The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-03-18 - PC - Regular CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Post-Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 18, 2025 7:00 PM Council Chambers 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 COMMISSIONERS Kate Hirsh, Chairperson Stephen Izant, Vice Chairperson Michael Flaherty, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Greg McNally, Commissioner AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=OUNTRDNvd2I6TzBpTDIjc2x6bGFwdz09 • Phone: Toll Free: (833) 548 0276; Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860• eComment: Submit an eComment no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. • Supplemental Email: Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received no later than three (3) hours before the meeting start time. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. • Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV: Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach • YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 • Live Stream: www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda • If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Page 2 of 440 Pages 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.ROLL CALL 4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA This is the time for Planning Commission to discuss any changes to the order of agenda items. 5.PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any items within the Commission's jurisdiction and on items where public comment will not be taken. The public is invited to attend and provide public comment. Public comments are limited to two minutes per speaker and shall only be taken from those present in the Council Chambers. No remote public comment will be taken during this time unless required by the Brown Act. A total of thirty minutes will be allocated to this initial public participation item. This time allotment may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Chair. No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Planning Commission may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the Community Development Director or City Manager's Office. 6.CONSENT CALENDAR The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission members may orally register a negative vote on any consent calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration prior to the vote on the consent calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission member removes an item from the Consent Calendar prior to the vote on the consent calendar item. Items removed will be considered under a latter agenda item, with only in-person public comment permitted at that time in the Chambers. The title is deemed to be read and further reading waived of any resolution or ordinance listed on the consent calendar for introduction or adoption. Recommendation: To approve the consent calendar. 6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2025 - 25-CDD-045 6 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommendation: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of February 18, 2025 Page 3 of 440 7.PUBLIC HEARING 7.a TRI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2024 TO DECEMBER 31, 2024 - 25-CDD-039 17 CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Assistant Planner Johnny Case) Recommendation: Staff recommend that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the tri-annual on-sale alcoholic beverage Conditional Use Permit review process. 7.b CONTINUANCE FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 23-10) LOCATED AT 830 THE STRAND - 25-CDD-050 37 (Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Public Hearing be postponed to a date uncertain. 7.c REQUEST TO APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24- 08) TO ALLOW A NEW FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5 - 25-CDD-008 40 CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Associate Planner Jake Whitney) Recommendation: Motion to continue this item to a date certain of May 20, 2025.1. 7.d REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SHARED PARKING PLAN (PARK 25-01) TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSOLIDATION OF FOUR RETAIL TENANTS AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LOCATED IN THE (SPA-8) ZONE - 25-CDD-046 302 AND(Associate Planner Jake Whitney) CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 1. Approve a Parking Plan Amendment (PARK25-01) to allow for the consolidation of four retail tenant units totaling 5,368 square feet into two units, and to allow the activation of 1,203 square 2. Page 4 of 440 feet of previously non-leased common space into new leasable office or retail space without providing additional parking at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway in the Specific Plan Area 8 zone, subject to conditions. 8.STAFF ITEMS 8.a UPDATE PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. - 25-CDD- 048 431 (Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza) Recommendation: Staff recommend that the Planning Commission consider and adopt revisions to the procedures by minute order to the on-sale alcoholic beverage Conditional Use Permit review process. 8.b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT 9.PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission members may briefly respond to public comments, may ask a question for clarification, or make a brief announcement or report on his or her own activities or meetings attended. 10.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Questions from Planning Commission members regarding the status of future agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken. 10.a PLANNING COMMISSION FUTURE TENTATIVE AGENDA - 25-CDD- 051.docx 439 11.PUBLIC COMMENT This time is set aside for the public to address the Commission on any item of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission that could not be heard under Item 4 during the first public participation item because there were too many prior public speakers and the thirty-minute maximum time limit was exhausted. 12.ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: March 18, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-045 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2025 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of February 18, 2025 Attachment: Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting of February 18, 2025 Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant Approved: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Page 6 of 440 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Planning Commission Meeting Minutes February 18, 2025 Open Session 6:00 PM Council Chambers 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 _____________________________________________________________________ 1.CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Pedersen called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Flaherty led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3.ROLL CALL Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado announced a quorum. 4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion: To approve the order of the agenda. Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty Ayes (5): Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty Motion Carried 5.PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 6.CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: To approve the consent calendar. Members Present: Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Stephen Izant, Commissioner Michael Flaherty 1 Page 7 of 440 6.a ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 2025 - 25-CDD-028 Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of January 21, 2025. 6.b TRI ANNUAL REPORT FOR JULY 1, 2024 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2024 - 25-CDD-026 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file the report. Moved by: Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh Seconded by: Commissioner Stephen Izant Motion Carried 7.PUBLIC HEARING 7.a REQUEST FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (TA 25-01), PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY USES AND EVENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, AMENDING HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (HBMC): 1) CHAPTER 17.04 - 25-CDD-037 Planning Manager Oropeza provided a presentation. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Ayes (5): Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty 2 Page 8 of 440 Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Police Captain Cahalan provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Public Comments were provided by: Laura Pena (in-person) Adam Malovani (in-person) Jessica Accamando (virtually) Jon David (virtually) Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. 3 Page 9 of 440 Commissioner Izant provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commission Hoffman provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. 4 Page 10 of 440 City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. 5 Page 11 of 440 Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. 6 Page 12 of 440 Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. 7 Page 13 of 440 Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. City Attorney Donegan provided comments. Motion: To adopt a Resolution 25-02 as written but accurately reflecting the consensus of the Planning Commission recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance approving Zone Text Amendment 25-01 amending Title 17 of the of the Municipal Code pertaining to Temporary Uses and Events; and to find that the adoption of the proposed ordinance exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Moved by: Commissioner Stephen Izant Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh Ayes (5): Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty Motion Carried 8.STAFF ITEMS 8.a ROTATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON ON MARCH 1, 2025 - 25-CDD-032 There were no public comments. Motion: To rotate the Chairperson position to Kate Hirsh and the Vice Chairperson position to Stephen Izant for the term of March 1, 2025 through November 30, 2025 effective March 1, 2025. Moved by: Commissioner Michael Flaherty Seconded by: Commissioner Stephen Izant 8 Page 14 of 440 Ayes (5): Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty Motion Carried 8.b COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT Planning Manager Oropeza updated that March's Planning Commission meeting will have a full agenda including the Commercial Uses study session. We anticipate the Zoning Text Amendment on Temporary Uses will be going to City Council on March 25th. Planning Manager Oropeza recognized Chairperson Pedersen's last meeting serving on the Planning Commission was tonight as he is moving up to his elected position as the City Treasurer. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. 9.PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Vice Chairperson Hirsh provided comments. Commissioner Hoffman provided comments. Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Chairperson Pedersen provided comments. 10.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 10.a PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA - 25-CDD- 029 Commissioner Flaherty provided comments. Planning Manager Oropeza provided comments. Motion: To receive and file the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission tentative future agenda. Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Commissioner Stephen Izant Ayes (5): Chairperson David Pedersen, Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Peter Hoffman, Commissioner Stephen Izant, and Commissioner Michael Flaherty 9 Page 15 of 440 Motion Carried 11.PUBLIC COMMENT 12.ADJOURNMENT Motion: To adjourn the February 18, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Moved by: Commissioner Peter Hoffman Seconded by: Vice Chairperson Kate Hirsh The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 P.M. 10 Page 16 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 5 Meeting Date: March 18, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-039 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission TRI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2024 TO DECEMBER 31, 2024 CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Assistant Planner Johnny Case) Recommended Action: Staff recommend that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the tri- annual on-sale alcoholic beverage Conditional Use Permit review process. Executive Summary: The tri-annual report presents the findings of the administrative review process in which the activities of establishments that have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for on-sale alcoholic beverage licenses are reviewed against an established set of criterion (Attachment 1). This report covers the period from July 1, 2024 to December 31,2024. Based on the data collected during this reporting period, no establishment have reached the threshold for referral to initiate a Planning Commission review of a CUP. However, one (1) establishment, 1121 Aviation Boulevard (Ramen and Sushiya, Inc.), outside of this reporting period has reached the threshold for referral to initiate a Planning Commission review of a CUP. The Planning Commission, at its January 18, 2025 meeting, reviewed the CUP for 1121 Aviation Boulevard (Ramen and Sushiya, Inc.), which resulted in the revocation of the CUP for on-sale alcohol. Background: The tri-annual report is a review of all on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments that operate with an approved CUP. The review is presented to the Planning Commission over the course of two meetings; the first meeting presents the report as an informational item, while the second meeting is conducted as a public hearing. This is the second of the two reports and provides background information gathered for this review period. If an establishment violates any criterion within the set of standards identified (Attachment 1), by exceeding the defined number of incidents in any six-month period, it will be referred to the Planning Commission for a review of the CUP. The review may lead to a modification or revocation hearing based on the frequency of incidents or type of violations. Page 17 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 5 The tri-annual report provides data related to each criterion from City departments and outside agencies involved in the review, including Code Enforcement, Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD), LA County Fire Prevention, and California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The data provided in the report does not change between the two meetings presenting the data as an informational item, and a public hearing. The two-step review process was established in 2017. In March 2019, the City Council approved Planning Commission recommended changes to the process, which included that the review could be conducted three times per year. This is the first report in 2025 and covers the six-month reporting period of July 1,2024 to December 31,2024. In addition to current reporting data from each respective department and/or Agency (July 1, 2024 to December 31, 24), the previous reporting period date (March 1, 2024 to August 31, 2024) is attached for review. Upon request, all relevant establishments can produce prepared food-to-alcohol ratio reports for the time referenced above. The next report will be presented in June 2025 and will cover the period of November 1, 2024 to April 20, 2025. Discussion: Hermosa Beach Police Department As part of each tri-annual review, the Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD) is consulted for any calls for service or reports at establishments with a Conditional Use Permit for on-sale alcohol sales. During the current reporting period of July 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, the Hermosa Beach Police Department reported eleven (11) police reports and two (2) calls for service related to establishments with CUPS for on- sale alcohol sales. Of the eleven (11) reports and two (2) calls for service, two (2) were characterized by HBPD as CUP violations. For additional details on the Police reporting data and protocols please refer to Attachment 1 and 2. In addition to the two (2) CUP violations, an alleged violation of a CUP was reported on December 31, 2024. The investigation and citation of the CUP by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control occurred outside of this current reporting period of July 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. However, the reported violation was included because it resulted in the issuance of a citation and warranted an individual CUP review. Specifically, the Planning Commission, at its January 18, 2025 meeting, reviewed the CUP for 1121 Aviation Boulevard (Ramen and Sushiya, Inc.), which resulted in the revocation of the CUP for on-sale alcohol. LA County Fire The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) provides information about paramedic records which may be used to assist in the investigative analysis of responsible alcohol- serving practices at on-sale beverage serving establishments. LACFD reported a total of 49 calls for ambulance service that were attributed to alcohol during this review period. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Privacy Rules prevent LACFD Page 18 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 5 from identifying the reported incidents with a specific business. Therefore, the data is not capable of providing any meaningful information on the alcohol-serving practices of specific establishments. However, this information continues to be requested following the Process and Standards for Review established for On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permits. LACFD is also responsible for inspecting the various establishments in the City for fire prevention measures which are conducted after the summer season. Although this data is site-specific, it relates to the facility inspected and does not correlate with alcohol service. Code Enforcement Code Enforcement routinely checks on-sale alcohol establishments for Conditional Use Permit compliance. Violations that are both a Municipal Code violation and a CUP violation are only counted once. Although businesses may have received warnings, the Department’s policy is to request compliance before issuing a citation fine. During this period, Code Enforcement did not issue any citations for violation of a Conditional Use Permit for on-sale alcohol. Process Criteria Statistics for On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permit Businesses (July 1st , 2024, to December 31st , 2024) Criteria Summary of All Businesses Violation of Operating Hours 0 ABC Violations reported to ABC (underage serving, violation of hours, etc.) 2** Overcrowding Citation 0 Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security 0 Criminal Citation of Staff while working/on Premises 0 Noise Violation 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* 2** *Most but not all Code violations are also CUP violations but shall only count as one violation. **Number includes one alleged violation reported during this review period that has been investigated, cited, and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Conclusion: Based on the data collected during this reporting period from all relevant departments and agencies, no establishment has reached the threshold for referral to initiate a Planning Commission review of a CUP. However, one (1) establishment, 1121 Aviation Page 19 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 5 Boulevard (Ramen and Sushiya, Inc.), outside of this reporting period has reached the threshold for referral to initiate a Planning Commission review of a CUP. The Planning Commission, at its January 18, 2025 meeting, conducted a review and revoked the CUP for 1121 Aviation Boulevard (Ramen and Sushiya, Inc.). General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: General Plan Consistency Public Safety Element Findings Goal 5. High quality police and fire protection services provided to residents and visitors. The tri-annual report supports accountability with respect to alcohol serving establishments and ensures police resources are being best utilized and don’t disproportionately require public safety resources. The regular review also provides an opportunity to the City to impose additional CUP conditions to operators that incur repeated violations such as enhancing on- site security guards or increasing security camera footage to prevent future crimes and/or violations. Through these efforts the City seeks to minimize nuisances and improve upon the quality of life for local residents and visitors. Policy 5.1 Crime deterrence. Regularly evaluate the incidence of crime and identify and implement measures to deter crime. Policy 5.2 High Level of response. Achieve optimal utilization of allocated public safety resources and provide desired levels of response, staffing, and protection within the community. Policy 5.3 Use of technology. Provide and use smart surveillance technology and communication systems to improve crime prevention and inform the community regarding actions to take in case of emergency. Policy 5.8 Nuisance abatement. Encourage Police Department review of uses that may be characterized historically by high levels of nuisance (noise, nighttime patronage, and/or rates of criminal activity) providing for conditions of control of use to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residences, schools, religious facilities, and similar “sensitive” uses. Governance Element Findings Goal 2. The community is active and engaged in decision-making processes. The tri-annual review provides an opportunity for residents, business Page 20 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 5 General Plan Consistency Policy 2.6 Responsive to community needs. Continue to be responsive to community inquiries, providing public information and recording feedback from community interactions. owners, and the public at large to engage in the decision-making process for CUP modifications. Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the report qualifies for a common-sense exemption, as defined in section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. Public Notification: For the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, a legal ad was published on March 6, 2025 in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. As of the writing of the report, staff have received no public comments on this matter. Attachments: 1. Process and Standards 2. HBPD/ABC Report July 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024 3. HBPD/ABC Report March 1,2024 to August 31,2024 Respectfully Submitted by: Johnny Case, Assistant Planner Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney Approved: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Page 21 of 440 Process and Standards for Review of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permits 1) The CUP review process will consist of an administrative review process in which the on-sale establishments’ activities would be reviewed against an established set of criteria three times per year. 2) On-sale establishments with a CUP would 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. 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 three times per year with an evaluation of the on-sale establishments’ activities for the prior 6-month period. 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. 7) Information from Police and Fire Department related to patterns of patronage of on-sale establishments (as indicated by investigations of intoxicated persons after incidents) and consistency with “Model House Policies” may be generally considered by the Planning Commission as factors in whether the business is being operated responsibly and engaging in the responsible service of alcohol. This information may be considered by the planning commission, as additional justification for holding a CUP review hearing after referral based on the criteria above has been determined and as evidence in any CUP modification/revocation hearing. Table 1. CUP Review Standards Standard Initiating P.C. Review(a) 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 Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security 2 (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 NOTE: (a) – Recommended threshold number; Chief of Police may recommend CUP review to Commission at his/her discretion—at any time regardless of number of incidents in any period of time, to determine whether revocation/medication is appropriate under HBMC 17.70.010—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. Page 22 of 440 HBPD and ABC The Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD) conducts a thorough review of all police reports related to establishments which hold a CA Department of Alcoholic Beverage (ABC) on-sale alcohol license in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Additionally, HBPD contacts owners and managers of establishments related to any concern(s) the Police Department may have, of issues that do not rise to CUP violation. The Police reports are initiated by a Call for Service (CFS) or if an officer observes an incident/violation/or contacts someone in an enforcement capacity. The CFS may result in a report, citation, arrest, or no action may be taken. It is important to note that a CFS or a report at a specific address does not mean an incident happened inside the address or is directly related to a specific business; the address may simply be associated as a landmark (identifying the location of an incident) wherein the location itself had nothing to do with the incident. Therefore, a CFS or report should not be assumed to be problematic or involved in the incident as the CFS or report may have nothing to do with the specific address or location other than used as a landmark/identifying the location of an incident which may have occurred outside of the location. HBPD will note the number of CFS, and Reports associated with an address, along with the category of the reports (e.g., Drunk, Disturbance, Assault, etc.). An establishment will not have a CUP violation charged against them, unless, in HBPD’s review process it is determined that the establishment was complicit or clearly negligent in its actions which results in a violation of the CUP standards. As detailed in Attachment 2, HBPD’s statistics may have four (4) “Total” reports, of which only three (3) are “reviewed”, which would indicate that one of the four reports has nothing to do with the location. The number under the type of report may or may not be charged against the establishment, based on information demonstrating the establishment’s complicity or negligence, that would then inform a determination made by the HBPD Chief of Police. During the reporting period of July 1, 2024, to December 31st, 2024, there were eleven (11) police reports and two (2) calls for service related to establishments with CUPS that merited review by HBPD staff. Of the eleven (11) police reports reviewed, six (6) were previously reviewed during the last CUP reporting period, as the tri-annual review contains overlapping time periods (previous period covered March 1st, 2024, to August 31st, 2024). Additionally, there were two (2) calls for service that were reviewed, one (1) of which were reviewed during the last period. Of the eleven reports reviewed, two were deemed to count for CUP violations. The two calls for service were also not deemed to count as a violation. Attachment 2. Page 23 of 440 As noted in Attachment 2, a joint ABC grant with Manhattan Beach Police Department has been issued for October 2023-September 2024. Training per the grant has been administered and there are deployments planned over the next several months. Aka Ramen and Sushi had one report and one call for service that were evaluated. As the Conditional Use Permit has already been revoked for this establishment, partially due to these calls, no further action is required. HB Coastal had two reports reviewed, one which was reviewed previously. The report documented a private underage party that occurred at the location. Alcohol was not actively being served at the location, but alcohol was present. This was deemed a CUP violation. Hennessey’s Tavern had one report and one call for service, both of which were previously reviewed. Hermosa Saloon had one report reviewed during the last report. Paisanos had three reports reviewed during this period, two of which were already reviewed in the March-August report. The additional case involved subjects inside the business after hours, with alcohol being consumed and a sexual battery occurred. The case is still under investigation yet has been deemed a CUP violation. Patrick Molloy’s had one (1) case previously reviewed. Tower 12 had two (2) cases reviewed. One incident involved a fight that began inside the location, the parties were separated and both ejected from the establishment. The parties crossed paths outside near parking lot A, where another physical altercation occurred. Discussion regarding the disbursement of parties after an altercation has been discussed. The second instance involved an employee and a patron, and the altercation appeared to be mutual. The employee was disciplined and complaint filed to ABC at the reporting party’s request. The reporting party also admitted being under the influence and not desirous. Additionally, when HBPD conducts routine patrols of establishments with ABC licenses. If, during those patrols, an officer finds any suspicious activity in or around the premises, they log it as a security check (Attachment 2). The suspicious activity that would warrant it being logged as a security check would not necessarily be related to the CUP for the respective establishment. As part of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Drunk in Public arrests, HBPD officers, to the best of their abilities, ask arrestees to tell them where they have previously been drinking and more specifically the last place, they recall drinking. Not all contacts with arrestees