asked to stop building their home 9 months after receiving design approval (including 8 months of actual building and 9 approved inspections), because our city's building inspectors changed their minds. The city makes the rules, and they approved the Watts Family residence plans according to those rules; the plans complied with the 3 parking space requirement. 9 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, the city inspectors change the rules??! I'm sure I don't have to tell you what this kind of uncertainty and random revoking of approval does to us as a community, let alone to my friend and his family. The halt itself has cost him at least $10,000. On a macro level - why would anybody - business or resident - want to embark on a project in the city of Hermosa Beach if the inspectors can change the rules at anytime? On a micro-level, the effects of the inspector's arbitrary red-tagging has done personal harm to my friend and his family. The uncertainty, randomness, and refusal to stand by an approved decision is a serious moral dilemma given the trust and authority we-the-people have placed in our public servants. Is this really what residents and prospective business owners should expect from our city? One additional point - their 4 parking spaces with one car on a lift is a brilliant idea. I have plans to also put a lift in my garage - it's an ingenious way to provide more off street parking while keeping the tiny footprint of our 30x70' lots available for living space. Thank you for hearing my concerns...I really appreciate it. Robert Crotty 457 - 31st Street Hermosa Beach 45 1 Kim Chafin From:Stacie Sundquist <Stacie_Sundquist@bstz.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 7:05 AM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen Cc:anton@antonwatts.com; mardi@antonwatts.com Subject:260 31st Street - Public Hearing on February 21st Dear Hermosa Beach Planning Commission and City Planners, I am writing in support of the existing parking plan using a car stacker in connection with the construction of a single family home at 260 31st Street, Hermosa Beach, and to express my concerns regarding the Building/Code Enforcement division’s recent disapproval of these plans. It is my understanding that the City had approved the construction plans submitted by the owners, Mardi and Anton Watts (“Owners”), which were also subject to numerous inspections, and then approximately 8 months later, after construction had already began, informed the Owners that the approval with respect to the parking plan was made in error. The parking plans that were approved being; 4 car parking spaces (1 more than what was required) with two of the spaces being provided in a single car garage using a stacker. It is further my understanding that the City is now requesting that the Owners halt all work and re‐design their plans to address this error by the City. There are several concerning issues with the City’s disapproval of the construction plans at this stage in the process. First and foremost, as a residence of the City of Hermosa Beach and property owner, it concerns me that the City can make such an error, and that the solution proposed by the City is for the owner to take on the burden of a re‐design of their plans and the associated delay and financial impact. When a property owner submits plans for approval with the City of Hermosa Beach, they should be able to trust and rely on any subsequent approval by the City. As the City no doubt understands, property owners invest substantial sums of money and time preparing the plans and going through the required process with the City for approval. Once those plans are approved, any subsequent decisions and steps in the process are based on those plans. The City, therefore, has an obligation to the owner of those plans (and to other Hermosa Beach residents) to ensure that they understand the Municipal Code and take all necessary steps in reviewing the plans for compliance with the Municipal Code. Once approved, the owner has a reasonable expectation that they can rely on that approval and proceed with construction based on the approval. When the city then later, in this case 8 months later, determines they made an “error”, the suggestion that the solution is for the owner to simply “re‐design” their plans to address the city’s error is outrageous. Rather, the City has an obligation to fulfill their end of the bargain by allowing the Owner to proceed as planned, or if the plans are in fact not consistent with a Municipal Code, grant the owner a variance so that the previously approved plans can be maintained. Certainly, the instant situation rises to the level of a “special circumstance” in which a variance may be granted under Municipal Code 17.54.010. If this is not possible, the City should most certainly compensate the owner for the damage to the owner for relying on the City’s approval to their detriment and any subsequent re‐design costs. In addition, as practical matter, it is unclear why the City would not come up with a solution more agreeable to the Owners than a "re‐design" in this case, since it is my understanding that the proposed plan actually provides more parking than required in a more efficient manner. In particular, in the proposed plans, the use of the stacker allows for 4 parking spaces, instead of the required 3. In addition, in a place such as 46 2 Hermosa Beach where space is at a premium, the use of a stacker for parking is a much more efficient option. As the City is no doubt aware, there are a number of cities, including The City of Los Angeles and The City of Manhattan Beach that allow car stackers as a solution to off‐street parking. There seems to be no down side to the proposed parking plan, particularly since the proposed parking plan will have a positive impact on the community and environment (for example, the proposal allows for a garage with a smaller footprint). As the City no doubt understands, any re‐design will not only financially impact the Owners, but will also impact their quality of life for many months to come due to the substantial delay this will cause and ultimate construction of a home which may not meet their needs. Finally, as a resident of Hermosa Beach myself, it concerns me that should I ever decide to remodel or engage in construction of my property, I may not be able to trust the City’s review process and that the same thing could happen to me and my family. I would expect a city such as Hermosa Beach, where new construction is on the rise and has been for some time, to have a much higher level of understanding of the construction Codes and not make such errors, as well as a greater concern and regard for the welfare of the members of its community if/when errors are made. In conclusion, for at least the foregoing reasons, I support the existing parking plan using a car stacker at 260 31st Street, Hermosa Beach. Thank you for your time. Stacie J. Sundquist | Partner BSTZ | BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP 12400 Wilshire Blvd, Seventh Floor | Los Angeles, CA 90025 (Phone) 310.207.3800 ext. 4789 | (Fax) 310.820.5988 stacie_sundquist@bstz.com | www.bstz.com Founded 1975 • Celebrating over 40 Years of Excellence in Intellectual Property Law The information in this email and attachments is confidential and may be privileged. Disclosure, copying, or use of the contents is prohibited for unintended recipients, who should notify us and destroy what they have received. 