provide an opportunity to ask these questions, however, the answers are Page 24 of 440 presented in Attachment 2 for the current period and Attachment 2 for the previous period. Page 25 of 440 Business Total Cases Total Reviewed Drunk in Public Disturbance Assaults Sexual Assaults Narcotics Other Reports Total Reviewed Disburbance or Assault CUP Violations AKA Ramen & Sushi 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Revoked Baja Sharkeez 2(1)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barnacles 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crème de la Crepe 1(1)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fritto Misto 1(1)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HB Coastal 2(1)2(1)0 0 1(1)0 0 1 0 0 1 Hennessey's Tavern 3(1)1(1)0 1(1)0 0 0 0 1(1)1(1)0 Hermosa Saloon 1(1)1(1)0 0 1(1)0 0 0 0 0 0 The Hook and Plow 1(1)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lighthouse 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paisano's 3(2)3(2)0 0 2(2)1 0 0 0 0 1 Patrick Molloy's 1(1)1(1)0 0 0 0 0 1(1)0 0 0 Poulet du Jour 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scotty's 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tacos El Goloso 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tower 12 4 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Watermans 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 29(10)11(6)0 2(1)6(4)1 0 2(1)2(1)1 2 Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premise Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Violation of any CUP Condition ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) Overcrowding Citation ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) July - December 2024 CUP 6 Month Review Violation of Operating Hours Reports CFS Numbers contained within ( ) are reports and or CFS that were counted on the previous report. The total number does included these previously counted numbers. Page 26 of 440 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 w/o permit) 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 Page 27 of 440 BARSHA 1141 Aviation Bl 2 HB COASTAL 844 Hermosa Ave 1 FOX AND FARROW 1340 Hermosa Ave 1 Security Checks for Businesses with Alcohol Licenses July - December 2024 Page 28 of 440 American Junkie 2 Greenbelt Public 1 Beach 1 Hennessey's 1 Beach House 1 Northend 1 Hennessey's 1 Other City 1 Hermosa Beach 3 Pier Plaza 2 House 3 Public 2 Other City 11 Sharkeez 2 Palmilla 1 Unknown 59 Pier Ave 3 Barnacles 1 Refused 8 Grand Total 70 Sharkeez 7 Tacos El Goloso 1 Tower 12 2 Underground 4 Zanes 1 Grand Total 49 Driving Under the Influence Public Intoxication July - December 2024 July - December 2024 Page 29 of 440 HBPD and ABC The Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD) conducts a thorough review of all police reports related to establishments which hold a CA Department of Alcoholic Beverage (ABC) on-sale alcohol license in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Additionally, HBPD contacts owners and managers of establishments related to any concern(s) the Police Department may have, of issues that do not rise to CUP violation. The Police reports are initiated by a Call for Service (CFS) or if an officer observes an incident/violation/or contacts someone in an enforcement capacity. The CFS may result in a report, citation, arrest, or no action may be taken. It is important to note that a CFS or a report at a specific address does not mean an incident happened inside the address or is directly related to a specific business; the address may simply be associated as a landmark (identifying the location of an incident) wherein the location itself had nothing to do with the incident. Therefore, a CFS or report should not be assumed to be problematic or involved in the incident as the CFS or report may have nothing to do with the specific address or location other than used as a landmark/identifying the location of an incident which may have occurred outside of the location. HBPD will note the number of CFS, and Reports associated with an address, along with the category of the reports (e.g., Drunk, Disturbance, Assault, etc.). An establishment will not have a CUP violation charged against them, unless, in HBPD’s review process it is determined that the establishment was complicit or clearly negligent in its actions which results in a violation of the CUP standards. As detailed in Attachment 2, HBPD’s statistics may have four (4) “Total” reports, of which only three (3) are “reviewed”, which would indicate that one of the four reports has nothing to do with the location. The number under the type of report may or may not be charged against the establishment, based on information demonstrating the establishment’s complicity or negligence, that would then inform a determination made by the HBPD Chief of Police. During the reporting period of March 1, 2024, to August 31st, 2024, there were sixteen (16) police reports and four (4) calls for service related to establishments with CUPS that merited review by HBPD staff. Of the sixteen (16) police reports reviewed, three (3) were previously reviewed during the last CUP reporting period, as the tri-annual review contains overlapping time periods (previous period covered November 1, 2023, to April 30th, 2023). Additionally, there were three (4) calls for service that were reviewed, none of which were reviewed during the last period. Of the sixteen reports reviewed, none were deemed to count for CUP violations. The four calls for service were also not deemed to count as a violation. Page 30 of 440 Attachment 2. As noted in Attachment 2, a joint ABC grant with Manhattan Beach Police Department has been issued for October 2023-September 2024. Training per the grant has been administered and there are deployments planned over the next several months. American Junkie had one report which was reviewed during the last period and was not deemed a CUP violation. Baja Sharkeez had one report reviewed where subjects were involved in an altercation inside the location and staff attempted to de-escalate the situation, and separated the parties involved. The investigation concluded that the complainant was the instigator, and the case was not refereed for prosecution. The call for service reviewed was regarding a cell phone that was inside the establishment and the patron requested it back. Barnacles had one case that was previously reviewed and not a CUP violation. The call for service reviewed was a subject refusing to leave the location. Hennessey’s Tavern had 3 reports reviewed this period. The first report had two intoxicated subjects that were verbal with staff after being kicked out of the establishment. Subjects were notified to not return. The second report was a subject that was asked to leave the establishment due to their level of intoxication. The subject attempted to return and refused entry/ The subject returned and was aggressive toward staff. The final report was an intoxicated subject who was laying on the floor of the restroom and refused to leave the establishment. The subject was arrested for public intoxication, resisting arrest and trespassing. There was one call for service reviewed for a subject refusing to leave at 1:30 am. Hermosa Saloon had one report and one call for service reviewed. The call was a reporting party unhappy with the way the business was being run, and they were advised to contact ABC if they desired to file a complaint. The one report involved a subject taking and consuming other patrons drinks before getting into a physical altercation. The subject was subdued and escorted out of the business. During the reporting period, The Lighthouse had one report reviewed. During the investigation, the victim was seen getting poked by a rose being held by another patron and when he grabbed the rose, another patron pushed the victim, the victim then swung at the person that pushed him, and a fight ensue. The suspect then punched the victim knocking him unconscious. The subjects then fled the location. Paisanos had two reports reviewed this period, and one person was involved in both reports. The subject was involved in a physical altercation inside the business in July, then again in August the same subject became involved with people inside the business, Page 31 of 440 and it continued outside the business. The suspect was arrested, and the victim decided they were non-desirous. Patrick Molloy’s had three (3) cases reviewed, one of which was reviewed last period, and therefore will not be recapped here. The first case involved subjects that were ejected from the location due to a verbal argument inside. The removed subject spit in the face of the employee and was arrested. The subject was arrested for resisting arrest, public intoxication and battery. The City Prosecutor filed battery and resisting arrests charges. The second case involved a restraining order violation. One case was reviewed for Saint Rocke. A subject, pretending to be a security guard, patted down the victim and grabbed the genitals of the victim making a joke. The subject was located and a private person arrest for battery. The case is pending review. Proudly serving had one report of an intoxicated subject who was passed out at the location and was arrested for public intoxication. HB Coastal had one report was reviewed for a physical altercation between an employee and their superior. Additionally, when HBPD conducts routine patrols of establishments with ABC licenses. If, during those patrols, an officer finds any suspicious activity in or around the premises, they log it as a security check (Attachment 2). The suspicious activity that would warrant it being logged as a security check would not necessarily be related to the CUP for the respective establishment. As part of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Drunk in Public arrests, HBPD officers, to the best of their abilities, ask arrestees to tell them where they have previously been drinking and more specifically the last place, they recall drinking. Not all contacts with arrestees provide an opportunity to ask these questions, however, the answers are presented in Attachment 2 for the current period and Attachment 2 for the previous period. Page 32 of 440 Business Total Cases Total Reviewed Drunk in Public Disturbance Assaults Sexual Assaults Narcotics Other Reports Total Reviewed Disburbance or Assault CUP Violations American Junkie 2 (2) 1 (1) 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baja Sharkeez 4 (1) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Barnacles 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 0 1 1 0 Brews Hall 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chipotle 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crème de la Crepe 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El Pollo Inka 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fritto Misto 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hennessey's Tavern 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 Hermosa Saloon 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Hook and Plow 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lighthouse 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paisanos 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Patrick Molloys 4 (1) 3 (1) 1 (1) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Poulet Du Jour 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saint Rocke 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Scotty's 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proudly Serving 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HB Coastal 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tower 12 1 (1)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 32 (7) 16 ( 3) 2 (1) 0 11 (2) 0 0 3 4 (0) 3 (0) 0 (0) Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premise Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Violation of any CUP Condition ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) April - August 2024 CUP 6 Month Review Violation of Operating Hours Reports CFS Numbers contained within ( ) are reports and or CFS that were counted on the previous report. The total number does included these previously counted numbers. Page 33 of 440 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 Noise Citation Health Department Violation Outdoor Encroachment Permit Violation Building Code Violation (incl. remodeling w/o permit) 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 Page 34 of 440 AGAVE AZUL 1320 Hermosa Ave.# CAD 1 BAJA SHARKEEZ 52 Pier Pz.# CAD 1 BARSHA 1141 Aviation Bl.# CAD 2 FOX AND FARROW 1340 Hermosa Ave.# CAD 1 FUSION SUSHI 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy.# CAD 1 LA PENITA 200 Longfellow Ave.# CAD 1 NORTH END 2626 Hermosa Ave.# CAD 1 PEDONE'S 1332 Hermosa Ave.# CAD 1 THE STANTON HB 844 Hermosa Ave.# CAD 1 Security Checks for Businesses with Alcohol Licenses March - August 2024 Page 35 of 440 Baja Sharkeez 4 Abes Liquor 1 Bars 1 Barnacles Pedones Unknown 1 Beach 2 Hennessey's 1 Hermosa Saloon 1 In public on street 2 House 2 Narcotics 1 Lighthouse 1 Patrick Molloys 3 Northend Bar 1 Proudly Serving 1 Other City 8 Sharkeez 2 Palmilla 1 Unknown 52 Pier 2 Watermans 1 Refused 2 Grand Total 65 Underground 1 Unknown 2 Grand Total 28 Driving Under the Influence Public Intoxication March - August 2024 March - August 2024 Page 36 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: March 18, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-050 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission CONTINUANCE FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 23-10) TO ALLOW THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REMODEL OF A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 830 THE STRAND IN THE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. (Contract Planner Kaneca Pompey) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Public Hearing be continued to a future Planning Commission meeting at a date uncertain. Public Notification: A legal ad was published on Thursday, March 6th in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation, and on our website at www.hermosabeach.gov. No public hearing notices were mailed for this Public Hearing. No posters have been posted on-site. Attachment: Notice of Public Hearing Respectfully Submitted by: Kaneca Pompey, Contract Planner Approved: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Page 37 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1.PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNITAPARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO CA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES.2.PARKING PLAN (PARK 25-01) AMENDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SHARED PARKINGPLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONVERSION OF 1,200 SQUARE FEET OF PREVIOUSLYNON-LEASED SPACE TO OFFICE OR RETAIL USE(S) AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(HERMOSA PAVILLION) IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 8 (SPA-8) ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15301(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES.3.TRI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR ON -SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2024, TO DECEMBER 31, 2024. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION15301OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES.4.REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) 23-10 TO ALLOW THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REMODEL OF AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING INCLUDING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF FOUR UNITS AND ADDITION OF A NEW TWO CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT 830 THE STRAND IN THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. FOR PURPOSES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA AND IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING. PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66317 AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REQUIRES A MINISTERIAL REVIEW. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. Page 38 of 440 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alexis Oropeza Planning Manager Page 39 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 11 Meeting Date: March 18, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-008 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission REQUEST TO APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO ALLOW A NEW FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5 CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Associate Planner Jake Whitney) Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2. Review the application and consider adopting a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Precise Development Plan 24-08 for a new five-unit apartment building at 3415 Palm Drive subject to conditions. Executive Summary: On February 7, 2024, the applicant submitted a “Preliminary Application” in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 65941.1) for a five-unit residential development with one affordable unit (20 percent of total). The applicant subsequently filed a timely formal application on June 10, 2024. Then on January 15, 2025, following the passage and effective date of state Assembly Bill (AB) 1893, the applicant submitted a revised plan to eliminate the proposed affordable unit and pursue a market rate development as the project is now exempt from state mandated affordability requirements due to the project satisfying certain criteria stated in AB 1893. The applicant seeks approval of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) to construct a new five-unit apartment building pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy.” Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the application and consider approval of the Precise Development Plan and determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Background: The project site is an interior lot located on Hermosa Avenue north of 34th Street. The site has alley access via Palm Drive and is located in the Multiple-Family Residential (R- Page 40 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 11 3) Zone (Attachment 2). The General Plan designates the property for High-Density Residential with a residential density range between 25.1-33.0 dwelling units per acre. It is also located within the Coastal Zone boundary. The existing 2,553-square-foot lot is currently developed with a four-unit apartment building permitted in 1956. The site is developed at a density higher than allowed per the general plan (68.2 dwelling units per acre) and is classified as legal non-conforming. The proposed five-unit project before the Planning Commission would further increase the density of this site to 85.3 dwelling units per acre. On February 7, 2024, the applicant submitted a preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 65941.1) to demolish the existing four-unit building and construct a five-unit building with one affordable unit (20 percent of total). On June 10, 2024, the applicant filed for a Precise Development Plan for a substantially similar project. Then, following the passage and effective date of state Assembly Bill 1893, the applicant revised the project on January 15, 2025, to eliminate the proposed affordable unit and requested approval of a market rate development as the project is no longer required to have a certain percentage of affordable units to qualify and proceed under the Builder’s Remedy if the project satisfies all of the following: (i) contains 10 or fewer total units; (ii) is located on a site smaller than one acre; and (iii) is proposed at a density that exceeds 10 units per acre. (Attachment 5) Meeting this set of criteria allows for the development to be defined as a project for, “mixed-income households,” which itself is now included in the definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.” This classification qualifies the project to proceed under the Builders Remedy as mandated by State law. (Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(3)(A), (h)(3)(C), (h)(11)(A)). In addition to meeting state mandated minimum density requirements, the project is also in conformity with the maximum density requirements added through AB 1893 which are summarized below: 1. The density of the project may not exceed the greatest of the following densities: a. Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2. b. Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. c. The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. 2. Notwithstanding the prior clause, the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable above, if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: a. One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. b. A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). Page 41 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 11 c. A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. Given that the project is both located in a high resource census tract as defined by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development as well as in a high- density general plan designation under PLAN Hermosa of 33.0 dwelling units per acre, the maximum density allowed at this site under AB 1893 would be 134 dwelling units per acre while the current proposal consists of 85.3 dwelling units per acre (Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (h)(11)(C)). Furthermore, in accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (f)(7)(A), for a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, “the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025.” The above listed change to the Builder’s Remedy in AB 1893 allows the developer to abide by the new Builder’s Remedy criteria that took effect in 2025 and thereby eliminate the previously proposed affordable unit, all while simultaneously retaining their right to be processed as a Builder’s Remedy project. While inconsistency with the General Plan and Zoning ordinance would typically be grounds for denying such a project, the Housing Accountability Act (via the Builder’s Remedy) greatly limits a local jurisdiction’s ability to disapprove a housing project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households (or mixed-income households as explained above) as defined by state statue. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d), a local jurisdiction cannot disapprove or condition approval in a manner that renders infeasible a housing development project for the use of very low-, low-, or moderate-income households unless it makes written findings based on a preponderance of evidence in the record as to one of five exceptions. The exceptions are summarized below: (Attachment 4) 1) Housing Element is in compliance, Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) has been met or exceeded for all income categories proposed for project. 2) Project has a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards. 3) Denial or imposition of conditions on the project is required to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no other feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable. Page 42 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 11 4) The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or there are inadequate water or sewer facilities to serve the project. 5) The project is inconsistent with both zoning and general plan land use designation. However, a city cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in compliance with state law. As used above, a “specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation . . .” (Government Code Section 65589.5 (d)(2).) Here, the applicant filed its Preliminary Application prior to the City’s Housing Element being certified. The filing of the Preliminary Application effectively freezes the regulations in place at the time, including the status of the Housing Element. The applicant then filed a formal application on June 10, 2024, within the 180-day timeline. The City now has a Housing Element which is deemed to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, Section 65580 et seq) as of August 1st 2024. However, the applicant had submitted a preliminary application prior to this date, and pursuant to Gov. Code, Section 65589.5(o)(1) “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. Based on the aforementioned state law, the standards and policies in place at the time of the submission of the preliminary application are carried forward and remain applicable for this project allowing it to proceed which prohibits the City’s ability to utilize exception five of the above listed allowable exceptions to disapprove a housing development project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d). The project is subject to the California Coastal Act and the project would need to obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission. Site Information Table: The following table describes the existing site characteristics. Site Information General Plan High-Density Residential (HD) Zoning Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Lot Size 2,553 square feet Surrounding Zoning North: R-3 East: R-3 Page 43 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 11 Site Information South: R-3 West: R-1 Surrounding Uses North: Residential East: Residential South: Residential West: Residential Project Description The project consists of a new 50.5 foot-tall five-unit apartment building (as measured from the highest point of the structure to the interpolated grade line connecting property corners) and the demolition of the four-unit building and four parking spaces that exist at the site currently. (Attachment 3). Unit 1 would result in 600 square feet of living area, Units 2 and 3 would result in 922 square feet of living area each, Unit 4 would result in 673 square feet of living area, and Unit 5 would result in 1,938 square feet of living area. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from both Hermosa Avenue as well as Palm Drive, which would lead to (two) two-car garages as well as three guest parking stalls. Unit 1 located on the entry level would contain one bedroom, and one bathroom. Outside of the unit on the entry level is an entry lobby, an elevator, a stairwell, a storage/mechanical room, a light well, and access to a two-car garage. Unit 2 located on the first floor contains a living area, deck space, two-bedrooms, two-bathrooms, and a kitchen. This unit leads out to lobby space containing the elevator, stairwell, as well as an entrance to another two-car garage and trash receptacle area. Units 3 and 4 are located on the second floor of the building. Access to each unit is provided via the central elevator and stairwell lobby separating the units. Unit 3 contains living area space, a deck, two- bedrooms, two-bathrooms, and a kitchen. Unit 4 contains living area space, a deck, one bedroom, one-bathroom, and a kitchen. Lastly Unit 5, located on the 3rd floor, is accessed via the central stairway and elevator. The unit contains a great room, private deck space, two-bedrooms, two-bathrooms, and a kitchen. Unit 5 also has access to a private rooftop deck and office space via the rooftop level. Landscaping for the site consists of one Peppermint Willow tree, six Gulf Stream Heavenly Bamboo Plants, four Variegated Bower Vines, three English Lavender Plants as well as Dymondia ground covering. The project requires the Planning Commission’s review, environmental determination, and approval of a Precise Development Plan. As discussed earlier in the staff report, while the project is not consistent with the underlying zoning standards and general plan, a local agency is prohibited from disapproving or conditioning approval in a way that renders infeasible a housing project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act as specified in the Builder’s Remedy. (See California Government Code Section §65589.5 Page 44 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 11 subdivision (d).) For purposes of this project, the oversight of the Planning Commission is limited to determining if there are any public health or safety issues present which may serve as grounds for denial of the project. Based on City staff’s review of the project there are no significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. However, in order to make this finding, the proposed project must have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. As stated above, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The property is also located within the Coastal Zone and if approved, the project would require approval from the California Coastal Commission before it could be developed. Discussion: Development Standards The following summarizes the Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Zone Development Standards Criteria Required Provided LOT STANDARDS Minimum Lot Area per dwelling unit 1,320 per dwelling unit 510.6 per dwelling unit Lot Coverage Maximum 65% maximum 76.8% HEIGHT: 30 ft maximum 46.73 ft- 50.5 ft YARDS: Front 10 ft 17.58 ft Side 3 ft 3.08 ft Rear, abutting alley 1st Floor 3 ft 8.33 ft 2nd Floor 1ft 1.06 ft PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: Total Parking Spaces Minimum 13 spaces 7 spaces Page 45 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 11 As discussed in the background section above, the proposed project is inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking, and open space. However, these inconsistencies do not rise to the threshold needed to deny this project as the project is eligible for protections under the Builders Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act as the project provides housing to very low-, low-, and moderate- income households (as defined by state statute) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d) and the timely filing of their preliminary application. Historical Assessment A historical resource assessment was prepared for the existing building since it is at least 50 years old and is proposed to be demolished. A historical resource assessment of structure dated May 16, 2024, was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (Attachment 6). The assessment found that the building would not be eligible for listing as a historic resource as it did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a City of Hermosa Beach landmark. Furthermore, the site was not found to be associated with any historic persons, events, nor did they identify any evidence of master craftsman work. The building is made from unremarkable materials, not representative of any specific historical period, nor are the materials of exceptional quality. Findings: Given that the applicant filed a preliminary application for a housing development project on February 7, 2024, pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1, the standards that were in place at the time of the submission of the preliminary application shall remain in effect for the purposes of this review. While the standards for review for a Precise Development Plan have since changed, the applicable findings for a Precise Development Plan as of February 7, 2024 were: 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects; 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; Garage Spaces Minimum 10 spaces 4 spaces Guest Space Minimum 3 spaces 3 spaces Driveway Slope Maximum 20% 2% OPEN SPACE: Private Open Space: 1,500 sf (300 sf per unit) 483 countable sf (96.6 sf per unit) DESIGN ELEMENTS: Solid Waste Area (Per Unit) 15 waste bins (3 per unit) 15 waste bins (3 per unit) Page 46 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 11 3. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; 4. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity and safety of streets serving the area; 5. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area; 6. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools; 7. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use; 8. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services; 9. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms; and 10. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. While staff finds some of the above findings can be met for the project, the proposed project is inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking, and open space. However, these inconsistencies do not rise to the threshold needed to deny this project as the project is eligible for protections under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act as the project provides housing to very low, low-, and moderate-income households (as defined by state statute) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d). The applicant submitted a Preliminary Application in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act (Government Code Section 65941.1) on February 7, 2024, to demolish the existing development and construct a five- unit development prior to the certification of the Housing Element. On June 10, 2024, the applicant filed a Precise Development Project for a substantially similar project within 180- days. The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was not certified by the Department of Community Housing and Development until August 1, 2025. Furthermore, there is no public health or safety reasons (as defined by State law) for the denial of the project. General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. The proposed project is a five-unit apartment building and would contribute to a diverse neighborhood with various housing types and unit sizes for residents of different income levels. Page 47 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 11 General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. While the proposed project is not consistent with several of Policy 2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a diverse range of housing unit types and sizes, within allowed density. Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. However, this would not be done within the allowable density for the property. The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. Housing Element Issue Area 2. New Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3 The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing types at varying development intensities. The proposed project consists of the development of a five-unit residential building with units ranging in size and thus will serve varying income levels. Also, given the nature of new development the project will also be required to abide by the 2024 version of the California Building Code leading to the development of safe, sound, and decent housing opportunities for residents. Furthermore, the proposed height and density of the project will contribute to a diverse municipal housing stock with varying levels of development intensity. Sustainability Element Goal 7. Essential topsoil and erosion is minimized Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas. The conditions of approval would require the installation of permeable pavers in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low- impact development standards and reduce urban runoff. Page 48 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 10 of 11 the City’s General Plan Standards, the proposed project may not be denied due to this inconsistency as the project is eligible for protections under the Builders Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act as the project provides housing to very low, low-, and moderate-income households (as defined by state statute) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d). The applicant submitted a Preliminary Application in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act (Government Code Section 65941.1) on February 7, 2024, to demolish the existing development and construct a five-unit development prior to the certification of the Housing Element. Nonetheless, an analysis of relevant General Plan standards with which the project aligns has been provided above for reference purposes. Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption for new construction as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it consists of a multi-family residential project that is less than six units in an urbanized area. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines list the exceptions to the exemption and these exceptions to the exemptions define circumstances that override or negate the City’s ability to use a categorical exemption. Specifically, these exceptions to the exemptions are:  The project is located in a sensitive environment such that the project may impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern;  The cumulative effect of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;  The project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances;  The project may damage scenic resources (i.e. trees, historic buildings, or rock outcroppings) within an official state scenic highway;  The project is located on a listed hazardous waste site; or  The project may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A historical assessment was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on May 16, 2024 and found the existing development was not considered a historical resource. Further, staff does not believe any of the above apply as the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, or have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway as no scenic state highways exist in the vicinity of the project. Public Notification: Page 49 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 11 of 11 For the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, a total of 199 public hearing notices were mailed to the applicant, occupants, and property owners of properties within a 300-foot radius on March 4, 2025. A legal ad was published on March 6, 2025 in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC 17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as (Attachment 7). As of the writing of the report, staff has received three written public comments. (Attachment 8). Attachments: 1. Draft PC Resolution 2. Zoning Map 3. Project Plans 4. Government Code Section 65589.5 5. AB 1893 6. Historic Resource Assessment 7. Public Notification Package 8. Public Comments 9. SUPPLEMENTAL – Public Comment Package as of 4-22-2025 Respectfully Submitted by: Jake Whitney, Associate Planner Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager Page 50 of 440 1 PC Resolution 25-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08), TO CONSTRUCT A NEW FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5 AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve, and order as follows: Section 1. A preliminary application in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code Section 65941.1) was filed on February 7, 2024, by the applicant Tony and Renada Ferraro, for development of the property located at 3415 Palm Drive for a five-unit residential project including one low-income housing unit (20 percent) pursuant to the Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy” when the City’s Housing Element had not yet been certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Section 2. The filing of the Preliminary Application on February 7, 2024, effectively freezes the regulations in place at the time of submission including the status of the City’s Housing Element pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (o)(1). Section 3. The applicant filed a formal Precise Development Plan application for a substantially similar project on June 10, 2024, within the state prescribed 180-day timeline. (Government Code Section 65941.1 subdivision (e)(1)). Section 4. The Precise Development Plan application was deemed complete on October 3, 2024. Section 5. California Assembly Bill 1893 was signed into law and went into effect on January 1, 2025 which among other things, eliminated previously mandated affordability requirements for certain Builders Remedy projects by amending the definition of a project providing housing for very low, low-, or moderate income households. (Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(3)(A), (h)(3)(C), (h)(11)(A).) The bill further allowed for a development proponent to be subject to the provisions of AB 1893 at their discretion even if their Builders Remedy application was Page 51 of 440 2 deemed complete prior to the law taking effect. (Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (f)(7)(A)). Section 6. On January 7, 2025, the applicant requested processing of the application temporarily be placed on hold. Section 7. On January 15, 2025, the applicant filed a revised application proposing to eliminate the previously proposed low-income affordable unit and pursue a fully market rate development as the project is now exempt from state mandated affordability requirements. (Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(3)(A), (h)(3)(C), (h)(11)(A).) Section 8. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the subject application on March 18, 2025, at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 9. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in Section 15303, Class 3 Exemption, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, as the proposal consists of a multi-family residential project that is less than six units in an urbanized area. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines list the exceptions to the exemption and these exceptions to the exemptions define circumstances that override or negate the City’s ability to use a categorical exemption. Specifically, these exceptions to the exemptions are:  The project is located in a sensitive environment such that the project may impact an officially mapped and designated environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern;  The cumulative effect of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant;  The project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances;  The project may damage scenic resources (i.e. trees, historic buildings, or rock outcroppings) within an official state scenic highway;  The project is located on a listed hazardous waste site; or  The project may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A historical assessment was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on May 16, 2024 and found the existing development was not considered a historical resource. Further, staff does not believe any of the above apply as the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time, or have a Page 52 of 440 3 significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway as no scenic state highways exist in the vicinity of the project. Section 10. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for a Precise Development Plan, pursuant to the review criteria for Precise Development Plans in place on February 7, 2024, at which time the applicant submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 While the standards for review for a Precise Development Plan have since changed, the applicable findings for a Precise Development Plan as of February 7, 2024 were: 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects; 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need; 3. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility; 4. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity and safety of streets serving the area; 5. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area; 6. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools; 7. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use; 8. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services; 9. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms; and 10. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. While the City finds some of the above findings can be met for the project, the proposed project is inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking, and open space. However, these inconsistencies do not rise to the threshold needed to deny this project as the project is eligible for protections under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act as the project provides housing to very low, low-, and Page 53 of 440 4 moderate-income households (as defined by state statute) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d). The applicant submitted a Preliminary Application in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act (Government Code Section 65941.1) on February 7, 2024, to demolish the existing development and construct a five-unit development prior to the certification of the Housing Element. On June 10, 2024, the applicant filed a Precise Development Project for a substantially similar project within 180- days. The City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was not certified by the Department of Community Housing and Development until August 1, 2025. Furthermore, there is no public health or safety reasons (as defined by State law) for the denial of the project. Section 11. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby finds, determines, and declares the following pursuant to the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan with which the project aligns: General Plan Consistency Goals & Policies Findings Land Use Element Goal 2: Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. Policy 2.3 Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a diverse range of housing unit types and sizes, within allowed density. Goal 5. Quality and authenticity in architecture and site design in all construction and renovation of buildings. Policy 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles. The proposed project is a five-unit apartment building and would contribute to a diverse neighborhood with various housing types and unit sizes for residents of different income levels. However, this would not be done within the allowable density for the property. The proposed project would contribute to the diversity of architectural styles in the community through effective site design. Page 54 of 440 5 While the proposed project is not consistent with several of the City’s General Plan Standards, the proposed project may not be denied due to this inconsistency as the project is eligible for protections under the Builders Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act as the project provides housing to very low, low-, and moderate- income households (as defined by state statute) pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d). The applicant submitted a Preliminary Application in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act (Government Code Section 65941.1) on February 7, 2024, to demolish the existing development and construct a five-unit development prior to the certification of the Housing Element. Nonetheless, an analysis of relevant General Plan standards with which the project aligns has been provided above for reference purposes. Housing Element Issue Area 2. New Affordable Housing Development Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3 The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing types at varying development intensities. The proposed project consists of the development of a five-unit residential building with units ranging in size and thus will serve varying income levels. Also, given the nature of new development the project will also be required to abide by the 2024 version of the California Building Code leading to the development of safe, sound, and decent housing opportunities for residents. Furthermore, the proposed height and density of the project will contribute to a diverse municipal housing stock with varying levels of development intensity. Sustainability Element Goal 7. Essential topsoil and erosion is minimized Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas. The conditions of approval would require the installation of permeable pavers in the driveways and other locations on the subject property to comply with low- impact development standards and reduce urban runoff. Page 55 of 440 6 Section 12. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Precise Development Plan 24-08, for the construction of a five-unit residential project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5 subdivision (d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy” subject to the following Conditions of Approval: General: 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans received and reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 18, 2025, revised in accordance with the conditions below. The Community Development Director may approve minor modifications that do not otherwise conflict with the HBMC, state law, or requirements of this approval. 2. The project shall fully comply with the following requirements of the R-3 Zone as applicable: a) Designated, screened solid waste storage areas, a minimum of 2.5’ x 2.5’ (length times width) each, for three solid waste storage bins shall be shown on the site plan compliance with Chapter 8.12. b) All parking dimensions shall comply with Chapter 17.44. where feasible. Roll-up automatic garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings and clearly indicated on floor plans. c) Driveway transitions shall comply with Section 17.44.120(D). d) Any satellite dish antennas and/or similar equipment shall comply with Section 17.46.210. e) Architectural treatments shall be as shown on building elevations, site and floor plans. 3. The project shall comply with all requirements of the Building Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable Mitigations Measures of the General Plan Program EIR (SCH No. 201581009) as adopted by the City Council including: Page 56 of 440 7 a) Construction projects within the city shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards of the Southern California Air Quality Management District, including the following provisions of District Rule 403: i. All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50 percent. ii. The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind. iii. All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. iv. All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering, or other appropriate means to prevent spillage and dust. v. All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be required to cover their loads as required by California Vehicle Code Section 23114 to prevent excessive amount of dust. vi. General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. vii. Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but shall be turned off (MM 4.2-2A). b) In accordance with Section 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, the idling of all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles (weighing over 10,000 pounds) during construction shall be limited to 5 minutes at any location (MM 4.2-2b). c) Construction projects within the city shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 limiting the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings (MM 4.2-2c). For any project where earthmoving or ground disturbance activities are proposed at depths that encounter older Quaternary terrace deposits (depths between 15 and 35 feet), a qualified paleontologist shall be present during excavation or earthmoving activities (MM 4.4- 3). d) If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find Page 57 of 440 8 and notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan may include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered (MM 4.4-3). e) For development located at a distance within which acceptable vibration standards pursuant to the Table 4.11-10 of the General Plan Program EIR, included below, the applicant at the time of plan check submittal shall submit a report prepared by a qualified structural engineer demonstrating the following: i. Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would not exceed acceptable levels where damage to structures using vibration levels in Draft EIR Table 4.11-4 as standards. ii. Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration level limits are not exceeded. iii. A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes post‐ construction and post‐ demolition surveys of existing structures that would be impacted. Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or construction include but are not limited to: 1. Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment. 2. Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment. 3. Specifying demolition by non‐impact methods, such as sawing concrete. 4. Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources. 5. Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision- making for subsequent activities (MM 4.11-2). General Plan Program EIR TABLE 4.22-10 Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Page 58 of 440 9 Equipment Vibration Velocity Level at 25 Feet, in/sec Distance from Equipment Within Which Standard is Exceeded Pile driver (impact) 0.158 158 feet Pile driver (sonic) 0.045 68 feet Clam shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.050 74 feet Hydro mill (slurry wall) 0.002-0.006 9-17 feet Vibratory roller 0.050 74 feet Hoe ram 0.022 43 feet Large bulldozer 0.022 43 feet Caisson drilling 0.022 43 feet Loaded trucks 0.020 40 feet Jackhammer 0.009 24 feet Small bulldozer 0.001 5 feet Building Plans: 5. Two copies of a Final Landscape Plan, consistent with landscape plans approved by the Planning Commission, indicating size, type, quantity, and characteristics of landscape materials shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The Final Plan shall also include the following: a) The applicant shall provide a landscape plan to comply with Sections 17.22.060(H), 8.60.060, and 8.60.070 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. b) An automatic landscape sprinkler system consistent with Section 17.22.060(H) shall be provided and shall be shown on plans (Building Permits are required). 6. The plans shall comply with Section 8.44.095 and install permeable surfaces in the driveway, guest parking space and other non-landscaped areas to the maximum extent feasible. If providing water-permeable surfaces on at least 50% of exterior surface area is not feasible and incorporating measures in 8.44.095 to the extent practicable to infiltrate the volume of runoff produced by an 0.80-inch twenty-four (24) hour rain event, then the applicant shall infiltrate runoff on-site. In the event that subsurface Page 59 of 440 10 infiltration is required, plans shall designate the exact location of the subsurface infiltration system, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City (prior to Final map approval) for the ongoing infiltration and provide a surety bond to the City to guarantee that on-site, subsurface infiltration is achieved. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Building Division. All other drainage shall be routed to an off-site facility or on-site permeable area approved by the City. To the extent possible, a portion of roof drainage shall be routed to on-site permeable areas. No drainage shall flow over any driveway or sidewalk. If the drainage of surface waters onto the property requires a sump pump to discharge said waters onto the street, the property owner(s) shall record an agreement to assume the risk associated with use and operation of said sump pump, release the City from any liability, and indemnify the City regarding receipt of surface waters from the property. The recorded agreement must be filed with the City prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The plans and construction shall comply with all requirements of the Building Code in Title 15 and Green Building Standards in Chapter 15.48. Water conservation practices set forth in Section 8.56.070 shall be complied with and noted on construction plans. 8. Two copies of final construction plans, including site, elevation, and floor plans, which are consistent with the conditions of approval of this conditional use permit, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for consistency with Planning Commission approved plans and this Resolution prior to the submittal to the Building Division for Plan Check. 9. The applicant shall submit all required plans and reports to comply with the City’s construction debris recycling program including manifests from both the recycler and County landfill at least 65% of demolition debris associated with demolition of the existing improvements and new construction shall be recycled. 10. The applicant shall pay all Parks and Recreation Facilities Area Dedication fees at the time of building permit issuance. Public Works 11. No new walls or foundation footing will be allowed to be constructed on or over the public right-of-way. 12. A Residential Encroachment Permit is required for any non-conforming structures located over or within the public-right-of way. Page 60 of 440 11 13. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, an approved civil engineering plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer, and approved by Public Works, addressing grading, undergrounding of all utilities, pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements, on-site and off-site drainage (no sheet flow permitted), installation of utility laterals, and all other improvements necessary to comply with the Municipal Code and Public Works specifications, shall be filed with the Community Development Department. 14. Civil engineering plans shall include adjacent properties/structures, sewer laterals, and storm drain main lines on street. 15. Project construction shall protect private and public property in compliance with Sections 15.04.070 and 15.04.140. No work in the public right of way shall commence unless and until all necessary permits are attained from the Public Works Department including if required, an approved Residential or Commercial Encroachment Permit. 16. Sewer manhole/lid elevations must be submitted prior to grading and plan check. 17. Sewer lateral video must be submitted with plan check submittal if the developer plans to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required after review of the sewer lateral video. 18. The project must comply with Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations (HBMC Ch. 8.44) and must implement Low Impact Development Standards and submit at time of grading and plan check along with an erosion control plan. Construction 19. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, abutting property owners and residents within 100 feet of the project site shall be notified of the anticipated date for commencement of construction. a) The procedures for notification shall be provided by the Building and Safey Division of the Community Development Department. b) Building permits will not be issued until the applicant provides an affidavit certifying mailing of the notice. Page 61 of 440 12 20. Project construction shall conform to the Noise Control Ordinance requirements in Section 8.24.050. Allowed hours of construction shall be printed on the building plans and posted at construction site. 21. Traffic control measures, including flagmen, shall be utilized to preserve public health, safety, and welfare. 22. A construction sign shall be posted conspicuously during the course of construction at the project site. Fire: 23. Replacement fire hydrants shall meet the dimensions of, and construction requirements outlined by AWWA standard C503. 24. Relocation of fire hydrants shall include required vehicular clearance be maintained, as provided by California Vehicle Code Chapter 9, Section 22514. Other: 25. Approval of these permits shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided. 26. The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. 27. 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. 28. 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 Page 62 of 440 13 void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. Section 13. This permit shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of, and agree to and accept, all the conditions of this permit. The Precise Development Plan shall be recorded with the Affidavit of Acceptance, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Section 14. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 18th day of March, 2025. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Page 63 of 440 14 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 25-04 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 March 18, 2025. Kate Hirsh, Chair Alexis Oropeza, Secretary ____________________ Date Page 64 of 440 34th St Hi ghl andAve33rd PlThe S t rand Manhat t an AvePalm D r 33rd St 34th Pl Cr es t Dr35th St BayView D r Hermo sa Ave 3 4 th S tLongfell o w A v e 34th Pl 31st Pl 31st S t 32nd Pl 35th Pl Neptun e A v e 35th S t Project Zoning MapPlanning CommissionMarch 18, 2025 Description 3415 Palm Drive APN: 4181-033-017 Zone: R-3 Multiple Family Residential 5-unit project, Precise Development Plan Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) 300' Notification Radius Page 65 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMPROJECT LOCATION:OWNER’S NAME:ADDRESS:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:APN:GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION:LOT AREA:UNIT 1LIVING AREATOTAL BUILDING GARAGE AREADECKS/BALCONIESTOTAL LIVING AREATOTAL DECKS/BALCONIESNO. OF BEDROOMSNO. OF BATHROOMSZONING INFORMATIONAREA:LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNITLOT COVERAGEYARDS:FRONTSIDEREARPARKING AND DRIVEWAYS:NUMBER OF SPACESGUEST SPACESPARKING SETBACKSPARKING STALL DIMENSIONTURNING AREADRIVEWAY WIDTHDRIVEWAY MAXIMUM SLOPEFENCES/WALLS:HEIGHT FROM FINISHED SURFACELINEAL FEETOPEN SPACE:TOTALPRIVATE (PER UNIT)REQUIREDPROVIDEDUNIT 2TEL:ZONING:TOTAL BUILDING AREA:UNIT 3PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE:CUBIC FEET PER UNITBASEMENT QUALIFICATION CALCULATIONBUILDING 11ST LEVEL F.F. ELEVATIONLINEAL FEET (LF) OF PERIMETERLF OF PERIMETER <6’ FROM GRADETO F.F. ABOVE% OF PERIMETER <6’ TO F.F. ABOVEBUILDING 2BUILIDNG 3BUILDING 4UNIT 4UNIT 5LOBBY, ELEVATOR & STAIRSBUILDING COMMON AREAS:(LOW INCOME UNIT)CS-0VICINTY MAPA/C AIR CONDITIONINGACOUS. ACOUSTICALA.D.AREA DRAINA.F.F. ABOVE FIN. FLOORALUM. ALUMINUM@ ATBLDG. BUILDINGBED.BEDROOMBR. BRUSHEDCEM. CEMENTCLG. CEILINGCL. OPNG CLEAR OPENINGC.N. CONSTRUCTION NOTECOL. COLUMNCONC. CONCRETECONT. CONTINUOUSCONTR. CONTRACTORC.T. CERAMIC TILEDET. DETAILD.F. DRINKING FOUNTAINDIA. DIAMETERDIM. DIMENSIONDR. DOORDW. DISHWASHERDWG. DRAWINGELEV. ELEVATIONELEC. ELECTRICALELEVAT. ELEVATOREXIST. EXISTINGF.D. FLOOR DRAINF.E. FIRE EXTINGUISHERF.H.C. FIRE HOSE CABINETF.F. FINISH FACEFIN. FINISHFLR. FLOORFLOUR. FLOURESCENTF.O.S. FACE OF STUDF.W.C. FABRIC WALL COVERINGGA. GAUGEGAL. GALVANIZEDGD. GARBAGE DISPOSALGL. GLASSG.T. GRANITE TILEGYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARDHDWD. HARDWOODHDWR. HARDWAREH.M. HOLLOW METALHGT. HEIGHTH.V.A.C. HEAT., VENT., AIR COND.LAV. LAVATORYMAX. MAXIMUMMTL. METALMFG. MANUFACTURERMIN. MINIMUMMIR. MIRRORM.T. MARBLE TILEMUL. MULLIONMW. MICROWAVEN.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACTN.T.S. NOT TO SCALEO.A. OVER ALLO.C. ON CENTERPART. PARTITIONP.L. PLASTIC LAMINATEPOL. POLISHEDPR. PAIRP.T.PRESSURE TREATEDQ.T. QUARRY TILERAD. RADIUSR/F REFRIGERATOR/ FREEZERREF. REFERENCEREQ. REQUIREDRM. ROOMR.R. RESTROOMS.C. SEPARATE CIRCUITSECT. SECTIONSHT. SHEETSIM. SIMILARSPECS. SPECIFICATIONSS/R STOVE/RANGES.STL. STAINLESS STEELSTD. STANDARDSUSP. SUSPENDEDT.C. TRASH COMPACTORTBD. TO BE DETERMINEDTELE. TELEPHONETHK. THICKTYP. TYPICALU.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEVERT. VERTICALV.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELDVOL. VOLTSV.C.T. VINYL COMP. TILEV.S.F. VINYL SHEET FLOORINGV.W.C. VINYL WALL COVERINGW/ WITHWC. WALL COVERINGABBREVIATIONSCONSULTANTSDENN ENGINEERS3914 Del Amo Blvd, Suite 921Torrance, CA 90503Phone: (310) 542-9433BF DESIGN LLCBoris Flores - Principal118 S. Catalina Ave.Phone: (310) 614-0592email: borisflores73@gmail.comBUILDING DESIGN:STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:TITLE 24 CALCULATIONS:SURVEYOR:SHEET INDEXSOILS ENGINEER:3415 PALM DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254PROPOSED NEW 5-UNITMR. TONY FERRAROGeneral Project InformationTopographic Survey / Parcel MapCivil Plans - Title SheetDemolition PlanGrading & Drainage PlanBasement Subdrain PlanPublic ImprovementsCivil Plans DetailsDriveway profiles & SectionsErosion Control PlanSite PlanEntry Level Floor Plans1st Floor Plan2nd Floor Plan3rd Floor PlanDeck Floor Plan & Roof PlanExterior ElevationsExterior ElevationsCS-0:TS:C-1C-2C-3C-3AC-4C-5C-6C-7A-1.0A-2.0A-2.1A-2.2A-2.3A-3.0A-4.0A-4.13415 PALM DRIVEMR. TONY FERRARO(416) 666-14323417 PALM DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 902544181-033-017LOT 4, BLOCK 101 SHAKESPEARE M.B. 9-190--2,553 SQ.FT. (PER SURVEY)1,961 SQ.FT.600------76.8 %--2.11' & 1.08'------4--38'-6" X 20'-0"9'-0" X 20'-0"N/AN/AN/AN/A12 %2 %6'-0"6'-0"169 FEET----NOT APPLICABLE92292267319386868085483627922922673193868688548301122221122.532014364.12' & 3.13'8.33' & 1.16'Project LocationTBDTBDTBDPERU CONSULTANTS, INC.5061 Rockvalley Rd.Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Phone: (424) 404-7692CIVIL ENGINEER:CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGPage 66 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592TSPage 67 of 440 N 65°02'45"E84.92'N 24°53'19"W 30.07'N 65°04'10"E84.91'N 24°53'19"W 219.52'7.50'7.50'N 24°54'01"W 223.82' N 24°54'01"W30.03'20.00'20.00'PALM DRIVE HERMOSA AVENUE 97 . 9 6 98. 0 0 P C86.5597.70 PC97.6698.2198.42WM97.64 FLWV97 . 7 2PPEBOX97 . 8 4 F L 98.0198. 0 0 WM98.26 GFF98 . 1 3 98.1498. 3 7 98. 4 5 98 . 6 4 98.51 86 . 8 0 86.78 TC86.41 FL86.4886 . 5 3 P C 86 . 7 5 86.36 TC85.89 FL86.03 EG86.34 TX86.41 TX86.42 TC85.98 FL86.06 EG86 . 5 8 CATVGM86 . 7 1 P C87.0586.97 GFF86.47 TX87.83 90. 7 2 T W 91. 6 9 93.76 94.9210 0 . 7 6 T W 95 . 2 3 95 . 5 4 95.75 86 . 5 8 86.50 87.88 87.90 89.88 89.90 92.60 92.5386.3986.4986.9286 . 9 2 87.00 FF86.74 87.97 87.5488. 5 2 T W 90 . 3 8 89.4291.0192.5792.5492.49 91.27 93 . 4 4 93.7595.6495.79 98.29 98.97 98.30 98. 8 2 EM118.76 RIDGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XFOUND L&T RCE 220241.00' W'LY & 0.05' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.50'FOUND L&T NO TAG1.00' W'LY & 0.06' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.62'SET L&T RCE 30826ON PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=97.70'FOUND L&T LS 34470.17' E'LY & 0.04' S'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=98.00'EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING GARAGECONC. GUTTER DRIVEWAY CONC. SIDEWALK 30.03' 30.07'SSMHSTA.2+13.26ELEV 97.58'12.6'98.8bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592L-1.0DNDNDNPLANT LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZEQTY.MATURITY SIZEWATER USAGEAGONIS FLEXUOSAPEPPERMINT WILLOW15 GAL110'-12' HMODERATENANDINA DOMESTICA "GULF STREAM"GULF STREAM HEAVENLY BAMBOO5 GAL636" HLOWPANDOREA JASMINOIDES VARIEGATAVARIEGATED BOWER VINE5 GAL.4MODERATELAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIAENGLISH LAVENDER5 GAL.336" HLOWDYMONDIA MARGARETAEDYMONDIA----FLATMODERATE - LOWLPNRAINBIRD 1/4 NOZZLE RAINBIRD 1/2 NOZZLE RAINBIRD FULL NOZZLE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER LEGEND1/2" PVC1/2" PVC1/2" PVC1/2" PVCPLANTER BUBBLER SYSTEMSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONMODELLINE TYPE8QFLT (90 DEGREE)SXB180025 - XERI-BUBLEER (180 DEGREE)UXB360025 - XERI-BUBLEER (360 DEGREE)RAINBIRD REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITHATMOSPHERIC BACKFLOW PREVENTOR:075-ASVFNIBCO BALL VALVE : T-FB-600ARAINBIRD REMOTE CONTROL ZONE KIT:XACZ-075CHUNTER 15 STATION PRO-C-INDOORIRRIGATION CONTROLLER WITH WIRELESSSOLAR SYNC SENSOR:PC-1500+SOLAR-SYNC-SENRAINBIRD SIDE-STRIPRAINBIRD END-STRIP15SSTA17EST1/2" PVC1/2" PVCSUBSURFACE DRIPNETAFIM TECHLINEEZ6-18IRRIGATION NOTES1. THIS IRRIGATION DESIGN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. ALL PIPING, VALVES, ETC. SHOWNWITHIN PAVED AREAS ARE FOR DESIGN CLARIFICATION ONLY. INSTALL ALLCOMPONENTS IN PLANTING AREAS WHEREVER POSSIBLE.DUE TO THE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO INDICATE ALLOFFSETS, FITTINGS, SLEEVES, ETC., WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTORSHALL CAREFULLY INVESTIGATE THE STRUCTURAL AND FINISHED CONDITIONSAFFECTING ALL OF HIS WORK AND PLAN HIS WORK ACCORDINGLY, FURNISHINGSUCH FITTINGS, ETCH AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO MEET SUCH CONDITIONS.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT WILLFULLY INSTALL THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM ASSHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS IN THE FIELD THAT UNKNOWNOBSTRUCTIONS GRADE DIFFERENCES OR DIFFERENCES IN THE AREA DIMENSIONSEXIST THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE DESIGN OF THE IRRIGATIONSYSTEM.3.SET ALL VALVES AND QUICK COUPLERS NEXT TO WALKS OR PAVED SURFACES INLOCATIONS WITH NO ADJACENT PAVING, COORDINATE FINAL LOCATION WITHOWNER.4. CONTROLLER LOCATION IS DIAGRAMMATIC. OBTAIN FINAL LOCATION APPROVALFROM THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.5. PENDING 120VAC ELECTRICAL POWER SOURCE AT CONTROLLER LOCATION ISNOT A PART OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. COORDINATE POWER REQUIREMENTSWITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER.6. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO BE FAMILIAR WITHTHE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, UTILITIES GRADE DIFFERENCES, LOCATION OFWALLS, ETC. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ALL ITEMSDAMAGED BY HIS WORK. HE SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH OTHERCONTRACTORS FOR THE LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF PIPE SLEEVES ANDLATERALS UNDER ROADWAYS AND PAVING, ETC.7. ALL SPRINKLER EQUIPMENT NOT OTHERWISE DETAILED OR SPECIFIED SHALL BEINSTALLED AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.8. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE NEW SYSTEM HASTHE CORRECT PSI IN ORDER FOR ALL THE VALVES TO OPERATE AS PER PLAN.PERMEABLE PAVERS420 SQ.FT.------Scale :1/8"=1'-0" LANDSCAPE PLANScale :1/8"=1'-0" IRRIGATION PLANI AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEPRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION TO MWELOTONY FERRARO DATEWater Use Calculation:Lot Square Footage :Building Footprint:Exterior Surface Area:Minimum Permeable area required:Permeable Landscape Area:Permeable Pavers Area:Total Permeable Area:Hardscape Area:2,553 sq.ft.1,264 sq.ft. Total Building Footprint1,284 sq.ft. (50% must be permeable andinfiltration device must be provided)642 sq.ft. Minimum109 sq.ft.562 sq.ft.671 sq.ft. > 642 sq.ft. Req'd. = OK613 sq.ft.NNN 65°02'45"E84.92'N 24°53'19"W 30.07'N 65°04'10"E84.91'N 24°53'19"W 219.52'7.50'7.50'N 24°54'01"W 223.82' N 24°54'01"W 30.03'20.00'20.00'PALM DRIVE HERMOSA AVENUE 97 . 9 6 98. 0 0 P C86.5597.70 PC97.6698 . 2 198.42WM97.64 FLWV97.72PPEBOX97 . 8 4 F L 98 . 0 198.00WM98.26 GFF98.1398 . 1 498.3798.4598 . 6 4 98.51 86.8086.78 TC86.41 FL86 . 4 8 86.53 PC86.7586.36 TC85.89 FL86.03 EG86.34 TX86.41 TX86.42 TC85.98 FL86.06 EG86 . 5 8 CATVGM86 . 7 1 P C87.0586.97 GFF86.47 TX87.83 90.72 TW91. 6 9 93.76 94. 9 2 10 0 . 7 6 T W 95 . 2 3 95.5495.7586.5886.50 87.88 87.90 89.88 89.90 92.60 92.5386.3986.4986.9286.9287.00 FF86.74 87.97 87. 5 4 88. 5 2 T W 90.3889 . 4 2 91 . 0 1 92.5792.5492.49 91.27 93.4493.7595.6495.79 98.29 98.97 98.30 98. 8 2 EM118.76 RIDGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XFOUND L&T RCE 220241.00' W'LY & 0.05' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.50'FOUND L&T NO TAG1.00' W'LY & 0.06' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.62'SET L&T RCE 30826ON PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=97.70'FOUND L&T LS 34470.17' E'LY & 0.04' S'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=98.00'EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING GARAGECONC. GUTTER DRIVEWAY CONC. SIDEWALK 30.03' 30.07'SSMHSTA.2+13.26ELEV 97.58'12.6'98.8DNLANDSCAPE NOTES:1.COMPOST: INCORPORATE COMPOST (4 CUBIC YARDS / 1000 SQ.FT.) TO A DEEP OF 6 INCHESINTO LANDSCAPE AREAS.2.MULCH: PROVIDE 3 INCHES LAYER ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS OTHERTHAN TURF OR CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVER.3.AREA LESS THAN 10 FEET IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL UTILIZE SUB-SURFACE IRRIGATION OR OTHERTECHNOLOGY THAT PREVENT OVERSPRAY OR RUNOOF.STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONSSECTION 8.44.095F.Incorporation of Low Impact Development Program Requirements into Project Plans.1. New development and redevelopment projects are required to control pollutants and runoffvolume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area through effective site design and useof water permeable surfaces (e.g., permeable paving or landscaping) to the extent it is technically feasible onnot less than fifty (50) percent of exterior surface areas excluding building footprints, and controlling runoffthrough infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth inthe Municipal NPDES PermitNNLLLNNNNPPPPCHZ #1HZ #22L-1.1MAWA = Maximum Applied Water Allowance (gallons per year)MAWA = (42.00 inches) (0.62) [(0.7 x 217 sq ft) + (0.3 x 0) = 3,955 gallons per yearETWU = (42.00) (0.62) [(48/0.9) +0)] = 1,389 gallons per yearPage 68 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592L-1.1HARDSCAPE SURFACE.MATERIAL AND COMPACTIONTO SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFICTO BE SET IN 6" LIFTS. REFER CONTROL WIRES & COMPUTERLATERAL LINE WITH SLEEVE.HARDWARE WIRE SLEEVE.PRESSURE MAIN LINE WITH CLEAN BACKFILL AS REQUIRED,SLEEVE.CLEAN SAND.REQUIREMENTS.CLEAN BACKFILL MAY BE SUBSTITUTEDFOR SAND UNDER WALKS AND DRIVES.ALL SLEEVES TO RUN A MIN. OF 12" BEYONDTWICE THE DIA. OF THE WORKING PIPE.ALL SLEEVES TO BE PVC. SCH. 40 ANDHARDSCAPE EDGES.MIN. DEPTH: 24" UNDER WALKS.3.336" UNDER STREETS. 30" UNDER DRIVEWAY.NOTES:CLR2"6"6.5.5644.1.2.21LEGENDSECTIONN.T.S.LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION DETAILSTechline® LITE END FEED LAYOUT®®®TWIST OR CRIMP WIRE CONNECTOR.INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'SWATERPROOF WIRE CONNECTOR -SCOTCH SEAL, GEL-TITE, SNAP-TITELOW VOLTAGE WIRINGOR PEN-TITE. INSTALL PERMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONSUV RADIATION RESISTANT RAIN BIRD SPLICE-1 (1 OF 2)WATERPROOF CONNECTION: ID TAG: RAIN BIRD VID SERIES OF WIRE, COILED30-INCH LINEAR LENGTHUV RADIATION RESISTANTREMOTE CONTROL VALVE:FINISH GRADE/TOP OF MULCHPVC LATERAL PIPE±6" PVC SCH 40 MALE ADAPTERPVC SCH 40 ELL (1 OF 2) (1 OF 2)101987642132346879105INSTALL 6-INCH MIN. ABOVE 5 HIGHEST POINT OF DISCHARGE PVC SCH 40 PIPE (1 OF 2) (1 OF 2) RAIN BIRD 100-ASVFPage 69 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592L-1.2Page 70 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-1Page 71 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-2Page 72 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-3Page 73 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-3Page 74 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-4Page 75 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-5Page 76 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-6Page 77 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592C-7Page 78 of 440 N 65°02'45"E84.92'N 24°53'19"W 30.07'N 65°04'10"E84.91'N 24°53'19"W 219.52'7.50'7.50'N 24°54'01"W 223.82' N 24°54'01"W30.03'20.00'20.00'PALM DRIVE HERMOSA AVENUE 97 . 9 6 98. 0 0 P C86.5597.70 PC97.6698.2198.42WM97.64 FLWV97 . 7 2PPEBOX97 . 8 4 F L 98.0198. 0 0 WM98.26 GFF98 . 1 3 98.1498. 3 7 98. 4 5 98 . 6 4 98.51 86 . 8 0 86.78 TC86.41 FL86.4886 . 5 3 P C 86 . 7 5 86.36 TC85.89 FL86.03 EG86.34 TX86.41 TX86.42 TC85.98 FL86.06 EG86 . 5 8 CATVGM86 . 7 1 P C87.0586.97 GFF86.47 TX87.83 90. 7 2 T W 91. 6 9 93.76 94.9210 0 . 7 6 T W 95 . 2 3 95 . 5 4 95.75 86 . 5 8 86.50 87.88 87.90 89.88 89.90 92.60 92.5386.3986.4986.9286 . 9 2 87.00 FF86.74 87.97 87.5488. 5 2 T W 90 . 3 8 89.4291.0192.5792.5492.49 91.27 93 . 4 4 93.7595.6495.79 98.29 98.97 98.30 98. 8 2 EM118.76 RIDGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XFOUND L&T RCE 220241.00' W'LY & 0.05' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.50'FOUND L&T NO TAG1.00' W'LY & 0.06' N'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=86.62'SET L&T RCE 30826ON PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=97.70'FOUND L&T LS 34470.17' E'LY & 0.04' S'LYOF PROP. CORNERTAG ELEV.=98.00'EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING GARAGECONC. GUTTER DRIVEWAY CONC. SIDEWALK 30.03' 30.07'SSMHSTA.2+13.26ELEV 97.58'12.6'98.8bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/8"=1'-0" Proposed Site PlanN3.08' 3.08'2.11'1.08'8.33'1.06'3.13' 4.12' 3.13'LANDSCAPE/PLANTERS AREAONE STORY ELEMENTSITE PLAN LEGENDT.O.P.- TOP OF PILASTERT.D.F.S.T.W.T.C.- FINISH SURFACE- TOP OF FENCE- TOP OF WALL- TOP OF CURB- TRENCH DRAINE.G.- EXISTING GRADEA.D.- AREA DRAINF.G.- FINISH GRADEA-1.0T.F.F.C.- FINISH CONCRETETWO STORY ELEMENTA/CA/CA/CDNDNDNGESOutline Of 5 AC UnitsStacked LocationACCESSIBLE PATHOutline of Deck andThird Floor Line AboveConcrete StepsOn GradeProvide Handrail(5) Electric Meters: 30"Min. Clr. Width, 36"Min. Clr. in Front(5) Gas Meters: 36" Clr.from Electric MeterOutline of Light Wellwith 42" Tall Guardrailat PerimeterOutline of First, SecondFloor and Deck at ThirdFloor Line AboveOutline of First, Secondand Third Floor DeckLine AboveOutline of Third FloorLine AboveOutline of First andSecond Floor Line AboveOutline of Back ofGarage at Entry LevelOutline of Back ofGarage at 1st Floor LevelConcrete StepsOn GradeProvide HandrailOutline of Second andThird Floor Line AboveGUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")Outline of CoveredConcrete Trash AreaFIVE-UNIT RESIDENCEW/ 4 CARGARAGEGUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")GUESTPARKING(8'-6" x 17'-0")17.58'Page 79 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" Entry Level Floor PlanScale :1/4"=1'-0" 1st Floor Plan40'-6"16'-9"11'-0"1'-1"2'-1"3'-1"22'-10"4'-112" 3'-112"10'-4"13'-6"81'-9"13'-11"8'-0"6'-0"14'-1"12'-6"21'-0"8'-4"75'-6"1'-1"12'-6"13'-6"3'-1"11'-4"3'-112"23'-10"6'-0"35'-0"12'-6"21'-0"2'-1"8'-4"3'-11 2"23'-10"3'-1"74'-6"ELEVATORUPUPUPBEDROOMUNIT 1ACCESSIBLEBATHACCESSIBLE UNITKITCHEN2- CAR GARAGELOBBYSTORAGE /MECH. ROOMMECH.ELEV.LIGHTWELL(LOW INCOME)LIVING AREAUPREF.Ø60"W/D5'-0"12'-6"2- COVEREDPARKINGØ60"5'-0" x 1'-6"AWNINGHEIGHT WINDOW3'-0" x 6'-0"CASEMENTEGRESS WINDOW3'-6"3'-6"ELEVATORUPDNA/CA/CA/CDNUNIT 22- CAR GARAGELIGHTWELL BELOWTRASH AREALOBBYKITCHENLIVING AREABEDROOM #1BEDROOM #2W/DDECKDNDNBATH #2BATH #1A-2.0GENERAL LEGENDKEY NOTESUnit 1 Living Area: 600 sq.ft.2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIOR WALLS;2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS AND 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT WALLS BETWEENHOUSE AND GARAGE FOR R-19 INSULATION- U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTH TROWEL CEMENTPLASTER OVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPER OVER SHEATHING AND 5/8"GYPSUM BOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FOR INSULATION REQUIREDLobby Area: 96 sq.ft.Garage: 936 sq.ft.Stairs and Elevator Area: 69 sq.ft.Unit 2 Living Area: 922 sq.ft.Lobby Area: 91 sq.ft.Garage Area: 500 sq.ft.ACCESSIBLE PATHACCESSIBLE PATH2'-0"18'-0"3'-10"Page 80 of 440 ELEVATORUPDNLOBBYKITCHENLIVING AREABEDROOM #1BEDROOM #2BATH #2BATH #1W/DDECKUNIT 3LIVING AREAUNIT 4KITCHENLAUNDRYBATHBEDROOMDECKDWbfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" 2nd Floor PlanScale :1/4"=1'-0" 3rd Floor Plan13'-11"8'-0"6'-0"14'-1"12'-6"82'-9"1'-1"12'-6"3'-1"11'-4"3'-112"23'-10"35'-0"12'-6"4'-6"2'-1"81'-9"6'-0"10'-9"7'-0"6'-0"1'-1"15'-3"13'-0"3'-112"9'-6"2'-4"12'-0"3'-1" 23'-10"1'-1"10'-0"31'-6"9'-6"9'-6"8'-0"14'-3"1'-1"82'-9"3'-1"23'-10"3'-112"2'-1"9'-0"12'-6"12'-3"7'-2"6'-6"11'-6"14'-3"3'-11 2"4'-0"14'-4"3'-1" 23'-10"81'-9"ELEVATORDNDWDECKKITCHENFOYER HALLBATH #2BEDROOM #2MASTERBEDROOMPANTRYLAUNDRYPOWDERROOMGREAT ROOMUNIT 5D.W.MASTERBATHROOMUPSTORAGEREF.LOWER LINEAL FIRE PLACEBUILT-IN5'-6" 11'-4"12'-6"GENERAL LEGENDA-2.1KEY NOTES2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS - U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTH TROWEL CEMENT PLASTEROVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPER OVER SHEATHING AND 5/8" GYPSUMBOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FOR INSULATION REQUIREDUnit 3 Living Area: 922 sq.ft.Lobby Area: 91 sq.ft.Unit 4 Living Area: 673 sq.ft.Unit 5 Living Area: 1,640 sq.ft. at 3rd Floor +298 sq.ft. at Roof DeckTotal Living: 1,938 sq.ft.3'-4"5'-3"Page 81 of 440 bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592Scale :1/4"=1'-0" Roof Deck Floor PlanELEVATORDNOPENOPENOPENROOF DECKFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFFAUW/HHPFAUW/HHPOFFICEUPPER HALLScale :1/4"=1'-0" Roof Plan1'-1"16'-0"13'-0"13'-0"27'-9"3'-1"2'-6"5'-312"1'-6"3'-212"2'-012"5'-312"2'-6"3'-112" 3'-1"6'-10"13'-6"3'-6"3'-112"2'-1"15'-0"13'-0"26'-0"27'-9"1'-1"1'-1"16'-0"25'-6"13'-6"27'-9"3'-1"6'-10"13'-6"3'-6"3'-112"2'-1"21'-6"19'-0"13'-6"27'-9"1'-1"1'-6"3'-1"2'-6"5'-312"1'-6"3'-212"2'-012"5'-312"2'-6"3'-112"1'-6"A-3.0GENERAL LEGEND2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. AT INTERIOR WALLS, 2x6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. AT EXTERIORWALLS AND 2x6 MIN. @ 16" O.C. AT PLUMBING WALLS - U.N.O. - 7/8" SMOOTHTROWEL CEMENT PLASTER OVER 2 LAYERS OF 30# GRADE D BUILDING PAPEROVER SHEATHING AND 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD AT INTERIOR SIDE - SEE T-24 FORINSULATION REQUIREDRoof Deck Area: 245 sq.ft.KEY NOTESROOF DECK FINISH OVER WATERPROOFING DEX-O-TEX ESR-1757INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS OVER METAL FLASHING, OVER DECKSHEATHING AND LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WHERE OCCURS.IB PVC FLAT ROOFING SYSTEM -CLASS "A" LARR # 25961; ESR-2852;CRRC No. 0640-00052 % SLOPE MINIMUM TO DRAINCONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WATERPROOFINGAND DRAINAGE SLOPE PATTERN AND ADJUST ASNEEDED FOR BETTER DRAINAGE AND WATERPROOFINGOPENOPENOPENROOF DECKFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOFFLAT ROOF13'-0"Page 82 of 440 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0"53'-9" 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 42'-6"111222245555669577101112131415151718P.C.98.00F.F. ELV.98.25F.F. ELV.88.00'P.C.86.71SOUTH NEIGHBOR'SPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 53'-9"2222255766778121414@ Garage Door87.00' P.C.86.53P.C.86.71FINIISH SURFACES12345678GLASS GUARDRAIL 42" ABOVE DECK - BY FRAMELESS HARDWARE COMPANY LLC -ESR-4814 - OR SIMILAR - SEE9107/8" CEMENT PLASTER - SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH - COLOR TO FOLLOWCHIMNEY CAP - SMOOTH STUCCO FINISHSTAIN GRADE WOOD CORBELCAST STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM MOLDINGSTAIN GRADE BERMUDA WOOD SHUTTERSHAPED STUCCO WING WALLSTAIN GRADE RECESSED WOOD PANELINGFUR-OUT FRAMED STUCCO SURROUND WALLSTAIN GRADE WOOD HORIZONTAL TRIM1112ALUMINUM CLAD SLIDING FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOORMANUFACTURER - SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE1314No. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE WEEP SCREED - SEE DETAIL15STONE VENEER - SPECIFICATIONS TO FOLLOWMOSAIC TILE - SPECIFICATION TO FOLLOWWROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL - SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOFABRICATIONALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER- SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE16ALUMINUM CLAD FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER - SEEFLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULEOUTLINE OF FINISHED FLOOR BELOW GRADE1718bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592A-4.0Page 83 of 440 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 10'-0"9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 53'-9" 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0"42'-6"11122555667778212151515161618F.F. ELV.98.25P.C.97.70P.C.86.53NORTH NEIGHBOR'SADJACENT GRADE LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 9'-0"9'-0"10'-0"9'-0" 42'-6"115915151718F.F. ELV.98.25P.C.97.70P.C.98.00FINIISH SURFACES12345678GLASS GUARDRAIL 42" ABOVE DECK - BY FRAMELESS HARDWARE COMPANY LLC -ESR-4814 - OR SIMILAR - SEE9107/8" CEMENT PLASTER - SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH - COLOR TO FOLLOWCHIMNEY CAP - SMOOTH STUCCO FINISHSTAIN GRADE WOOD CORBELCAST STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM MOLDINGSTAIN GRADE BERMUDA WOOD SHUTTERSHAPED STUCCO WING WALLSTAIN GRADE RECESSED WOOD PANELINGFUR-OUT FRAMED STUCCO SURROUND WALLSTAIN GRADE WOOD HORIZONTAL TRIM1112ALUMINUM CLAD SLIDING FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOORMANUFACTURER - SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE1314No. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE WEEP SCREED - SEE DETAIL15STONE VENEER - SPECIFICATIONS TO FOLLOWMOSAIC TILE - SPECIFICATION TO FOLLOWWROUGHT IRON GUARDRAIL - SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TOFABRICATIONALUMINUM CLAD WINDOW - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER- SEE FLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE16ALUMINUM CLAD FRENCH DOORS - CONSULT WINDOW / DOOR MANUFACTURER - SEEFLOOR PLANS & WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULEOUTLINE OF FINISHED FLOOR BELOW GRADE1718bfTony Ferraro 3415 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 ProSosed 5-8nit for : 118 S. Catalina Ave. Suite E Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Tel: (310)614-0592A-4.1Page 84 of 440 State of California GOVERNMENT CODE Section 65589.5 65589.5. (a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (A) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. (B) California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing. (C) Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration. (D) Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects. (2) In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following: (A) California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives. (B) While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. (C) The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability. (D) According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025. (E) California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions. STATE OF CALIFORNIAAUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL Page 85 of 440 (F) Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. (G) The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent. (H) When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees. (I) An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences. (J) California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section. (K) The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. (L) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (4) It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments removing provisions from subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) and adding those provisions to Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2 by Assembly Bill 1413 (2023), insofar as they are substantially the same as existing law, shall be considered restatements and continuations of existing law, and not new enactments. (b) It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d). (c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away Page 86 of 440 from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (d) For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. Page 87 of 440 (4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. (A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (f) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8) of this subdivision, and subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency Page 88 of 440 from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. Nothing in this section shall limit a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915. (2) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project. (3) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter. (4) For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (5) For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project: (A) A local agency may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and those shall apply. Page 89 of 440 (B) (i) Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following: (I) Render the project infeasible. (II) Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. (ii) The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying with clause (i). (C) (i) A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915. (ii) For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential density or base density means the density permitted for a builder’s remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iii) A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iv) A project that dedicates units to extremely low-income households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards as provided to a housing development project that dedicates three percentage points more units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 65915. (v) All units dedicated to extremely low-income, very low income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant to paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915. (D) (i) The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (ii) The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the same type and density proposed by the applicant. (iii) Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose. (E) A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to, Page 90 of 440 increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. (F) (i) A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123. (ii) A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (G) (i) (I) If the local agency had a local affordable housing requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency may require a housing development for mixed-income households to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other aspect of the local affordable housing requirement. (II) Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing requirements shall not be applied to require housing for mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the units to affordable units of any kind. (III) Housing for mixed-income households that is required to dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV) A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income households to comply with the local percentage requirement or affordability level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that compliance with the local percentage requirement or the affordability level, or both, would not render the housing development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required to comply with that requirement. (ii) Affordable units in the