47 1 Kim Chafin From:Tara Hackley <tarahackley@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:42 PM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen; anton@antonwatts.com; mardi@antonwatts.com Subject:260 31st Street To Whom It May Concern, We are writing to you as we are unable to attend the hearing on Feb. 21st regarding the parking plan for 260 31st Street. First of all, we have to commend the Watts and their architect for designing something as truly space saving as a single car garage space with a stacker. That is an excellent idea in a town where parking is limited and space comes at a very high premium. Hopefully, more people (homeowners and community development) will be willing to install/approve stackable parking spaces in the future. Also, it seems fairly "common sense" that those who make a mistake should be the ones responsible for the mistake. So we were surprised to read an email from Bob Rollins, Building Code/Enforcement Official for the city of Hermosa Beach, stating " we have mistakenly approved a car lift" and "we deeply regret this error on our part." which went on to suggest that the Watts simply remove an office and bathroom from their home. That seems not only negligent, but quite insulting as well. They have already designed their home, had it approved, started the build AND had multiple inspections. Suggesting they remove an office and bathroom only solves the cities needs/desires without regard for this wonderful family and the home they have already begun to build. Hopefully, the City of Hermosa Beach does the right thing and allows the Watts to continue their build as was approved. If not, we believe the city needs to take a very close look at the person/persons responsible for such a GROSS mistake...a mistake that has such a signifcantt impact on others. Going forward, the city of Hermosa Beach might want to reconsider this method as it drastically adds "space" to this tiny community where not only land is at a premium but parking is as well. In addition, we live on 30th street and share an alley with the Watts. They are kind and respectful neighbors. Not once has their building crew blocked the alley or side streets or left a mess as so many others have. We would like to commend their architect, builder, contractor and crews. Thank you for your consideration, Chip & Tara Hackley 351 30th Street 48 1 Kim Chafin From:aileenm329@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 10:08 AM To:Kim Chafin; Mardi & Anton Watts Subject:Watts' lift garage I'm in full support of their lift car garage idea. Isn't that a good way to keep parking off the street? I'd like to see project go through as planned. It would be awful to have to reconfigure at this late date. The Watts' neighbor and friend: Aileen Martin @329 31st Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 49 1 Kim Chafin From:Brian Arthurs <barthurs@verizon.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 3:53 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:260 31st Street Dear Planning Commissioners, I would like to voice my support for the mechanical parking lift project proposed for 260 31st Street. Brian Arthurs 416 Manhattan Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 50 1 Kim Chafin From:Carol Hinrichs <carol@lussoco.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:22 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:260 31st Street Planning Commission: I am writing to let the Hermosa Beach planning commission know that 260 31st street has my full support of using a mechanical parking lift. Thank you, Carol Hinrichs Delivery Schedule / Admin Assistant LussoCo.com the LUSSO Company Instagram: @lussocompany 51 February 17, 2017 Dear, Planning Commission Team and City Planners, Hello, my name is Daniel Radell and I have been a resident of Hermosa Beach since 1996. Hermosa Beach may not be the Bohemian small beach community it once was, but it is still a gem of a place to live, and feels more like an extended family than a city. Even with its growth, Hermosa has managed to keep its charm while being progressive with the times. I am proud of the fact that the city has been strong with environmental issues, education for children, and safety for its residents. This leads me to the serious topic at hand. Because of population growth, parking has become a major issue and an extreme pain for Hermosa Beach locals. Any way to improve the parking situation, should be seriously looked at with open eyes. When the Watts first informed me of their stacked parking garage, I thought it was a brilliant solution. Not only would they be gaining much needed practical residential space but directly aiding the city with their parking problems. We all are aware of homes that have a two-car parking garage, but do not utilize them fully for parking. One car will be in the garage while the other space is being used for storage. That means the second car is out on the street taking up a valuable parking space. I myself am currently doing this. The Watts solution of having a stacked parking garage is a gem and an extremely efficient way of bringing more parking to the area, while adding valuable space in one’s home. Stacked parking for pubic as well as for private residents has been incorporated by numerous cities. San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles have all embraced stacked parking as a solution. West Hollywood has Los Angeles’s first automatic public parking garage that I have used on numerous occasions. It just makes sense to add this form parking in Hermosa for residential use. Manhattan Beach, as well as Torrance have allowed residential stacked parking garages. Why not Hermosa? With land being an optimum in Hermosa, residential stacked parking seems to be a very efficient way of addressing the rising parking problems that this beach community faces. What is also extremely disconcerting, is the fact that the Watts did everything legal and was approved by the city. Now the city has said that they made a mistake and revoke the permit. That is wrong on so many levels. The city’s mistake has cost the Watts thousands of dollars as well as monumental stress. Now the city is in a strong position to right this wrong. I would encourage the city to use this opportunity look at the Watts stacked parking permit as a solution, instead of dismissing it as a code violation. Thank you for your time, Daniel Radell 317 31st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 52 1 Kim Chafin From:Erica Lynett <ericanews7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:47 PM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen Cc:anton@antonwatts.com; Mardi Watts Subject:comment for tonight's Planning Commission meeting Dear Commissioners, As a Hermosa Beach resident and homeowner, I am writing in support of my friends Anton and Mardi Watts. I respectfully ask that the Watts' be allowed to proceed in the construction of their home without making changes to the previously-approved plans. It seems that the Watts' have more than satisfied the parking requirement, with their plans for a space-efficient, stackable two-space garage, in addition to providing for two on-street parking spaces. Furthermore, forcing the homeowners to change their plans, through no fault of their own, eight months into construction -- based on plans that were previously approved by the city -- seems overly burdensome and unfair. Please do not create an undue burden on this wonderful family, and allow them to finish building their dream home without further delay. Erica Lynett 711 24th St., Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 53 1 Kim Chafin From:Heather Goodman <heather@lussoco.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 2:40 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:260 31st Street I am writing to let the Hermosa Beach planning commission know that 260 31st street has my full support of using a mechanical parking lift. -- Thank you, Heather Goodman 54 1 Kim Chafin From:Jennifer Cole <jencole36@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 5:31 PM To:Kim Chafin Cc:Mardi & Anton Watts; Mardi Watts Subject:Variance @ 260 31st Street-Watts Residence Community Development Department Planning Division c/o City hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 February 16, 2017 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing this letter on behalf of our neighbors Mardi and Anton Watts at 260 31st Street. We have been homeowners in Hermosa Beach for 16 years on the same street at both 244, 253, and 259 31st Street. As home owners, and current home builders within the city of Hermosa Beach, it was troubling to us that the Watts family was recently told that the City of Hermosa made a mistake in approving their car stacking garage and they should stop their build in progress and revise. As you are aware, they found out AFTER they had a signed/stamped city approval to build. They started building 7 months prior, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sit currently with a partially framed home. As citizens of the City of Hermosa Beach, this is troubling on a number of fronts that we would appreciate having addressed: 1) Accountability. The City of Hermosa needs to take accountability for the actions of approving a plan and then changing their minds 7 months later. Even if the City has never had a stacker garage approved, it is the responsibility of the City Building Department to review the plans and be accountable if they made an error that effects the build in progress. Accountability at this point means taking ownership in all areas: Honest communication with the city stakeholders about this error (the letter to homeowners for the 2/21 mtg. had no mention of this error belonging to the city), and monetarily accountability for the error if the Watts are forced to change their plans. 