development project shall have a comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units. (iii) Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law. (7) (A) For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary Page 91 of 440 application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025. (B) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more. (8) A housing development project proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently updated and adopted housing element, and that is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (6) and paragraph (9). (9) For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project. (g) This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem. (h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: (1) “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following: (A) Residential units only. (B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions: (i) At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use. (ii) At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the following: (I) The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. Page 92 of 440 (II) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (iii) At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all of the following: (I) The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II) The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use. (III) The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing nonresidential uses on the site. (IV) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing. (D) Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) (A) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. (B) “Housing for lower income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (C) (i) “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of the following: (I) A housing development project in which at least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. (II) A housing development project in which at least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (III) A housing development project in which at least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV) A housing development project in which there are 10 or fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, Page 93 of 440 that is on a site that is smaller than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum density of 10 units per acre. (ii) All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall meet both of the following: (I) The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (II) The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years. (D) “Housing for moderate-income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (4) “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (5) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the application is not complete. (6) “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does any of the following: (A) Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (B) Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. (C) Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. (D) Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if all of the following conditions are met: (i) The project applicant provides written notice detailing the challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local agency established under Section 65100. (ii) Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice on the local agency’s internet Page 94 of 440 website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. (iii) The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written notice and shall not make a determination until at least 60 days after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency pursuant to clause (i). (iv) Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements: (I) The findings articulate an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary. (II) The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing. (v) (I) If a local agency continues the challenged course of conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that its course of conduct does not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant. (II) If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph. (vi) A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. (E) Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. (F) (i) Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943 and includes in the determination an item that is not required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist. Page 95 of 440 (ii) In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was not identified in the initial determination and upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified in the initial determination. (iii) Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has submitted all of the items required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (iv) If a local agency determines that an application is incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval of a housing development project under this section. (G) Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (f). (H) Makes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1. (I) (i) Fails to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.1 are satisfied. (ii) This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (J) (i) Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.2 are satisfied. (ii) This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (7) (A) For purposes of this section and Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2, “lawful determination” means any final decision about whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 or subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.2. (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (8) “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. Page 96 of 440 (9) Until January 1, 2030, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (10) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. (11) “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all of the following criteria: (A) The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. (B) On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article. (C) The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions: (i) The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (I) Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2. (II) Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. (III) The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I) One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (II) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). (III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. (D) (i) On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than the minimum density required on the site. (I) For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. Page 97 of 440 (II) For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. (ii) On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or one-half of the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower. (E) The project site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. (12) “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing development project, or attempting to subject it to, development standards, conditions, or policies. (13) “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. (14) “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses. (i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the housing development project’s application is complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the requirements of subdivision (o). (j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: Page 98 of 440 (A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (2) (A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows: (i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. (ii) Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units. (B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. (3) For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. Page 99 of 440 (k) (1) (A) (i) The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii): (I) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section. (II) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section. (III) (ia) Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2030. (IV) The local agency violated a provision of this section applicable to a builder’s remedy project. (ii) If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of the following instances: (I) The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. (II) (ia) In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) or (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval. (ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (B) Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within the time period prescribed Page 100 of 440 by the court, the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of the fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. (C) If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. (D) Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section. Page 101 of 440 (l) If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court has previously found that the local agency violated this section within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit. (m) (1) Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. (2) (A) A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within the time period set forth in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 after the applicant’s timely written notice. (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (3) (A) A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written notice. (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (n) In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of Page 102 of 440 preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. (o) (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances: (A) In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction. (B) A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. (C) Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (D) The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph: (i) “Affordable housing project” means a housing development that satisfies both of the following requirements: (I) Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (II) All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (ii) “Final approval” means that the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met: (I) The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. Page 103 of 440 (II) If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project. (E) The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (3) This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. (4) For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. (5) This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section. (6) This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (7) With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. (8) (A) This subdivision shall apply to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 before January 1, 2030. (B) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2034. (p) (1) Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes the award appropriate, shall give due weight Page 104 of 440 to the degree to which the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the suitability of the site for a housing development, and the reasonableness of the decision of the local agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project that satisfies conditions established in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 or paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.2. (2) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (q) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act. (r) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. (Amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 268, Sec. 2.5. (AB 1893) Effective January 1, 2025. Inoperative January 1, 2031, pursuant to Sec. 1 of Stats. 2023, Ch. 768. ) Page 105 of 440 Assembly Bill No. 1893 CHAPTER 268 An act to amend Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, relating to land use. [Approved by Governor September 19, 2024. Filed with Secretary of State September 19, 2024.] legislative counsel’s digest AB 1893, Wicks. Housing Accountability Act: housing disapprovals: required local findings. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. Existing law, commonly referred to as the Housing Element Law, prescribes requirements for a city’s or county’s preparation of, and compliance with, its housing element, and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to review and determine whether the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element Law, as specified. Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. Among these conditions, the act allows a local agency to disapprove a housing development project that is inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinances and general plan land use designation as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, if the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element that is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, as specified. This bill would make various changes to that condition. The bill would specify that a local agency may disapprove or condition approval of a housing development project or emergency shelter, as described above, if the local agency makes written findings that on the date the application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project, as defined. Existing law defines various terms for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act. Among these terms, the act defines “housing development project” to mean a use consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least 2⁄3 of the square footage designated for residential use, or 89 STATE OF CALIFORNIAAUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL Page 106 of 440 transitional or supportive housing. The act also defines the term “disapprove the housing development project” to include, among other things, any instance in which a local agency votes on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved. The act also defines the term “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” as provided. This bill would revise the definition of “housing development project” to (1) expand the scope of mixed-use developments that qualify under that definition and (2) include farmworker housing, as defined, within that definition. The bill would also revise the definition of “disapprove the housing development project” to (1) include any instance in which a local agency takes final administrative action on the application and the application is disapproved and (2) additionally provide that a local agency disapproves the project if it undertakes specified acts, including failing to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if certain conditions are met, and failing to comply with specified law. The bill would also recast the definition of the term “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” to mean housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. The bill would add various definitions, including “housing for lower income households,” “housing for mixed-income households,” and “housing for moderate-income households.” Existing law authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development complies with certain objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development is compliant with the maximum density allowed within that land use designation. Existing law, the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, until January 1, 2033, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including satisfying specified density thresholds. The act makes a development that meets those objective standards and affordability and site criteria a use by right and subject to a streamlined, ministerial review process. This bill would prescribe requirements that apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project, including that a builder’s remedy project is deemed to be in compliance with specified residential density standards and specified objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards necessary for the streamlined, ministerial approval processes described above. By imposing additional duties on local agencies with respect to the review and approval of builder’s remedy projects, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The Housing Accountability Act authorizes certain persons to bring an action to enforce the act’s provisions and requires a court to order certain relief if the court makes certain findings. 89 — 2 — Ch. 268 Page 107 of 440 This bill would require court to order the relief referenced above if the court finds that the local agency violated the builder’s remedy project provisions described above. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by AB 1413 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1413 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) California has an ongoing statewide housing shortage crisis. The legislative findings, declarations, and intent set forth in Section 65580, Section 65581, and subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code are reiterated and incorporated here by reference. (b) In addition, according to the latest update to the Statewide Housing Plan, updated every four years as required by law under Section 50423 of the Health and Safety Code, recent data confirms a need to plan for a minimum of 2,500,000 homes statewide over the next eight-year cycle, including at least 643,352 homes for very low income households, 384,910 homes for low-income households, 420,814 homes for moderate-income households, and 1,051,177 homes for above moderate-income households (Department of Housing and Community Development, A Home for Every Californian: 2022 Statewide Housing Plan (March 2022) available at https://statewide-housing-plan-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com). (c) The state’s statutory housing objectives are not attainable absent the timely cooperation of all local governments, including charter cities, to update and faithfully implement their housing elements without delay. Indeed, the Legislature has long recognized the role local governments have to use the powers vested in them to meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. (d) Relatedly, one of the most efficient and effective means of assuring cooperation from local governments in achieving the statewide goal of planning and permitting enough housing so that supply can meet demand is an effective self-executing remedy that housing developers can avail themselves of when local housing elements are not timely updated and implemented. (e) To achieve the state’s statutory housing objective, the Legislature has amended the Housing Element Law, as set forth in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to reflect the complexities of existing land use 89 Ch. 268 — 3 — Page 108 of 440 practices and economic realities, and to prompt local governments to timely adopt and implement their updated housing elements. (f) While the Legislature has, in recent years, modernized and updated many provisions in the Housing Element Law, provisions setting forth remedial measures that do not require judicial intervention have largely been left untouched. (g) Although the Legislature recognizes and continues to believe that each locality is best capable of determining how it should meet and address its share of regional housing needs, current land use permitting practices continue to hinder the state’s statutory housing objectives in increasing housing supply to meet demand. (h) Harmonizing the interests of all state and local agencies to eliminate counterproductive actions—such as by prohibiting overly burdensome land use controls, while providing clear guidance at the state level as to the implementation of self-executing remedies—is essential to attaining the state’s statutory housing objectives. (i) Self-executing remedies, such as the existing “builder’s remedy” provision set forth in the Housing Accountability Act, can be more effectively deployed by the private sector to develop more housing projects of all levels of affordability, and would encourage local agencies to adopt and implement housing elements in a timely fashion, if the Legislature provides clearer guidance to obviate the need for judicial intervention, and would lower barriers to economic feasibility. To that end, the amendments set forth in this act with respect to “builder’s remedy” projects are intended to provide greater clarity of existing law, and should not be interpreted as constraints on or impediments to processing current “builder’s remedy” project applications deemed complete. (j) Absent statewide measures to promote the immediate production of new homes, the imbalance between supply and demand in housing will likely continue in the foreseeable future. Left unabated, the unmet demand will lead to even higher housing costs. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office report, California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences (2015), California needs to produce around 210,000 market rate units annually “to seriously mitigate its problems with housing affordability.” Moreover, considerable evidence shows that: new market-rate housing improves overall housing affordability at the statewide, regional, local, and neighborhood levels; when new market-rate production is significantly constrained relative to existing and future demand, existing housing units come under gentrification pressure; and robust market-rate housing production does not, absent demolishing existing affordable housing units, cause displacement of low-income households (Legislative Analyst’s Office, Perspectives on Helping Low-Income Californians Afford Housing (2016) and Chapple, Hwang, Jeon, Zhang, Greenberg, and Shrimali, Housing Market Interventions and Residential Mobility in the San Francisco Bay Area, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Community Development Working Paper 2022-1 (2022); doi: 10.24148/cdwp2022-01). Other recent studies confirm that building new market-rate housing has a positive impact 89 — 4 — Ch. 268 Page 109 of 440 on increasing more housing opportunities for lower income households (Mast, “JUE Insight: The Effect of New Market-Rate Housing Construction on the Low-Income Housing Market” (2023) 133 Journal of Urban Economics; doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2021.103383). (k) The provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, the entirety of the Housing Accountability Act, including the amendments set forth below to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, continues to apply to all cities and counties, including charter cities. SEC. 2. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65589.5. (a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (A) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. (B) California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing. (C) Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration. (D) Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects. (2) In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following: (A) California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives. (B) While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. (C) The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability. 89 Ch. 268 — 5 — Page 110 of 440 (D) According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025. (E) California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions. (F) Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. (G) The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent. (H) When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees. (I) An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences. (J) California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section. (K) The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. (L) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (b) It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d). 89 — 6 — Ch. 268 Page 111 of 440 (c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (d) For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. 89 Ch. 268 — 7 — Page 112 of 440 (B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. (A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. 89 — 8 — Ch. 268 Page 113 of 440 (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (f) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8) of this subdivision, and subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. Nothing in this section shall limit a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915. (2) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project. (3) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter. (4) For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (5) For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. 89 Ch. 268 — 9 — Page 114 of 440 (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project: (A) A local agency may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and those shall apply. (B) (i) Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following: (I) Render the project infeasible. (II) Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. (ii) The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying with clause (i). (C) (i) A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915. (ii) For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential density or base density means the density permitted for a builder’s remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iii) A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iv) A project that dedicates units to extremely low-income households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards as provided to a housing development project that dedicates three percentage points more units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 65915. (v) All units dedicated to extremely low-income, very low income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant to paragraph (11) 89 — 10 — Ch. 268 Page 115 of 440 of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915. (D) (i) The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (ii) The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the same type and density proposed by the applicant. (iii) Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose. (E) A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. (F) (i) A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123. (ii) A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (G) (i) (I) If the local agency had a local affordable housing requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency may require a housing development for mixed-income households to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other aspect of the local affordable housing requirement. (II) Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing requirements shall not be applied to require housing for mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the units to affordable units of any kind. (III) Housing for mixed-income households that is required to dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV) A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income households to comply with the local percentage requirement or affordability 89 Ch. 268 — 11 — Page 116 of 440 level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that compliance with the local percentage requirement or the affordability level, or both, would not render the housing development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required to comply with that requirement. (ii) Affordable units in the development project shall have a comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units. (iii) Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law. (7) (A) For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025. (B) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more. (8) A housing development project proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently updated and adopted housing element, and that is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (6) and paragraph (9). (9) For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with 89 — 12 — Ch. 268 Page 117 of 440 Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project. (g) This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem. (h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: (1) “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following: (A) Residential units only. (B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions: (i) At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use. (ii) At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the following: (I) The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (iii) At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all of the following: (I) The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II) The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use. (III) The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing nonresidential uses on the site. (IV) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing. (D) Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) (A) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. (B) “Housing for lower income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable cost, as defined by 89 Ch. 268 — 13 — Page 118 of 440 Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (C) (i) “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of the following: (I) A housing development project in which at least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. (II) A housing development project in which at least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (III) A housing development project in which at least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV) A housing development project in which there are 10 or fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, that is on a site that is smaller than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum density of 10 units per acre. (ii) All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall meet both of the following: (I) The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (II) The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years. (D) “Housing for moderate-income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (4) “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (5) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a 89 — 14 — Ch. 268 Page 119 of 440 preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the application is not complete. (6) “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does any of the following: (A) Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (B) Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. (C) Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. (D) Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if all of the following conditions are met: (i) The project applicant provides written notice detailing the challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local agency established under Section 65100. (ii) Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice on the local agency’s internet website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. (iii) The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written notice and shall not make a determination until at least 60 days after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency pursuant to clause (i). (iv) Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements: (I) The findings articulate an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary. (II) The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing. (v) (I) If a local agency continues the challenged course of conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency shall bear the burden of 89 Ch. 268 — 15 — Page 120 of 440 establishing that its course of conduct does not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant. (II) If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph. (vi) A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. (E) Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. (F) (i) Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943 and includes in the determination an item that is not required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist. (ii) In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was not identified in the initial determination and upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified in the initial determination. (iii) Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has submitted all of the items required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (iv) If a local agency determines that an application is incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval of a housing development project under this section. (G) Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (f). (H) Makes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1. 89 — 16 — Ch. 268 Page 121 of 440 (I) (i) Fails to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in this subparagraph, if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (I) There is substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is not located in either of the following: (ia) On a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, or subparagraphs (E) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (ib) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. (II) The housing development project is located on a legal parcel or parcels within an urbanized area and meets one or more of the following criteria: (ia) The housing development project is located within one-half mile walking distance to either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop. (ib) The housing development project is located in a very low vehicle travel area. (ic) The housing development project is proximal to six or more amenities pursuant to subclause (IV) of clause (ii) as of the date of submission of the application for the project. (id) Parcels that are developed with urban uses adjoin at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the project site or at least three sides of a four-sided project site. For purposes of this clause, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (III) The density of the housing development project meets or exceeds 15 dwelling units per acre. (IV) Both of the following criteria are met: (ia) There is substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is eligible for an exemption sought by the applicant. (ib) If the exemption sought by the applicant is subject to an exception under the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15000) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations), there is substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2 of those guidelines. (V) (ia) The applicant has given timely written notice to the local agency of the action or inaction that the applicant believes constitutes a failure to make a determination or an abuse of discretion, as defined in this subparagraph, and the local agency did not make a lawful determination 89 Ch. 268 — 17 — Page 122 of 440 within 90 days of the applicant’s written notice. The applicant’s written notice shall contain all of the following: (Ia) The information specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 15062 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. (Ib) A citation to the section of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations or the statute under which the applicant asserts that the project is exempt. (Ic) A brief statement of reasons supporting the assertion that the project is exempt. (Id) A copy of the excerpts from the record constituting substantial evidence that the criteria of subclauses (I) to (IV), inclusive, are satisfied. (ib) Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice required by sub-subclause (ia), the local agency shall file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Compliance with this sub-subclause is not a condition that must be satisfied in order to find that the local agency has disapproved the housing development project under this subparagraph. (ic) The local agency may, by providing a written response to the applicant within 90 additional days of the applicant’s written notice, extend the time period to make a lawful determination by no more than 90 days if the extension is necessary to determine if there is substantial evidence in the record that the housing development project is eligible for the exemption sought by the applicant. (id) If the local agency has given the applicant written notice of the local agency’s determination that the project is not exempt, the applicant’s notice shall be deemed timely if and only if it is delivered to the local agency within 35 days of the date that the local agency gave the applicant notice of the local agency’s determination. (ie) If the local agency has not given the applicant the written notice described in sub-subclause (id), the applicant’s notice shall be deemed timely if given after 60 days from the date on which the project application has been received and accepted as complete by the lead agency, or 60 days from the date on which the project application has been determined or deemed to be complete within the meaning of Section 65943, whichever is earlier. (ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the following definitions apply: (I) “Abuse of discretion” means that the conditions set forth in subclauses (I) to (IV), inclusive, of clause (i) are satisfied, but the local agency does not determine that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). This subclause sets forth the exclusive definition of “abuse of discretion” for purposes of this subparagraph. (II) “High-quality transit corridor” has the same meaning defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. 89 — 18 — Ch. 268 Page 123 of 440 (III) “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (IV) “Proximal” to an amenity means either of the following: (ia) Within one-half mile of either of the following amenities: (Ia) A bus station. (Ib) A ferry terminal. (ib) Within one mile, or for a parcel in a rural area, as defined in Section 50199.21 of the Health and Safety Code, within two miles, of any of the following amenities: (Ia) A supermarket or grocery store. (Ib) A public park. (Ic) A community center. (Id) A pharmacy or drugstore. (Ie) A medical clinic or hospital. (If) A public library. (Ig) A school that maintains a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (V) “Urbanized area” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21071 of the Public Resources Code. (VI) (ia) “Very low vehicle travel area” means an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. (ib) For purposes of sub-subclause (ia), “area” may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or grid. (ic) For the purposes of determining “regional vehicle miles traveled per capita” pursuant to sub-subclause (ia), a “region” is the entirety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning organization, or the entirety of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization. (iii) This subparagraph shall not be construed to require a local agency to determine that a project is exempt if, on the record before the local agency, the project is not eligible for exemption. (iv) This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (J) Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (i) There is substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the site of the housing development project is not located on either of the following: 89 Ch. 268 — 19 — Page 124 of 440 (I) On a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, or subparagraphs (E) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (II) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code. (ii) The housing development project is located on a legal parcel or parcels within an urbanized area and meets one or more of the following criteria: (I) The housing development project is located within one-half mile walking distance to either a high-quality transit corridor or a major transit stop. (II) The housing development project is located in a very low vehicle travel area. (III) The housing development project is proximal to six or more amenities pursuant to subclause (IV) of clause (vii) as of the date of submission of the application for the project. (IV) Parcels that are developed with urban uses adjoin at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the project site or at least three sides of a four-sided project site. For purposes of this clause, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (iii) The density of the housing development project meets or exceeds 15 dwelling units per acre. (iv) There has been prepared a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document that, if duly adopted, approved, or certified by the local agency, would satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) with respect to the project. (v) The local agency or a body or official to which the agency has delegated authority to adopt, approve, or certify the negative declaration addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document has held a meeting at which adoption, approval, or certification of the environmental review document was on the agenda and the environmental review document could have been adopted, approved, or certified, as applicable, but the agency did either of the following: (I) Committed an abuse of discretion, as defined in this subparagraph. (II) Failed to decide whether to require further study or to adopt, approve, or certify the environmental document. (vi) (I) The applicant has given timely written notice to the local agency of the action or inaction that the applicant believes constitutes a failure to decide or an abuse of discretion, and the local agency did not make a lawful determination about whether to adopt, approve, or certify the environmental review document within 90 days of the applicant’s written notice. The applicant’s written notice shall include a copy of those excerpts from the 89 — 20 — Ch. 268 Page 125 of 440 record that constitute substantial evidence that the criteria of clauses (i) to (iv), inclusive, are satisfied. (II) If the local agency has voted to require further study, rather than adopting, approving, or certifying the negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document in the form it was presented for the agency’s consideration, the applicant’s notice shall be deemed timely if and only if it is delivered to the local agency within 35 days of the date that the local agency gave written notice of its decision to the applicant. (III) If the local agency has not voted to require further study, rather than adopting, approving, or certifying the negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document in the form it was presented for the agency’s consideration, the applicant’s notice shall be deemed timely if given after the time period specified in Section 21151.5 of the Public Resources Code or another applicable provision of that code for completing the addendum, negative declaration, environmental impact report, or other comparable environmental review document, as applicable, has passed. If the Public Resources Code does not specifically describe the deadline to complete the applicable environmental document, a 180-day deadline is the applicable time period. (vii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the following definitions apply: (I) (ia) “Abuse of discretion” means either of the following: (Ia) If the local agency fails to adopt a negative declaration, “abuse of discretion” means that the agency, in bad faith or without substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that further environmental study is necessary to identify or analyze potentially significant impacts on the physical environment, decided to require further environmental study rather than adopting the negative declaration. (Ib) If the local agency fails to adopt an addendum for the project, certify an environmental impact report for the project, or approve another comparable environmental document, “abuse of discretion” means that the agency, in bad faith or without substantial evidence in the record that further environmental study is legally required to identify or analyze potentially significant impacts on the physical environment, decided to require further environmental study rather than adopting, approving, or certifying the environmental review document. (ib) This subclause sets forth the exclusive definition of “abuse of discretion” for purposes of this subparagraph. (II) “High-quality transit corridor” has the same meaning defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. (III) “Major transit stop” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (IV) “Proximal” to an amenity means either of the following: (ia) Within one-half mile of either of the following amenities: (Ia) A bus station. (Ib) A ferry terminal. 89 Ch. 268 — 21 — Page 126 of 440 (ib) Within one mile, or for a parcel in a rural area, as defined in Section 50199.21 of the Health and Safety Code, within two miles, of any of the following amenities: (Ia) A supermarket or grocery store. (Ib) A public park. (Ic) A community center. (Id) A pharmacy or drugstore. (Ie) A medical clinic or hospital. (If) A public library. (Ig) A school that maintains a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. (V) “Urbanized area” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21071 of the Public Resources Code. (VI) (ia) “Very low vehicle travel area” means an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. (ib) For purposes of sub-subclause (ia), “area” may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or grid. (ic) For the purposes of determining “regional vehicle miles traveled per capita” pursuant to sub-subclause (ia), a “region” is the entirety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning organization, or the entirety of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization. (viii) This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (7) (A) For purposes of this section, “lawful determination” means any final decision about whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) or clause (vii) of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6). (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (8) “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. (9) Until January 1, 2030, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. (10) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. 89 — 22 — Ch. 268 Page 127 of 440 (11) “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all of the following criteria: (A) The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. (B) On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article. (C) The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions: (i) The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (I) Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2. (II) Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. (III) The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I) One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (II) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). (III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. (D) (i) On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than the minimum density required on the site. (I) For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. (II) For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. (ii) On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or 89 Ch. 268 — 23 — Page 128 of 440 one-half of the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower. (E) The project site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. (12) “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing development project, or attempting to subject it to, development standards, conditions, or policies. (13) “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. (14) “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses. (i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the housing development project’s application is complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the requirements of subdivision (o). (j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified 89 — 24 — Ch. 268 Page 129 of 440 written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (2) (A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows: (i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. (ii) Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units. (B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. (3) For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. (k) (1) (A) (i) The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii): 89 Ch. 268 — 25 — Page 130 of 440 (I) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section. (II) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section. (III) (ia) Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2030. (IV) The local agency violated a provision of this section applicable to a builder’s remedy project. (ii) If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of the following instances: (I) The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. (II) (ia) In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) or (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval. (ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (B) Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within the time period prescribed by the court, the court shall impose fines on a local agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. 89 — 26 — Ch. 268 Page 131 of 440 The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. (C) If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. (D) Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section. (l) If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, the court, in addition to any 89 Ch. 268 — 27 — Page 132 of 440 other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court has previously found that the local agency violated this section within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit. (m) (1) Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. (2) (A) A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within the time period set forth in subclause (V) of clause (i) of that subparagraph after the applicant’s timely written notice. (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (3) (A) A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written notice. (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (n) In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has 89 — 28 — Ch. 268 Page 133 of 440 been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. (o) (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances: (A) In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction. (B) A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. (C) Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (D) The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph: (i) “Affordable housing project” means a housing development that satisfies both of the following requirements: (I) Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (II) All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (ii) “Final approval” means that the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met: (I) The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for challenging that final 89 Ch. 268 — 29 — Page 134 of 440 approval without an appeal, petition, request for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. (II) If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project. (E) The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (3) This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. (4) For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. (5) This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section. (6) This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (7) With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. (8) (A) This subdivision shall apply to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 before January 1, 2030. (B) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2034. 89 — 30 — Ch. 268 Page 135 of 440 (p) (1) Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes the award appropriate, shall give due weight to the degree to which the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the suitability of the site for a housing development, and the reasonableness of the decision of the local agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project that satisfies conditions established in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause (i) of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) or clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h). (2) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (q) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act. (r) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 2.5. Section 65589.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65589.5. (a) (1) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (A) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. (B) California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state’s housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing. (C) Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration. (D) Many local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects. (2) In enacting the amendments made to this section by the act adding this paragraph, the Legislature further finds and declares the following: (A) California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and 89 Ch. 268 — 31 — Page 136 of 440 homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives. (B) While the causes of this crisis are multiple and complex, the absence of meaningful and effective policy reforms to significantly enhance the approval and supply of housing affordable to Californians of all income levels is a key factor. (C) The crisis has grown so acute in California that supply, demand, and affordability fundamentals are characterized in the negative: underserved demands, constrained supply, and protracted unaffordability. (D) According to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025. (E) California’s overall home ownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in home ownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions. (F) Lack of supply and rising costs are compounding inequality and limiting advancement opportunities for many Californians. (G) The majority of California renters, more than 3,000,000 households, pay more than 30 percent of their income toward rent and nearly one-third, more than 1,500,000 households, pay more than 50 percent of their income toward rent. (H) When Californians have access to safe and affordable housing, they have more money for food and health care; they are less likely to become homeless and in need of government-subsidized services; their children do better in school; and businesses have an easier time recruiting and retaining employees. (I) An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences. (J) California’s housing picture has reached a crisis of historic proportions despite the fact that, for decades, the Legislature has enacted numerous statutes intended to significantly increase the approval, development, and affordability of housing for all income levels, including this section. (K) The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. (L) It is the policy of the state that this section be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. 89 — 32 — Ch. 268 Page 137 of 440 (3) It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently. (4) It is the intent of the Legislature that the amendments removing provisions from subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) and adding those provisions to Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2 by Assembly Bill 1413 (2023), insofar as they are substantially the same as existing law, shall be considered restatements and continuations of existing law, and not new enactments. (b) It is the policy of the state that a local government not reject or make infeasible housing development projects, including emergency shelters, that contribute to meeting the need determined pursuant to this article without a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action and without complying with subdivision (d). (c) The Legislature also recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands; therefore, in implementing this section, local jurisdictions should encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, in filling existing urban areas. (d) For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following: (1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or 89 Ch. 268 — 33 — Page 138 of 440 conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. (A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 89 — 34 — Ch. 268 Page 139 of 440 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (f) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (8) of this subdivision, and subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring the housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density permitted on the site and proposed by the development. Nothing in this section shall limit a project’s eligibility for a density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915. (2) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from requiring an emergency shelter project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that are consistent with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583 and appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. However, the development standards, conditions, and policies shall be applied by the local agency to facilitate and accommodate the development of the emergency shelter project. 