2) Department Reputation. We understand human errors happen. The problem is that this is not just a one time error. Numerous people that have built in Hermosa in the past have had issues with the City not taking responsibility for errors in the Building and Planning Department. We would recommend the City Council look at trends with resubmittals of building plans that homeowners have had to resubmit based off errors of the Department vs.homeowner. It appears from the citizens of the City of Hermosa to be a systemic issue that needs attention. Whether this is true or not, perception is reality. We are one of many home builders in the city, and on our street alone there have been numerous errors that have caused financial setbacks to the homeowners. It's not encouraged for home builders to debate with the city because things take so long at the city for approvals and inspections, that no one wants to rock the boat for fear of retaliation or delay. The citizens of Hermosa Beach want a City Planning Department with an outstanding reputation. We are counting on the Department for the safety of our families, the longevity of our homes, and to keep up to date on impacted city trends and best practices, and then work collaboratively with homeowners, own their errors, and accrue for mistakes (as they do happen). We want the Department's reputation to be professional, accountable, and honest. 3) City Reputation. As lovers of Hermosa Beach, we have chosen to stay in this community and invest in our beach city. We don't have money trees growing in our back yards and want citizens of Hermosa to be treated with respect when it comes to the financial consequences that an error like this can cause. We people to come to the community and be inspired to live here and create 55 2 their dream home. We are worried that each time the city doesn't take accountability or do their job in the most professional manner, that it hurts the reputation of our city. Litigation on this issue is a catch-22. If the Watts choose to involve lawyers to reclaim their losses for the time off the job, extending their rental lease, the cost of the architect to replan, the cost of repermiting, demo, framing, steal, etc. . . . in the end, the City of Hermosa Beach (the citizens) will be paying for this error/response to litigation, which is not how we want to spend our tax paying dollars. The stacker as part of the Watts plan should be given a variance at this time. Then the City Council/Building and Planning could look at this as an option moving forward where it makes sense with the building plans for each site. Thank you for being open to our request and willingness to look at this this particular issue, as well as the overall health of the department. Best Regards, Jennifer and Glenn Cole 244 31st Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310-529-9602 56 1 Kim Chafin From:Jim Casey <jim@painless.tv> Sent:Friday, February 17, 2017 4:40 PM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen Cc:Anton Watts; Mardi Gmail Subject:The Watts Residence Dear Planning and Building Commission Members: I've been an Hermosa Beach resident for more than 25 years. My wife and I own 3 homes in Hermosa, so we consider ourselves here to stay. We love this town and its beach community charm, but we’re troubled by the actions we’ve encountered over the past two years by the current Planning and Building Commissions. We have both witnessed, and personally experienced, several incidences where Planning and Building staff members contradict each other or even contradict themselves when attempting to decipher city building codes. These missteps and oversights often leave Hermosa residents with two options: Simply pay for the city employee’s mistake by redesigning or rebuilding, or sue the city for compensation. Either way, Hermosa residents pay for the mistakes. This needs to be remedied. The Watts' home is the most recent example of the department’s communication breakdown. Their plans were approved and stamped, and construction was well underway. After nine inspections, they’ve now been informed that they’re expected to drastically alter their approved design and their build thus far. Perhaps most insulting is Mr. Rollins’ assumption in his email that this is somehow a simple change to their design and construction, with no impact on how they planned to utilize their new home. It’s no surprise that space is at a premium in Hermosa, so homes like the Watts’ must be painstakingly engineered to maximize every inch. Casually notifying a family via email that they’ll lose an entire room and a bathroom is, quite honestly, a thoughtless and unprofessional practice and an embarrassment for the city. Perhaps more than any home in Hermosa Beach, my wife’s and mine is most impacted by the Watt’s design since our garages face each other on 31st Place. We believe the Watt’s have presented a creative and effective solution to Hermosa's parking challenges — one that should be embraced by the city in future designs of other homes. The Watts have satisfied the literal codes, as well as the spirit and intent of those codes, and they should be permitted to continue their construction without further delays. Hermosa housing is booming and we’re moving away from the transient town we once were, into a more family-oriented community. The practices of our Planning and Building Commissions need to respond positively to that transition, working with residents who are introducing fresh, new ideas rather than against them. Thank you, Jim Casey Hermosa Beach resident since 1992 57 1 Kim Chafin From:Otiima USA <info@otiimausa.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:11 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:260 31st Street I am writing to let you know of my support of a mechanical parking lift located at 260 31st street. Thank you, Katie Smith 310.844.1199 Accounting Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 58 1 Kim Chafin From:Kimberly Harris <kimdharris7@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:01 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Re: 260 31st Street HB, 90254 I am in support of the proposed mechanical parking lift at 260 31st Street, HB 90254. I hope you allow them to move forward with the project and beautiful modern design. Thank you, Kimberly Harris | 310.999.1190 59 1 Kim Chafin Subject:FW: DEVASTATING NEWS - PLEASE SUPPORT US ON FEBRUARY 21ST From: Lori Ford [mailto:Lori@gumtreela.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 10:51 AM To: Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; David Pedersen; Ken Robertson Subject: Fwd: DEVASTATING NEWS - PLEASE SUPPORT US ON FEBRUARY 21ST Hello Gentlemen, It’s been a while since I’ve seen all of you, hope all is well. I just received the email below from our friends, and Hermosa Beach residents, Mardi and Anton Watts. I hope you can take a minute to read it, as this issue will be coming up at your next meeting. In my opinion it is unbelievable that the city of Hermosa Beach has put this family in this position. They have followed every rule in their planning process, had full city approval of plans 8 months ago, and have successfully passed 9 inspections during construction. They had more than one meeting with a city planner specifically addressing the car lift that was approved for the garage. They are now in danger of losing their dream home because the city has “mistakenly approved a car lift”. The casual suggestion that they get rid of the downstairs office and bath is unbelievable. They did not work so hard to design their dream home, and jump through every city hoop, to lower the value of their new home by hundreds of thousands of dollars because 8 months later the city realized they made a mistake. They did not guarantee their financing for a 3 bedroom 2 bath home, but a 4 bedroom 3 bath home. They do not have the money to undo the construction that has already taken place to start over and go subterranean, they would have done that at the outset if they thought they had to in order to accommodate parking. Will and I will be at the meeting, and I know there will be many more there to support them. I wish they didn’t have to go through this process at all, the cost involved in the delay is an unfair burden on any family in this position. Something is very wrong when this can happen to a family in our city, I am embarrassed for Hermosa Beach when I hear stories like this. Please let me know if you have any advice I can pass along to them. As you can imagine they are very concerned and uncertain about their future. Thanks for your time, 917-405-7070 is my cell phone if you’d like to call me for any further information. Lori Ford Think Globally, Shop and Eat Locally! www.gumtreela.com 310.376.8744 Shop 60 2 Begin forwarded message: From: Mardi Watts <mardi@antonwatts.com> Subject: DEVASTATING NEWS - PLEASE SUPPORT US ON FEBRUARY 21ST Date: February 9, 2017 at 10:57:25 PM PST To: Jen Cole <jencole36@gmail.com>, Pamela Wing <pamela_wing@mindspring.com>, Mark Wing <mark.wing@mattel.com>, Barb Zondiros <Barb91198@aol.com>, Barb Haynes <barbmh@yahoo.com>, Lisa Brewer <lbrew@guidance.com>, dbrewer122@gmail.com, Susan Bridges <susan@bobridges.com>, Bo Bridges <bo@bobridges.com>, Stacy + Chasen Simon <stacmahaffa@aol.com>, Kerry Wallis <kwallis@graylawcorp.com>, Dave Wallis <doctorwallis@yahoo.com>, cristi lewis <cristitravels@yahoo.com>, Aileen Martin <aileenm329@gmail.com>, Daniel Raddell <muskateer@earthlink.net>, Boccato's Groceries <boccatos@verizon.net>, Kathryn Schnabel <kmschnabel@yahoo.com>, Kort Schnabel <schnabel@aresmgmt.com>, jim@painless.tv, LOUISA CUSHMAN <louisacushman@me.com>, LouisaCushman <louisacushman@yahoo.com>, Jenni Fix <fix.family@verizon.net>, Msn <tarahackley@msn.com>, Jessica Blue <Jessica.Blue@ubm.com>, Erin Bender <erinmbender@yahoo.com>, Hanni Schmieder <schmieder.hanni@gmail.com>, bhcroft@gmail.com, shefali rao <rajandshef@gmail.com>, Keli <kelijoye@aol.com>, Amanda Mundell <amandarobyn@gmail.com>, Maya Williams <mayawilliams23@gmail.com>, Monique Jones PR <monique@moniquejonespr.com>, Gemma Lokier <gemmalokier@gmail.com>, Jo Vidler Mobile <jojowatkinson@gmail.com>, Ali Snider <allison@snidee.com>, Allan Cook <allanvcook@hotmail.com>, Karen Alexander <weisski@yahoo.com>, Lori Ford <lori@gumtreela.com>, Gail Kiely <gailkiely@gmail.com>, brian@wicked.is, rexraycrprop@yahoo.com, Suzanne Dunn <suzanne.dunn8@gmail.com>, dunham.stewart@vistasir.com, Colleen Cofield <colleen.cofield@vistasir.com>, stephanie.long@rcmi.com, Renee Stoddard <rmstoddard03@gmail.com>, Linda Kay <lkay@newyorkfood.com>, darin@vistasir.com, jenjencohn@gmail.com, Mevan Randeniya <mevan@bellaviz.com>, kentfbrown@gmail.com, Geraldine Mazhar Pepemehmetoglu <parents@pepemehmet.com>, Mazhar Pepemehmetoglu <mazharp@gmail.com>, Ronald W Spyker <ronald_spyker@reyrey.com>, Nisa <beachmom3@gmail.com>, The Parkers <bcbgparker@gmail.com>, Laura Fisher <daisystardust@gmail.com>, jon@starr-design.com, michele kershaw <michelekershaw4@gmail.com>, bobcrotty@earthlink.net, Suzanne Greely <familytheatreinc@yahoo.com>, Stacie Sundquist <stacie.turcios@gmail.com>, Erica Lynett <ericanews7@gmail.com>, admin@chefamber.com, amy fahlbusch <aimeefahlbusch@hotmail.com>, southbaychad@gmail.com, Jon Williams <corefitnessla@gmail.com>, dawsonsusan1@mac.com, William Ford <will@gumtreela.com>, Nicole Williams <nicolepwilliams@gmail.com>, Glenn Cole <glenn.cole@72andsunny.com>, Simone DeSimone <simonedesimone@yahoo.com>, Emily DeRenzis <milteck@hotmail.com>, James Gilligan <jamesegilligan@gmail.com>, Nadine Bryker <nbryker@hotmail.com>, krista@theoneills.net, Kristy Robinson <kristyrobinson8@gmail.com>, J <jeremyrobinson8@gmail.com> Dear Friends, Eight months after the City gave us the go ahead to start building our dream home, we received the devastating news. The City e-mailed us stating they had made an error and approved a parking plan that is not compliant 61 3 with the City Code. We were told to re-design our house to meet the parking plan Code even though we already had a set of stamped approved plans, along with nine building inspections to date. Because a complaint was filed by a neighbor we risk losing our family home. We need your support to help us show the City that we are trying to contribute to our community by providing solutions that have a positive impact on our community and environment. THE ISSUE We need to provide 3 car parking spaces in Hermosa Beach. A complaint was filed by a neighbor who was under the impression that we are building a single car garage, which is not the case. We are actually providing 4 car parking spaces, two on the apron in our alleyway and two in a single car garage with a stacker. This creates more space for living downstairs without taking up additional space on the 30 x 70 lot. As you know, space is at a premium given the setbacks that the City requires. There are numerous cities including The City of Los Angeles, The City of Manhattan Beach etc. which allow car stackers as a solution to off street parking. Please come and support us at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on February 21st at 7pm in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach. Please forward this to anyone within our community you think would standby us. We really appreciate your support. Attached below City e-mail and proposed car parking plan. Cheers. Mardi & Anton. Gentlemen, It has come to our attention that we have mistakenly approved a car lift as an alternative to the two parking spots required by our Municipal Code. This approval was made in error and the home cannot be legally built as per approved plans. I seems the easiest design solution 62 4 would be to eliminate the proposed downstairs office and bathroom to accommodate the second required parking spot. We deeply regret this error on our part and would like to meet with you and the owner at your earliest convenience next week. We strongly suggest that no further work be done in this portion of the building until new plans (revisions) can be submitted and approved. Thanks, Bob Rollins Building/Code Enforcement Official City of Hermosa Beach, CA (310) 318‐0219 63 1 Kim Chafin From:Mazhar Pepemehmetoglu <mazharp@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 7:27 PM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen; 'Anton Watts'; 'Mardi Watts' Subject:Hearing on Feb 21st - Mardi & Anton Watts When I first heard about this issue, I thought common sense would quickly prevail and the issue would be resolved. After all, how fair is it to approve the plan, give this family the green light to proceed to spend money but also the most scarce commodity; time. And then just say “Sorry we made a mistake; change your plans, now you have to spend more money and time.” ? How can anybody, any authority, in any situation, suggest that they are not responsible for their own actions? Especially if the authority is an elected (or appointed by the elected) body. Even if issuing this permit was a genuine mistake and the Watts were doing something terrible wouldn’t the office that made the mistake, have to bear responsibility? That brings me to the next angle; Where is the mistake? Why are the stackers bad? They have been in