89 Ch. 268 — 35 — Page 140 of 440 (3) Except as provided in subdivision (o), nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a local agency from imposing fees and other exactions otherwise authorized by law that are essential to provide necessary public services and facilities to the housing development project or emergency shelter. (4) For purposes of this section, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity. (5) For purposes of this section, a change to the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. (6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (5), inclusive, all of the following apply to a housing development project that is a builder’s remedy project: (A) A local agency may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type, and those shall apply. (B) (i) Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following: (I) Render the project infeasible. (II) Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from being constructed as proposed by the applicant. (ii) The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying with clause (i). (C) (i) A project applicant that qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 shall receive two incentives or concessions in addition to those granted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915. (ii) For a project seeking density bonuses, incentives, concessions, or any other benefits pursuant to Section 65915, and notwithstanding paragraph (6) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, for purposes of this paragraph, maximum allowable residential density or base density means the density 89 — 36 — Ch. 268 Page 141 of 440 permitted for a builder’s remedy project pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iii) A local agency shall grant any density bonus pursuant to Section 65915 based on the number of units proposed and allowable pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h). (iv) A project that dedicates units to extremely low-income households pursuant to subclause (I) of clause (i) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (h) shall be eligible for the same density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards as provided to a housing development project that dedicates three percentage points more units to very low income households pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 65915. (v) All units dedicated to extremely low-income, very low income, low-income, and moderate-income households pursuant to paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) shall be counted as affordable units in determining whether the applicant qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915. (D) (i) The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (ii) The project shall not be required to apply for, or receive, any approval or permit not generally required of a project of the same type and density proposed by the applicant. (iii) Any project that complies with this paragraph shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose. (E) A local agency shall not adopt or impose any requirement, process, practice, or procedure or undertake any course of conduct, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary housing requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. (F) (i) A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the residential density standards for the purposes of complying with subdivision (b) of Section 65912.123. (ii) A builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to be in compliance with the objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for the purposes of complying with paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (G) (i) (I) If the local agency had a local affordable housing requirement, as defined in Section 65912.101, that on January 1, 2024, required a greater percentage of affordable units than required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), or required an affordability level deeper than what is required under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (h), then, except as provided in subclauses (II) and (III), the local agency may require a housing development for mixed-income 89 Ch. 268 — 37 — Page 142 of 440 households to comply with an otherwise lawfully applicable local affordability percentage or affordability level. The local agency shall not require housing for mixed-income households to comply with any other aspect of the local affordable housing requirement. (II) Notwithstanding subclause (I), the local affordable housing requirements shall not be applied to require housing for mixed-income households to dedicate more than 20 percent of the units to affordable units of any kind. (III) Housing for mixed-income households that is required to dedicate 20 percent of the units to affordable units shall not be required to dedicate any of the affordable units at an income level deeper than lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV) A local agency may only require housing for mixed-income households to comply with the local percentage requirement or affordability level described in subclause (I) if it first makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that compliance with the local percentage requirement or the affordability level, or both, would not render the housing development project infeasible. If a reasonable person could find compliance with either requirement, either alone or in combination, would render the project infeasible, the project shall not be required to comply with that requirement. (ii) Affordable units in the development project shall have a comparable bedroom and bathroom count as the market rate units. (iii) Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to this subparagraph shall count toward satisfying a local affordable housing requirement. Each affordable unit dedicated pursuant to a local affordable housing requirement that meets the criteria established in this subparagraph shall count towards satisfying the requirements of this subparagraph. This is declaratory of existing law. (7) (A) For a housing development project application that is deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent for the project may choose to be subject to the provisions of this section that were in place on the date the preliminary application was submitted, or, if the project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project, it may choose to be subject to any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025. (B) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more. (8) A housing development project proposed on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element, that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently updated and adopted housing element, and 89 — 38 — Ch. 268 Page 143 of 440 that is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete, shall be subject to the provisions of subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of paragraph (6) and paragraph (9). (9) For purposes of this subdivision, “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” means criteria that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal, including, but not limited to, any standard, ordinance, or policy described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (o). Nothing herein shall affect the obligation of the housing development project to comply with the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. In the event that applicable objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies are mutually inconsistent, a development shall be deemed consistent with the criteria that permits the density and unit type closest to that of the proposed project. (g) This section shall be applicable to charter cities because the Legislature finds that the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem. (h) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this section: (1) “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. (2) “Housing development project” means a use consisting of any of the following: (A) Residential units only. (B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses that meet any of the following conditions: (i) At least two-thirds of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use. (ii) At least 50 percent of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets both of the following: (I) The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (iii) At least 50 percent of the net new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and the project meets all of the following: (I) The project includes at least 500 net new residential units. (II) The project involves the demolition or conversion of at least 100,000 square feet of nonresidential use. (III) The project demolishes at least 50 percent of the existing nonresidential uses on the site. 89 Ch. 268 — 39 — Page 144 of 440 (IV) No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except a portion of the project may be designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (C) Transitional housing or supportive housing. (D) Farmworker housing, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50199.7 of the Health and Safety Code. (3) (A) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means housing for lower income households, mixed-income households, or moderate-income households. (B) “Housing for lower income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent set in an amount consistent with the rent limits established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (C) (i) “Housing for mixed-income households” means any of the following: (I) A housing development project in which at least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code. (II) A housing development project in which at least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code. (III) A housing development project in which at least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (IV) A housing development project in which there are 10 or fewer total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, that is on a site that is smaller than one acre, and that is proposed for development at a minimum density of 10 units per acre. (ii) All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to clause (i) shall meet both of the following: (I) The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (II) The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years. 89 — 40 — Ch. 268 Page 145 of 440 (D) “Housing for moderate-income households” means a housing development project in which 100 percent of the units are sold or rented to moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, at an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The units shall be subject to a recorded deed restriction for a period of 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. (4) “Area median income” means area median income as periodically established by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. (5) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the application is not complete. (6) “Disapprove the housing development project” includes any instance in which a local agency does any of the following: (A) Votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit. (B) Fails to comply with the time periods specified in subdivision (a) of Section 65950. An extension of time pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) shall be deemed to be an extension of time pursuant to this paragraph. (C) Fails to meet the time limits specified in Section 65913.3. (D) Fails to cease a course of conduct undertaken for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increases in the cost of the proposed housing development project, that effectively disapproves the proposed housing development without taking final administrative action if all of the following conditions are met: (i) The project applicant provides written notice detailing the challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval to the local agency established under Section 65100. (ii) Within five working days of receiving the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall post the notice on the local agency’s internet website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk of each county in which the project will be located. The county clerk shall post the notice and make it available for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. (iii) The local agency shall consider all objections, comments, evidence, and concerns about the project or the applicant’s written notice and shall 89 Ch. 268 — 41 — Page 146 of 440 not make a determination until at least 60 days after the applicant has given written notice to the local agency pursuant to clause (i). (iv) Within 90 days of receipt of the applicant’s written notice described in clause (i), the local agency shall issue a written statement that it will immediately cease the challenged conduct or issue written findings that comply with both of the following requirements: (I) The findings articulate an objective basis for why the challenged course of conduct is necessary. (II) The findings provide clear instructions on what the applicant must submit or supplement so that the local agency can make a final determination regarding the next necessary approval or set the date and time of the next hearing. (v) (I) If a local agency continues the challenged course of conduct described in the applicant’s written notice and fails to issue the written findings described in clause (iv), the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that its course of conduct does not constitute a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph in an action taken by the applicant. (II) If an applicant challenges a local agency’s course of conduct as a disapproval under this subparagraph, the local agency’s written findings described in clause (iv) shall be incorporated into the administrative record and be deemed to be the final administrative action for purposes of adjudicating whether the local agency’s course of conduct constitutes a disapproval of the housing development project under this subparagraph. (vi) A local agency’s action in furtherance of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), including, but not limited to, imposing mitigating measures, shall not constitute project disapproval under this subparagraph. (E) Fails to comply with Section 65905.5. For purposes of this subparagraph, a builder’s remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. (F) (i) Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943 and includes in the determination an item that is not required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist. (ii) In a subsequent review of an application pursuant to Section 65943, requests the applicant provide new information that was not identified in the initial determination and upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. The local agency shall bear the burden of proof that the required item was identified in the initial determination. (iii) Determines that an application for a housing development project is incomplete pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 65943, a reasonable person would conclude that the applicant has submitted all of 89 — 42 — Ch. 268 Page 147 of 440 the items required on the local agency’s submittal requirement checklist, and the local agency upholds this determination in the final written determination on an appeal filed pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65943. (iv) If a local agency determines that an application is incomplete under Section 65943 after two resubmittals of the application by the applicant, the local agency shall bear the burden of establishing that the determination is not an effective disapproval of a housing development project under this section. (G) Violates subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (f). (H) Makes a written determination that a preliminary application described in subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 has expired or that the applicant has otherwise lost its vested rights under the preliminary application for any reason other than those described in subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 65941.1. (I) (i) Fails to make a determination of whether the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), or commits an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.1 are satisfied. (ii) This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (J) (i) Fails to adopt a negative declaration or addendum for the project, to certify an environmental impact report for the project, or to approve another comparable environmental document, such as a sustainable communities environmental assessment pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), if all of the conditions in Section 65589.5.2 are satisfied. (ii) This subparagraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (7) (A) For purposes of this section and Sections 65589.5.1 and 65589.5.2, “lawful determination” means any final decision about whether to approve or disapprove a statutory or categorical exemption or a negative declaration, addendum, environmental impact report, or comparable environmental review document under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) that is not an abuse of discretion, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.1 or subdivision (b) of Section 65589.5.2. (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (8) “Lower density” includes any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing. (9) Until January 1, 2030, “objective” means involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official. 89 Ch. 268 — 43 — Page 148 of 440 (10) Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “determined to be complete” means that the applicant has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943. (11) “Builder’s remedy project” means a project that meets all of the following criteria: (A) The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. (B) On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article. (C) The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions: (i) The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (I) Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2. (II) Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater. (III) The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following: (I) One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (II) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). (III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. (D) (i) On sites that have a minimum density requirement and are located within one-half mile of a commuter rail station or a heavy rail station, the density of the project shall not be less than the minimum density required on the site. (I) For purposes of this subparagraph, “commuter rail” means a railway that is not a light rail, streetcar, trolley, or tramway and that is for urban passenger train service consisting of local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburb with service operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas, or between urbanized areas and outlying areas, using either locomotive-hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger cars, with multitrip tickets and specific station-to-station fares. (II) For purposes of this subparagraph, “heavy rail” means an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar 89 — 44 — Ch. 268 Page 149 of 440 trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. (ii) On all other sites with a minimum density requirement, the density of the project shall not be less than the local agency’s minimum density or one-half of the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2, whichever is lower. (E) The project site does not abut a site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site has been used, within the past three years, by a heavy industrial use, or a Title V industrial use, as those terms are defined in Section 65913.16. (12) “Condition approval” includes imposing on the housing development project, or attempting to subject it to, development standards, conditions, or policies. (13) “Unit type” means the form of ownership and the kind of residential unit, including, but not limited to, single-family detached, single-family attached, for-sale, rental, multifamily, townhouse, condominium, apartment, manufactured homes and mobilehomes, factory-built housing, and residential hotel. (14) “Proposed by the applicant” means the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space, parking, and ancillary commercial uses. (i) If any city, county, or city and county denies approval or imposes conditions, including design changes, lower density, or a reduction of the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under the applicable planning and zoning in force at the time the housing development project’s application is complete, that have a substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d), and that the findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, and with the requirements of subdivision (o). (j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist: (A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or 89 Ch. 268 — 45 — Page 150 of 440 approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (2) (A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows: (i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units. (ii) Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units. (B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. (3) For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision. (4) For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project. (k) (1) (A) (i) The applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization may bring an action to enforce this section. If, in 89 — 46 — Ch. 268 Page 151 of 440 any action brought to enforce this section, a court finds that any of the following are met, the court shall issue an order pursuant to clause (ii): (I) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (d), disapproved a housing development project or conditioned its approval in a manner rendering it infeasible for the development of an emergency shelter, or housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, including farmworker housing, without making the findings required by this section. (II) The local agency, in violation of subdivision (j), disapproved a housing development project complying with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, or imposed a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, without making the findings required by this section. (III) (ia) Subject to sub-subclause (ib), the local agency, in violation of subdivision (o), required or attempted to require a housing development project to comply with an ordinance, policy, or standard not adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. (ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2030. (IV) The local agency violated a provision of this section applicable to a builder’s remedy project. (ii) If the court finds that one of the conditions in clause (i) is met, the court shall issue an order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within a time period not to exceed 60 days, including, but not limited to, an order that the local agency take action on the housing development project or emergency shelter. The court may issue an order or judgment directing the local agency to approve the housing development project or emergency shelter if the court finds that the local agency acted in bad faith when it disapproved or conditionally approved the housing development or emergency shelter in violation of this section. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that its order or judgment is carried out and shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit to the plaintiff or petitioner, provided, however, that the court shall not award attorney’s fees in either of the following instances: (I) The court finds, under extraordinary circumstances, that awarding fees would not further the purposes of this section. (II) (ia) In a case concerning a disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) or (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h), the court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the housing development project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) or implementing guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval. (ib) This subclause shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (B) Upon a determination that the local agency has failed to comply with the order or judgment compelling compliance with this section within the time period prescribed by the court, the court shall impose fines on a local 89 Ch. 268 — 47 — Page 152 of 440 agency that has violated this section and require the local agency to deposit any fine levied pursuant to this subdivision into a local housing trust fund. The local agency may elect to instead deposit the fine into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund. The fine shall be in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943. In determining the amount of the fine to impose, the court shall consider the local agency’s progress in attaining its target allocation of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 and any prior violations of this section. Fines shall not be paid out of funds already dedicated to affordable housing, including, but not limited to, Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, funds dedicated to housing for very low, low-, and moderate-income households, and federal HOME Investment Partnerships Program and Community Development Block Grant Program funds. The local agency shall commit and expend the money in the local housing trust fund within five years for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. After five years, if the funds have not been expended, the money shall revert to the state and be deposited in the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households. (C) If the court determines that its order or judgment has not been carried out within 60 days, the court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled, including, but not limited to, an order to vacate the decision of the local agency and to approve the housing development project, in which case the application for the housing development project, as proposed by the applicant at the time the local agency took the initial action determined to be in violation of this section, along with any standard conditions determined by the court to be generally imposed by the local agency on similar projects, shall be deemed to be approved unless the applicant consents to a different decision or action by the local agency. (D) Nothing in this section shall limit the court’s inherent authority to make any other orders to compel the immediate enforcement of any writ brought under this section, including the imposition of fees and other sanctions set forth under Section 1097 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) For purposes of this subdivision, “housing organization” means a trade or industry group whose local members are primarily engaged in the construction or management of housing units or a nonprofit organization whose mission includes providing or advocating for increased access to housing for low-income households and have filed written or oral comments with the local agency prior to action on the housing development project. A housing organization may only file an action pursuant to this section to challenge the disapproval of a housing development by a local agency. A housing organization shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if it is the prevailing party in an action to enforce this section. 89 — 48 — Ch. 268 Page 153 of 440 (l) If the court finds that the local agency (1) acted in bad faith when it violated this section and (2) failed to carry out the court’s order or judgment within the time period prescribed by the court, the court, in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five. If a court has previously found that the local agency violated this section within the same planning period, the court shall multiply the fines by an additional factor for each previous violation. For purposes of this section, “bad faith” includes, but is not limited to, an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit. (m) (1) Any action brought to enforce the provisions of this section shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the local agency shall prepare and certify the record of proceedings in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days after the petition is served, provided that the cost of preparation of the record shall be borne by the local agency, unless the petitioner elects to prepare the record as provided in subdivision (n) of this section. A petition to enforce the provisions of this section shall be filed and served no later than 90 days from the later of (1) the effective date of a decision of the local agency imposing conditions on, disapproving, or any other final action on a housing development project or (2) the expiration of the time periods specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (h). Upon entry of the trial court’s order, a party may, in order to obtain appellate review of the order, file a petition within 20 days after service upon it of a written notice of the entry of the order, or within such further time not exceeding an additional 20 days as the trial court may for good cause allow, or may appeal the judgment or order of the trial court under Section 904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the local agency appeals the judgment of the trial court, the local agency shall post a bond, in an amount to be determined by the court, to the benefit of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is the project applicant. (2) (A) A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within the time period set forth in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 after the applicant’s timely written notice. (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (3) (A) A disapproval within the meaning of subparagraph (J) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (h) shall be final for purposes of this subdivision, if the local agency did not make a lawful determination within 90 days of the applicant’s timely written notice. (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (n) In any action, the record of the proceedings before the local agency shall be filed as expeditiously as possible and, notwithstanding Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure or subdivision (m) of this section, all or part of the record may be prepared (1) by the petitioner with the petition 89 Ch. 268 — 49 — Page 154 of 440 or petitioner’s points and authorities, (2) by the respondent with respondent’s points and authorities, (3) after payment of costs by the petitioner, or (4) as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing the record has been borne by the petitioner and the petitioner is the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs. (o) (1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (6), and (7), and subdivision (d) of Section 65941.1, a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 65941.1 was submitted. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit a housing development project from being subject to ordinances, policies, and standards adopted after the preliminary application was submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 in the following circumstances: (A) In the case of a fee, charge, or other monetary exaction, to an increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or other monetary exaction. (B) A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. (C) Subjecting the housing development project to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when a preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (D) The housing development project has not commenced construction within two and one-half years, or three and one-half years for an affordable housing project, following the date that the project received final approval. For purposes of this subparagraph: (i) “Affordable housing project” means a housing development that satisfies both of the following requirements: (I) Units within the development are subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for owner-occupied housing, or the first purchaser of each unit participates in an equity sharing agreement as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 65915. (II) All of the units within the development, excluding managers’ units, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. 