use for a very longtime. In New York City they stack cars 5 high ‐‐that was 15 years ago, they may have gone to seven now. It seems that (but I have not personally verified this) Manhattan Beach and the City of Los Angeles are two nearby examples where stackers are used as well. So, how could a brilliant solution, in a location where space is so tight (therefore expensive) that does not harm anybody, that has been in use in other places for many years, can be perceived as inacceptable? Perhaps there is a technical explanation such as old regulation language that is behind our times. Then isn’t time to fix the language or adjust the interpretation by creating a precedent? I have high hopes that common sense will prevail on Tuesday. I’ll be there to hopefully witness it. Best regards, Mazhar Pepemehmetoglu 64 1 Kim Chafin From:Stacy Simon <grnchef1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 10:34 AM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen Cc:anton@antonwatts.com Subject:Watts Family Home on 31st Street To: The planning and building commission members; I've been a Hermosa Beach resident for more than 20 years now and have thoroughly enjoyed our beach and city for what it has to offer for myself and family. I consider it my permanent home and I'm proud to live here. I am the next-door neighbor to the Watts Family home of which we share the community 31st walk-street and 31st place alley together. In which the alley has always been an issue with parking which directly impacts me and other garage/parking spaces that surround the Watts residence. I believe this improved design of the Watts garage is a perfect example of what most homes should implement to save space and utilize their limited square footage as best as possible. Space has always been a precious commodity with our "Alley living". After several inspections and stamped approvals by the city I have learned that now you are asking the Watts family to change their design after they had appeased the literal codes that not only greatly impacts their pocket book but quite a delay with the completion date extending it another 6 months at least! This will impact the surrounding houses and me directly as I work from home. Why do they have to pay for the cities miscalculations? and do you not care they are losing thousands of dollars by this mishap on the planning and building members contradiction? This issue needs to be corrected and remedied quickly, time is of essence here! Thank you for your consideration and quick resolution, Stacy Simon 31st Street Neighbor 65 1 Kim Chafin From:Stacy Titoni <stacytitoni@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:07 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:260 31st Street I am writing to inform the planning commission that I support the use of a mechanical parking lift at 260 31st street. Thank you, Stacy -- Stacy Titoni LussoCo.com 310.343.1632 direct the LUSSO Company 66 1 Kim Chafin From:Susan Bridges <susan@bobridges.com> Sent:Saturday, February 18, 2017 2:53 PM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson; Peter Hoffman; Michael Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; David Pedersen Cc:Anton Watts; Mardi Gmail Subject:The Watts Residence >>> Dear Planning and Building Commission Members: >>> >>> My husband and I moved to Hermosa Beach in 2001 and are raising our three kids on 31st street. The Watts Family lives on our side of the street and we were very much aware of all the necessary steps they were taking to ensure that their planning, demo and building phases were all done efficiently and properly. We're shocked and disappointed that their construction has been halted due to an over sight. >>> They have spent a great deal of money and time conscientiously designing a home with an effective solution to the lack of space for proper parking in our ally. >>> >>> The Watts have been responsible in their planning/building and it seems they should be allowed to continue without delay. Families in Hermosa need to be confident that investing and building a home here will be a good decision for them not one that is met with fear. We want more families like the Watts on our street and in the town of Hermosa. >>> >>> We hope you will consider the message this sends to home owners and future potential home owners. We want Hermosa to thrive with families that believe in this wonderful town. >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Susan and Bo Bridges 67 1 Kim Chafin From:Taylor Titoni <taylortitoni@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:14 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Mechanical Lift 260 31st street Dear Planning Commission, 260 31st street has my full support of using a Mechanical Parking Lift in their property. Thank you, Taylor Titoni 310.765.0414 direct 68 1 Kim Chafin From:tobias pradenas <tobias@titonibuilt.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 21, 2017 1:36 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:260 31st Street - Approval I am writing to let the Hermosa Beach planning commission know that 260 31st street has my full support of using a mechanical parking lift. Thank you, -- Tobias Pradenas TitoniBuilt.com 858·877·8171 direct TITONI Built 69 1 Kim Chafin From:Traudl <strudell200@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:40 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:Reg. Property 260-31st Street H.B. Dear Planning Commissioners, It has come to my attention that my neighbors, The Watts, had to stop construction on their home on 260-31st Str. The reason the City said....H.B. City made a Mistake by approving a parking plan of a car lift that is not compliant with the City Code! This 'Mistake' would and is costing the Family of Four already thousands of dollars. A Car Lift is a fantastic idea for Any City with little off street parking! And should have been part of City Code already. Other cities allow car stacking as a solution for small spaces as well. The Family Watts deserve a City Variance! Thank you for making the right decision! Traudl Weber 70 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 17-0105 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 CON 17-1 -- Request to extend the expiration date of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 73308 for a six-unit residential condominium project for one year at 1906-1918 Pacific Coast Highway. Applicant’s Representative: Srour & Associates 1001 Sixth Street, Suite 110 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 73308 for a six-unit residential condominium project one year, to February 21, 2018, by minute order at 1906-1918 Pacific Coast Highway. Background/Analysis: At the meeting of February 17, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approve General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map Amendments from Commercial Corridor (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MD) and Text Amendment for consistency; while approving a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, allowing use of alternative points to calculate height, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map #73308 for a six-unit condominium project at 1906 to 1918 Pacific Coast Highway. At the meeting of March 24, 2015 City Council approved the General Plan Land Use Element and Land Use Map Amendments from Commercial Corridor (CC) to Medium Density Residential (MD) and Text Amendment. Once a Tentative Map is approved, the Final Map must be submitted and recorded before the Tentative Map expires. If the Final Map has not recorded and the subdivider does not timely request a time extension with the County Recorder, the subdivision approval expires. The applicant requires a valid Vesting Tentative Tract Map in order to record their Final Map. The Final Map allows for separate ownership in the case of condominium units because the Final Map depicts dedications, owner’s statement and boundaries of new lots and easements. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 73308 is set to expire on February 17, 2017 (two years from the approval date). Building permits were issued November 8, 2016 and the project is at the beginning of the inspection phase with the inspection for the slab on grade underway. City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™71 Staff Report REPORT 17-0105 The Final Map is being processed with the County Engineer for recordation. The applicant is seeking the extension because the Final Map will not be recorded prior to the expiration date as explained in the attached letter. Attachments: 1. Letter from Applicant’s Representative 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 73308 Respectfully Submitted by: Nicole Ellis, Assistant Planner Concur: Kim Chafin, Senior Planner Approved: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™72 73 74 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 17-0110 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 C-36 -- Receive Report for Semi-Annual On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Review Process Recommended Action: Receive the semi-annual report as informational matter only. The semi-annual review for July - December 2016 will be agenized for March 21, 2017. Based on the information in the report, no businesses have reached the “Standard Initiating Planning Commission Review.” Background: Throughout 2014 the City Council and Planning Commission addressed a variety of issues relating to CUP review. On December 3, 2014 the Commission directed staff to reform the semi-annual reviews of on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments including the two-step process of providing an informational report before scheduling a hearing. The current review continues to follow the reformed process established in 2014. As the Commission is aware the subcommittee of Commissioner’s Rice and Pederson are evaluating whether changes to the CUP process are warranted and will report back to the full Commission in the next couple months. Also a City Council subcommittee is also studying a variety of potential approaches to improving the overall atmosphere of Pier Plaza which may further inform how future reviews are conducted. Analysis: Relevant data was collected revealing that instances of serious crime as defined for purposes of this report have occurred, and increased slightly as compared to the last six month review.Three citations were issued for CUP violations, which included one for unpermitted live entertainment and two for not installing double glazed windows.Based on the “Procedure for Review of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permit” no businesses have reached the “Standard Initiating P.C. Review” based on the “standards that would trigger a referral to the Planning Commission for a CUP review and potentially for a subsequent modification/revocation hearing.” An incident occurred on the plaza in November 2016 that resulted in injuries to three police officers. Although the involved parties had previously been inside of Patrick Malloy’s there was no indication that a lack of proper security existed that contributed to the incident. Therefore, it is not appropriate to categorize it as a trigger for a CUP review. City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™75 Staff Report REPORT 17-0110 Police Statistics:Attached are the police statistics related to on-sale establishments for the six month review period.Assaults, sexual assaults and narcotics violations are considered ‘serious crime.” Two (2) incidents of “Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security” is the established threshold number to trigger a review, and “the Chief of Police retains authority to recommend CUP review to Commission at his/her discretion-regardless of number of incidents in any period of time, as stipulated in many current CUPs and the Municipal Code.” There were a total of 11 assaults during this review period, including one alleged sexual assault. Each incident was reviewed by the Police Chief and it was determined that the incidents were not indiciative of lack of adequate security or management oversight at any particular location. The locations of the reported assaults included: Abigailes, American Junkie, Hermosa Saloon, Killer Shrimp, Paisano’s, Patrick Malloy’s, Project Taco, and Saint Rocke. ABC Violations: As of this date, we have received no reports of violations from The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Occupant Load: The threshold to trigger review is one (1). The Fire Department routinely checks on-sale establishments and reports there were no occupant load violations recorded during the review period. The HBFD monitors downtown activity every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night; and during certain holidays and special events; and in response to any report of possible overcrowding. Additionally, during peak hours the Fire Department units “patrol” the Plaza, Hermosa Ave and other areas of interest that may be problematic for overcrowding after clearing from emergency incidents and other calls for service. Fire Department has recently added a new Fire Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer and assigned Occupant Load Checks to his list of duties. Additionally, when responding to intoxicated individuals in the downtown area, the Fire Department is now documenting the last establishment the individual/patient had been patronizing. Fire Department occupant load inspections are supplemented by routine Code Enforcement reviews of late night establishments. Community Development has added a second Code Enforcement Officer to work weeknights, thereby providing seven day a week monitoring. The presence of Code Enforcement and HBPD along with the HBFD’s efforts has resulted in very few instances of warnings being issued. Warnings typically are issued when a place of business appears to or has been counted and confirmed to be close to its posted occupant load. The Fire Department does not officially track verbal warnings (since they are not violations), but anecdotally there have been very few. Code Enforcement/Violation of CUP Conditions: Violations that are both a code violation and a CUP violation are only counted once. On July 22, Silvio’s at 20 Pier Avenue was cited for rearranging furniture to accommodate a live band, a CUP violation.On November 14 and November 28, Suzy’s Bar and Grill at 1141 Aviation Boulevard received citations for failure to double glaze two windows as required by their CUP. This has been corrected.While several businesses received warnings, policy is to request compliance prior to issuing a Citation during a single shift. A six month summary of Code City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™76 Staff Report REPORT 17-0110 Enforcement activities is included as Attachment 5. Businesses required to proactively submit their food to alcohol sales ratio reports per conditions in their CUPs must continue to do so and failure to do so is counted as part of the CUP review. Waterman’s, 22 Pier Avenue, and Día de Campo, 1238 Hermosa Avenue, are required to submit quarterly reports, which need not be audited. Standing Room, 1320 Hermosa Avenue, must submit quarterly reports audited by a CPA. As of this writing, all have submitted their reports. Summary and Recommendations: The data relating to the Semi-Annual Review criteria is summarized in Attachment 1 for specific businesses. Process Criteria Statistics by Businesses, July 1 - December 31 2016 Business Number of Incidents in Any 6 Month Period Administrative Determination All Other Standard Initiating P.C. Review Serious Crime/ABC Violations Threshold=2 Over Occupant Load Threshold=1 Excessive Calls, Public Complaints, Criminal Events on/adjacent to Premises Suzy’s 2 Cites non- compliant windows Silvios 1 Cite Live Entertainment Process Criteria Statistics for All Businesses Criteria Summary of All Businesses Violation of Operating Hours 0 ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc. 0 Overcrowding Citation 0 Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security 0 crime reports Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premises 0 Noise Citation 0 Outdoor Encroachment Permit Violation 0 Building Code Violation (incl. remodeling without permit) 0 Health Department Violation 0 Sign Ordinance Violation 0 NPDES Violation 0 Violation of any CUP Condition** 3 *There were 11 assaults; however none are indicative of Lack of Adequate Security. ** Most Code violations are also CUP violations and are not counted twice. Attachments: City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™77 Staff Report REPORT 17-0110 1.Procedure for Review of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permit, revised 12/3/14 2.Police Statistics , July to December 2016 3.Prior Staff Report and attached statistics, January 1 to June 30, 2016 4.Code Enforcement Activity Report for July 1 - December 31, 2016 Respectfully Submitted by: Bob Rollins, Building/Code Enforcement Official Concur: Kim Chafin, Senior Planner Approved:Sharon Papa, Police Chief Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™78 1 Attachment 1 Process and Standards for Review of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permits 1) The CUP review process will consist of an “ongoing” or “rolling” administrative review process in which an established set of criteria would be evaluated semi-annually. 2) On-sale establishments with a CUP would only be referred to the Planning Commission for a CUP review, and subsequently for a modification/revocation hearing if the Commission so decided upon its review, when they exceed established standards for each criteria to trigger such a review. 3) The standards that would trigger a referral to the Planning Commission for a CUP review and potential modification/revocation hearing will be based on the frequency or number of incidents/violations within a stipulated timeframe. This type of system avoids the inherent problems of “point systems” where the standards for assigning values is potentially subjective. 4) The standards that would trigger a referral to the Planning Commission for a CUP review and potentially for a subsequent modification/revocation hearing are as indicated in Table 1 below. 5) The administrative review of CUPs should be conducted on a semi-annually (twice a year) basis. While a “rolling process” with a sliding timeframe would be more effective in making the review process truly timely (i.e., a rolling process would reduce the potential time between apparent CUP violations and the Planning Commission’s review), it would impose an unreasonable demand on City staff for the ongoing monitoring of the relevant data. 6) The standards or criteria of the CUP review system will be made readily available to all on-sale establishments with CUPs and the public via the City website and/or other appropriate media (including direct mailings) to minimize any confusion over what standards will initiate a Planning Commission review and potential modification/revocation hearing. Table 1. CUP Review Standards Standard Initiating P.C. Review Criterion (Number of incidents in any 6 months) Violation of Operating Hours 2 ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc.) 2 Overcrowding Citation 1 Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premises 2 (a) Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security 2 (a) (Combination of any 3 or more) Violation of any CUP Condition (b) ABC Violations (underage service, violation of hours, etc.) Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premises Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Noise Citation Health Department Violation Outdoor Encroachment Permit Violation Building Code Violation (incl. remodeling without permit) Sign Ordinance Violation NPDES Violation (Administrative Determination) “Excessive Number” of Calls for Police Service “Excessive Number” of Public Complaints to City “Excessive Number” of Criminal Events on/adjacent to Premises ___________________ Adopted by City Council 1/25/2011, revised by Planning Commission 9/16/14 for interim use per Council direction 8/26/14; revised by Planning Commission 12/3/14 adding NPDES violations under Combination of any 3 or more. 79 2 NOTE: (a) – Recommended threshold number; Chief of Police retains authority to recommend CUP review to Commission at his/her discretion—regardless of number of incidents in any period of time—as stipulated in many current CUPs and the Municipal Code. (b) Non-submittal of food to alcohol sales ratio reports in a timely manner when required by a CUP is considered a violation of the CUP condition. Reporting of the food to alcohol sales ratio required by a CUP, ABC license, or the Municipal Code may be required and considered during any modification/revocation action. 80 Abigaile's, 1301 Manhattan Avenue 5 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 Akbar, 1101 Aviation Bl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 American Junkie, 68 Pier Plaza 7 1 0 1 1 0 15 0 Baja Sharkeez, 52 Pier Plaza 3 0 1 0 0 0 16 0 Barnacles, 837 Hermosa Ave 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 Beach House, 1300 The Strand 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 Big Mike Philly Pub, 1314 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Boardwalk Fresh Burgers, 1031 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bobby's South Bay Italian, 502 PCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bottle Inn, 26 22nd St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buona Vita, 439 Pier Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 California Sushi & Teriyaki, 429 PCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chef Melba, 1501 Hermosa Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelsea 1340 Hermosa Ave.1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill, 1439 PCH 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Comedy & Magic, 1018 Hermosa Ave 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crème De La Crepe, 424 Pier Ave.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Deck, 1272 The Strand 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 Dia De Campo, 1238 Hermosa Ave 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Gringo, 2620 Hermosa Ave.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Pollo Inka, 1100 PCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 The Establishment, 1332 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fat Face Fenners, 49 Pier Ave.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fritto Misto, 316 Pier Ave.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fusion Sushi, 1200 PCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Good Stuff on the Strand, 1286 The Strand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GreenBelt Restaurant, 36 Pier Plaza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GuGu Sushi & Rolls, 1121 Aviation Bl.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hennessey's Tavern, 8 Pier Plaza 3 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 Hermosa Beach Fish Co. 719 Pier Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hermosa Bch Yacht Club, 66 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Hermosa Saloon, 211 Pacific Coast Hwy 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 The Hook and Plow, 425 Pier Ave 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hot's Kitchen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 July - December CUP 6 Month Review Location Police Reports Disturbance Calls Drunk in Public Assaults Sexual Assaults Narcotics Officer Checks Counted for CUP 81 Killer Shrimp, 19 Pier Plaza 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 La Playita, 37 14th St.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Sosta 2700 Manhattan Av 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lighthouse, 30 Pier Plaza 2 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 Marthas 22nd St Grill, 25 22nd St. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mediterraneo, 73 Pier Plaza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mermaid, 11 Pier Plaza 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Mickey McColgans, 934 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Orleans Cajun & Creole 140 Pier Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North End Bar, 2626 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Paisano's, 1132 Hermosa Ave 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Palmilla Cocina y Tequila, 39 Pier Plaza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Patrick Malloy's, 50 Pier Plaza 10 0 1 3 0 0 12 0 Pedone's Pizza, 1332 Hermosa Ave 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Poulet Du Jour, 233 PCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rok Sushi, 1200 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rosa's Restaurant, 322 PCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Round Table Pizza, 2701 PCH 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sabra Beirut Mix, 500 PCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saint Rocke, 142 Pacific Coast Hwy 2 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 Scotty's, 1100 The Strand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Silvio's BBQ , 20 Pier Plaza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Spot, 110 2nd St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Standing Room, 1320 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Steak & Whiskey, 117 Pier Ave.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Suzy's Bar & Grill, 1141 Aviation Blvd 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Tammies Corner House Café, 190 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Umami Burger, 1040 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uncle Stavros Café, 201 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uncorked, 302 Pier Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The Underground, 1334 Hermosa Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 Watermans, 22 Pier Plaza 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 Wildflower Boston Pizza, 2512 PCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zane's, 1150 Hermosa Ave 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 52 3 8 10 1 0 179 0 Sexual Assaults Narcotics Officer Checks Counted for CUPLocation Police Reports Disturbance Calls Drunk in Public Assaults 82 2 2 1 2 2 Sign Ordinance Violation "Excessive Number" of Calls for Police Service "Excessive Number" of Public Complaints to City "Excessive Number" of Criminal Events on/adjacent to Premises Combination of any 3 or more ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/On premises Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premise Building Code Violation (incl. remodeling w/o permit) Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Violation of any CUP Condition Noise Citation Health Department Violation Outdoor Encroachment Permit Violation Violation of Operating Hours 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 January, 2017 CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (Please note one Code Enforcement Officer resigned in mid-December) *Patrol Checks are citywide proactive patrols. **Short Term Vacation Rentals Cases are properties receiving citations. ***Miscellaneous complaints are any other violations not listed. TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE Radio Calls 2 - 60 - Citations 9 - 120 - Citizen Contacts 49 - 310 - Patrol Checks* 100 - 951 - Short term vacation rentals Cases** 0 - 43 - Smoking 114 - 973 - Trash can storage 2 - 70 - Sign violations 11 - 114 - Construction 13 - 64 - Noise 0 - 17 - Public Nuisance 2 - 39 - Encroachment 1 - 36 - CUP Violations 1 - 8 - Storm water pollution 1 - 7 - Clean Bay Inspections 0 - 17 - Styrofoam 0 - 20 - Plastic bag ban 0 - 24 - Misc. complaints*** 13 - 124 - 95 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 17-0109 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 Report on City Council Actions City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™96 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 17-0108 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 Status Report on Major Planning Projects City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™97 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 17-0073 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 March, 2017 Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Items Recommended Action: To receive and file the March, 2017 Planning Commission tentative future agenda items. Attachment: 1. Planning Commission March, 2017 Tentative Future Agenda Respectfully Submitted by: Yu-Ying Ting, Administrative Assistant Concur: Kim Chafin, Senior Planner Approved: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™98 Tentative Future Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach March 21, 2017 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date Semi-annual Conditional Use Permit review 3/31/17 Text Amendment to allow religious institutions in zones allowing assembly uses. 3/9/17 3/31/17 226 2nd Street -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 74179 for a 3-unit Condominium. 3/9/17 3/31/17 959 5th Street -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 74236 for a 2-unit Condominium. 3/9/17 3/31/17 961 5th Street -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 74237 for a 2-unit condominium. 3/9/17 3/31/17 719 1st Place -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 74754 for a 2-unit condominium. 3/9/17 3/31/17 f:\b95\cd\planning commission tentative agenda mar 2017 99 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 17-0072 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 Community Development Department Activity Report of December, 2016 Recommended Action: To receive and file the December, 2016 Community Development Department activity report. Attachment: 1. Community Development Department activity report of December, 2016 Respectfully Submitted by: Yu-Ying Ting, Administrative Assistant Approved:Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™100 1 City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department Activity Report DECEMBER, 2016 BUILDING DIVISION MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT NUMBER OF PERMITS TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE LAST FY TOTAL Building 27 51 227 323 608 Plumbing 22 31 149 190 354 Mechanical 13 10 95 97 236 Electric 18 27 150 180 379 Plan Check 25 19 140 161 301 Sewer Use 2 3 17 8 13 Res. Bldg. Reports 10 16 109 124 271 Parks & Recreation 0 1 0 2 3 In Lieu Parks & Rec 2 3 16 8 15 Board of Appeals 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Review 4 1 25 14 34 Fire Flow Fees 6 12 42 43 85 Legal Determination 0 0 0 0 0 Zoning Appeals 0 0 0 0 0 Temporary Sign 3 1 6 10 19 Gen. Plan Maintenance 6 13 47 47 97 TOTALS 138 188 1,023 1,207 2,415 FEES COLLECTED TYPE OF FEE CURRENT MONTH THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE LAST FY TOTAL Building $41,312.68 $85,336.12 $330,208.38 $339,022.63 $703,799.90 Plumbing $6,694.00 $14,875.00 $41,138.50 $65,763.00 $140,192.30 Mechanical $3,355.00 $3,019.00 $23,222.60 $24,047.30 $55,018.80 Electric $3,520.00 $9,411.00 $67,061.10 $54,023.10 $127,602.30 Plan Check $55,603.47 $49,053.94 $200,917.59 $288,050.76 $538,489.66 Sewer Use $3,688.00 $7,838.00 $48,299.05 $20,746.00 $31,314.00 Res. Bldg. Reports $2,124.00 $2,240.00 $16,092.00 $17,258.00 $37,838.00 Parks & Recreation $0.00 $7,202.00 $0.00 $14,347.00 $21,492.00 In Lieu Parks & Rec. $13,788.00 $34,778.00 $188,342.00 $76,564.00 $138,918.00 Board of Appeals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Sign Review $1,935.00 $535.00 $12,840.00 $7,776.00 $18,476.00 Fire Flow Fees $1,789.00 $3,016.81 $11,756.71 $9,646.73 $22,029.47 Legal Determination $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Zoning Appeals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Temporary Sign $249.00 $88.00 $515.00 $872.00 $1,663.00 Gen. Plan Maintenance $9,345.00 $19,971.00 $71,931.00 $65,016.00 $137,652.00 TOTALS $143,403.15 $237,363.87 $1,012,323.93 $983,132.52 $1,974,485.43 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 17-0113 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of February 21, 2017 Brief Overview of Conflict of Interest Rules City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 2/20/2024Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™108