89 — 50 — Ch. 268 Page 155 of 440 (ii) “Final approval” means that the housing development project has received all necessary approvals to be eligible to apply for, and obtain, a building permit or permits and either of the following is met: (I) The expiration of all applicable appeal periods, petition periods, reconsideration periods, or statute of limitations for challenging that final approval without an appeal, petition, request for reconsideration, or legal challenge having been filed. (II) If a challenge is filed, that challenge is fully resolved or settled in favor of the housing development project. (E) The housing development project is revised following submittal of a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, including any other locally authorized program that offers additional density or other development bonuses when affordable housing is provided. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). (3) This subdivision does not prevent a local agency from subjecting the additional units or square footage of construction that result from project revisions occurring after a preliminary application is submitted pursuant to Section 65941.1 to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. (4) For purposes of this subdivision, “ordinances, policies, and standards” includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions. (5) This subdivision shall not be construed in a manner that would lessen the restrictions imposed on a local agency, or lessen the protections afforded to a housing development project, that are established by any other law, including any other part of this section. (6) This subdivision shall not restrict the authority of a public agency or local agency to require mitigation measures to lessen the impacts of a housing development project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (7) With respect to completed residential units for which the project approval process is complete and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, nothing in this subdivision shall limit the application of later enacted ordinances, policies, and standards that regulate the use and occupancy of those residential units, such as ordinances relating to rental housing inspection, rent stabilization, restrictions on short-term renting, and business licensing requirements for owners of rental housing. 89 Ch. 268 — 51 — Page 156 of 440 (8) (A) This subdivision shall apply to a housing development project that submits a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 before January 1, 2030. (B) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2034. (p) (1) Upon any motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Section 1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in a case challenging a local agency’s approval of a housing development project, a court, in weighing whether a significant benefit has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons and whether the necessity of private enforcement makes the award appropriate, shall give due weight to the degree to which the local agency’s approval furthers policies of this section, including, but not limited to, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), the suitability of the site for a housing development, and the reasonableness of the decision of the local agency. It is the intent of the Legislature that attorney’s fees and costs shall rarely, if ever, be awarded if a local agency, acting in good faith, approved a housing development project that satisfies conditions established in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.1 or paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5.2. (2) This subdivision shall become inoperative on January 1, 2031. (q) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Housing Accountability Act. (r) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 3. Section 2.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill 1413. That section of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2025, (2) each bill amends Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 1413, in which case Section 2 of this bill shall not become operative. SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. O 89 — 52 — Ch. 268 Page 157 of 440 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach, California Historic Resource Evaluation May 16, 2024 Submitted by: Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 David Kaplan, Principal Pam O’Connor, Architectural Historian Page 158 of 440 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Summary of Research and Methodology 1 Regulatory Framework 2 Project Location and Setting 6 Development History of Hermosa Beach and the 3400 block of Palm Drive 9 Building Description and History 13 Review of Previous Surveys 16 Evaluation of Eligibility 16 Conclusion 19 References 20 Attachment A: Photographs Attachment B: Maps Attachment C: Building Permits Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Attachment E: DPR Records Attachment F: Resumes Page 159 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Kaplan Chen Kaplan conducted a historic resource assessment of the multi-family residential buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive (also known as 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue). The property was developed with a 4-unit apartment building and 4-unit garage in1956 according to City of Hermosa Beach building permit records. The multi-family dwellings at 3415-17 Palm Drive did not influential the development history of the City of Hermosa Beach. They are not representative of any historic or significant architectural style. No historic persons or events are associated with the subject property. This Historic Resource Assessment conducted by Kaplan Chen Kaplan followed standards and guidelines established by the National Park Service and the California Office of Historic Preservation. The findings of the Historic Resource Assessment are based on research, field observations, evidence, technical guidelines and analysis and evaluation conducted by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications. The Historic Resources Survey conducted for the City of Hermosa Beach for the City’s General Plan Update in 2013-2014 did not identify the subject property as an eligible historic resource. The findings of this current intensive Historic Resource Assessment found no evidence that the subject building is an eligible historic resource. The buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive do not meet the criteria to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources or as a City of Hermosa Beach Landmark. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY A comprehensive methodology for researching the development history of properties and evaluation of the research to determine potential historic eligibility included conducting the following activities: • Field review of in April 2024 • Field review of adjacent area in April 2024 • Photography of subject property and adjacent area • Building Permit Research • Assessor data research • Review of City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Surveys and related materials and documents • Research online databases and sources • Research online library resources • Review of City Directories • Review of aerial and topographic maps • Research online photographic databases Page 160 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 2 • Research historic newspaper databases • Review of technical sources on architectural styles • Evaluation of properties in accordance with federal, state, and local eligibility criteria All the field data and research data were analyzed and evaluated by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Preservation/Architectural Historian and by an architect who meets the Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architect. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The importance of historic resources has been recognized by federal, state, and local governments through programs and legislation that identify and recognize buildings, structures, object, landscapes, and districts that possess historic significance. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considers historical resources part of the environment. A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the significance of an historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment. A property that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, is listed in a local register of historical resources, or has been identified as historically significant in an historic resources survey that meets specific criteria is considered a historical resource under CEQA. To determine if a property is a potential historical resource, it must be evaluated for its eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources and/or as a local historical resource. National Register of Historic Places The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as an authoritative guide “used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and indicate what properties should be afforded protection from destruction or impairment.”1 Buildings, districts, sites and structures may be eligible for listing in the National Register if they possess significance at the national, state or local level in American history, culture, architecture or archeology, and in general, are over 50 years old. Significance is evaluated using established criteria: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 136 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60. Page 161 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 3 Significance of Association National Register Bulletin 32, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, provides guidance on evaluating potential historic association with people who have “made contributions or played a role that can be justified as significant.” For association with leaders or prominent families it is necessary “to explain their significant accomplishments” and they “must be compared to those of others who were active, successful, prosperous, or influential in the same field.” Most properties nominated for associations with significant persons also are nominated for other reasons and a majority of properties nominated under the association criterion are also significant in the area of architecture or for the area in which the individual(s) achieved recognition. National Register Bulletin 32 adds that the fact that we value certain professions or the contributions of certain groups historically does not mean that every property associated with or used by a member of that group is significant. Associations with one or more individuals in a particular profession, economic or social class, or ethnic group will not automatically qualify a property. The contribution must be distinctive: it is not enough to show that an individual has acquired wealth, run a successful business, or held public office, unless any of these accomplishments, or their number or combination, is a significant achievement in the community in comparison with the activities and accomplishments of others. Integrity. Properties may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register as individual resources and/or as contributors to an historic district. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that in addition to meeting at least one of the four criteria, a resource should be evaluated to assess its integrity. For individual resources to qualify for inclusion they must represent an important aspect of an area’s history and possess integrity. An historic district must retain integrity as a whole, “the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished.” Historic Context. A resource must also be significant within an historic context. National Register Bulletin 15 states that an historic context explains “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific…property or site is understood and its meaning…is made clear.” To be determined eligible for listing on the National Register a property must possess significance within a historic context and possess integrity. Historic District. According to National Register Bulletin 15, an historic district derives its importance from being a unified entity whose identity as a district “results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment.” An historic district is “a definable geographic area that can be distinguished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, or by documented differences in patterns of historic development or associations...the boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district.”2 2 National Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, pp. 5-6, https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf Page 162 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 4 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register, based on the National Register, is the “authoritative guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and indicate which properties are to be protected.” A building, site, structure, object, or historic district may be eligible for inclusion on the California Register if it meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison states that in addition to meeting one of the criteria of significance, a resource must “retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance” and “integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. ” Historical resources that “have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.” Series 6 Guidance also states, “Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.” Historical resources that do not retain sufficient integrity to qualify for the National Register may still be eligible for listing in the California Register: “a resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.”3 City of Hermosa Beach Landmark Criteria The City of Hermosa Beach’s historic resources preservation program was established in 1998 to encourage property owners of historically significant structures or sites to voluntarily apply for local landmark status. A resource may be designated a City of Hermosa Beach Landmark (Ord. 98-1186 §4, 11/10/98), if it meets one or more of the following criteria:   A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; or   3California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison, p. 3. Page 163 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 5 B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; or   C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or   D. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; or   E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community, or the City. (Ord. 98-1186 §4, 11/10/98)   Aspects of Integrity The National Park Service Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, defines seven “aspects of integrity” and provides technical information on their application. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” To “retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects.” For resources that are significant for their association with historic events or persons to be eligible for the National Register the resource must retain “the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person.” For resources that are evaluated historic for their style or construction the “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. For a historic district to retain integrity as a whole, “the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished. In addition, the relationships among the district’s components must be substantially unchanged since the period of significance. When evaluating the impact of intrusions upon the district’s integrity, take into consideration the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the components that do not contribute to the significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment.” The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities associated with integrity that, in various combinations, define integrity: feeling, association, workmanship, location, design, setting, and materials. 1. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved. 2. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, Page 164 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 6 technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape. For a resource to be evaluated as significant for its design, a “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.” 3. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. 4. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. 5. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. A property must retain key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. 6. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. 7. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and it is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship. PROJECT LOCATION The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive (aka 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) is located near the north border of the City of Hermosa Beach. The subject property is in the north section of the area known as The Walk Street Neighborhood. As noted in the Hermosa Beach General Plan this area “provides a range of beach side residential development and neighborhood commercial services within a linear street network. The walk streets that provide beach access from Hermosa Avenue out to The Strand are a feature unique to this beach front residential area.”4 The Strand, is a cement pedestrian and bicycle/skating pathway. The Strand is located between the sand beach and the private residential/commercial parcels. 4 City of Hermosa Beach Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, 2017. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9872/637001018228830000 Page 165 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 7 Location Map (Source: Plan Hermosa) Neighborhood Map The subject parcel is in the Shakespeare Tract, Lot 4, Block 101. The Los Angeles County Assessor gives the parcel the address of 3415-17 Palm Drive with Assessor Parcel Number 4181-033-017. There are six parcels on the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue/Palm Drive which is between 35th Street on its north and 34th Street on the south. Each parcel is approximately 30 feet wide and 85 feet deep. The parcels are bounded by Hermosa Avenue on the west and by Palm Drive, basically an alley, on the east. Neighborhood Map (Google Maps) Page 166 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 8 The parcel at 3415-17 Palm Drive is located between 35th Street on the north and 34th Street on the south. It is mid-block closer to the south end of the 3400 block. It has a general plan land use designation as high density residential. The buildings on the parcel have little setback from either the west, Hermosa Avenue property line and from east, Palm Drive property line. The west building faces Hermosa Avenue where it displays the address of 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue. The east building faces a narrow street that operates as an alley, with the name of Palm Drive where it displays the address of 3415-17 Palm Drive. East side of 3400 Block of Hermosa Avenue looking south West side of Palm Drive looking south Page 167 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 9 West side of 3400 Block of Hermosa Avenue DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF HERMOSA BEACH AND THE 3400 BLOCK OF PALM DRIVE Hermosa Beach was originally part of an 1837 Mexican land grant known as Rancho Sausal Redondo, granted to Antonio Ygnacio Avila by then- governor Juan Alvarado. The 22,458-acre property included the areas today known as Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Manhattan Beach, and Redondo Beach. In 1855, the United States government recognized Avila as the rightful owner of the property. Upon his death in 1858 the property was sold to Scottish native Robert Burnett, who owned the Rancho Aguaje de la Centinela land grant. Burnett raised sheep and cattle on the land. In 1873 Burnett leased a portion of the land to Daniel Freeman and 12 years later Freeman bought the land and over the next 15 years divided the property selling it to various real estate developers. The land continued to change hands and eventually 1,500 acres were sold to developers, Moses Hazeltine Sherman and Eli Clark who had controlling interest of the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. At the turn of the 20th Century Hermosa Beach was primarily used for ranching and farming. The first land survey in Hermosa Beach was conducted 1901and the Hermosa Beach Tract was subdivided and recorded in September of that year for the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. The Tract was a strip of land that paralleled the coast of the Pacific Ocean and contained hundreds of parcels for both residential and commercial development. The strip was narrow, defined by the boardwalk, The Strand, on the west and Hermosa Avenue on the east, running parallel with the coast. In December 1901 the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company added another tract to the east of Hermosa Avenue to Summit Avenue (later Monterey Boulevard) and over the decades the City grew to the east. In December 1903 the area to the north of the Hermosa Tract was subdivided and recorded as the Shakespeare Tract by the Shakespeare Beach Company and the Los Angeles Pacific Railroad Company. The Tract was originally laid out with rectangular parcels in its north area and south with the center area of the Tract featuring a series of curvilinear streets. The streets of the Tract were named after 19th Century literary figures. The originally planned center curvilinear section was never fully realized. Later the east-west running streets were numbered, with the City of Hermosa street system starting with 1st Street on the South and 35th Street on the north. Page 168 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 10 The first boardwalk in Hermosa Beach consisted of wood planks (originally known as the Esplanade) and ran for two miles. In 1914 most of this boardwalk, by then known as The Strand, was constructed in cement with the final portion at the north end completed in 1926. Hermosa Beach’s first pier was built in 1904 by the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. The deck and pilings were wood, and the Pier extended five hundred feet out into the ocean. In 1913 the pier was partly washed away, and a new pier was eventually constructed. The City of Hermosa Beach was incorporated in 1907. The new City acquired ownership of the two-mile stretch of ocean frontage, which was included in an original deed to the City from the Hermosa Beach Land and Water Company. Two hundred ten feet on each side of the pier were dedicated in perpetuity as an area for recreation, free from commerce, and for the benefit of the public. The first decade of the 20th Century saw the beginning of the development of Hermosa Beach into a city. The population in 1910 was 679 and grew to 2,327 by 1920. The first Page 169 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 11 hotels, the Pioneer and Berth hotels were constructed. A City Hall, police and fire Departments, Post Office, schools, and library were all established. The Santa Fe Railway and the Los Angeles Railway connected Hermosa Beach to the region and nation. Vacant parcels continued to be developed over the decades as evidenced by the population growth. Between 1920 and 1940 the population grew by around 5,000 to 7,197. Between 1940 and 1950 the population grew by another 5,000 to 11,826. Again, the population grew by around 5,000 between 1950 and 1960 to 16,115. After that, over the 60 years between 1960 and 2020, the population grew by around only 3,500 to 19,728. The 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue/Palm Drive was slow to develop. In 1912 there were six parcels on the east side of Hermosa Avenue. The 1912 Sanborn shows that five years after the Shakespeare Tract had been recorded none of the six parcels on the east side of the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue/Palm Drive had been developed between Homer Avenue and Byron Avenue. Only a few parcels had been developed on the nearby streets. The 1927 Sanborn Map shows several parcels on the west side of the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue had been developed. On the east side of the block only one parcel had been developed – the parcel adjacent to the subject parcel on its north. 1912 Sanborn Map excerpt 1927 Sanborn Map excerpt The 1946 Sanborn Map shows that the west side of the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue had been developed with residences. On the east side of the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue/Palm Drive, all but two of the six parcels had been developed with residences. The subject property had not yet been developed. Page 170 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 12 1946 Sanborn Map excerpt 1960 Sanborn Map excerpt The 1960 Sanborn Map shows that the subject parcel had not yet been developed. However, City of Hermosa Beach building permit records show that the subject building with the address of 3414-18 Palm Drive was constructed in 1956. Satellite View of area around 3415-17 Palm Drive (Google Earth, c2023) Page 171 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 13 BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF 3415-17 PALM DRIVE In1956 a building permit was taken out to construct a four-unit apartment building with a four-car garage. The owner was Harry Sac (a 1967 permit notation lists owner as “Sax”). There was no architect listed. The contractor was Vincent Pickett. The address for the project was 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue on the 1956 permit card. The buildings are vernacular in style and do not reference any specific architectural style. From the satellite view of the property and field review, it appears that there are two buildings on the parcel. It is unclear if the smaller building facing Palm Drive was a four- car garage originally. Currently there are two garage doors on the Hermosa Avenue elevation and two garage doors on the Palm Drive elevation. It is possible the Palm Drive building originally was the garage for the property, as it is a smaller structure, but there is no documentation confirming that. Currently the residential units are on the upper story of each building and parking in the first-floor garages. Plan view of 3415-17 Palm Drive parcel (Google Earth, c2023) It is unclear whether the configuration of parking is original of if it was originally all In the building facing Palm Drive. Building permit records list that the buildings were re-roofed in 1987. Permits list that the building was sandblasted in 1980 and 1992. A number of building permits were taken out in the period between 1997 and 1999. These included statements about remodeling, interior alterations, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work, and addition of a roof deck. Hermosa Avenue elevation Palm Drive elevation Both buildings are two stories tall and rectangular in plan with flat roofs. The Hermosa Avenue elevation (with address of 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) has a roof with a front eave that is slightly pitched with a flat roof with a deck behind the eave. The front elevation is symmetrically balanced with two garage doors at the first level and with a tripartite window above each of the garage doors. The building is stucco clad except for Page 172 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 14 the upper level of the front (west) elevation which projects out slightly and is clad with vertical siding. The building that faces Palm Drive with the address of 3415-17, has a projecting upper level with two windows. The lower level has two garage doors. The area between the buildings has mechanical and support equipment. Wood stairways with lattice lead to the upper-level units. Hermosa Avenue (west) elevation and Hermosa Avenue (west) elevation and south elevation north elevation Area on first floor between buildings North elevation Area between buildings at upper floor Upper elevation between buildings Page 173 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 15 Palm Drive (east) and north elevations Palm Drive (east) and south elevations Occupant History In the 1950s City Directories transitioned into telephone books. While telephone numbers had been added, the occupations of the residents were no longer provided. Telephone directories identified by EDR included timepoints between1964 to 2005. In some years only one of the units was listed with the other unit not listed, or the citation of “occupant unknown” or “XXX” was provided. 3415 Palm Drive 1971 Robert B. Tuttle 1976 James Ruof 1987 Debbie Grossblatt 2005 Michael Miracle 3417 Palm Drive 1971 Jack D. Sachse 1976 Cynthia Gravees 1982 Jasper Colebank 1995 Scott Evans 2000 Charles R. Skelton 3414 Hermosa Avenue 1971 Alan Gabbaro 1976 Joe Somerville 1982 Mary Trischuk 1987 Coy Worden 2000 Susan Y. Wohn 3418 Hermosa Avenue 1971 Edward C. Hall 1987 Ted Kerman 1995 Justin Graham 2005 Christopher Faulkner No biographical information was identified for any of the occupants listed in the City Directories as residing at 3415-17 Palm Drive or 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue. Page 174 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 16 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS SURVEYS The City of Hermosa Beach commissioned PCR Services Corporation to conduct a historic resources survey for the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), published in August 2017, for the “Plan Hermosa” General Plan Update. The Survey findings were included in Appendix C. The survey consisted of an initial Windshield Survey of the entire City conducted by PCR architectural historians along with members of the Hermosa Beach Historical Society. This was followed by a City-wide reconnaissance survey by PCR staff of “all potentially historic buildings within the survey area, including previously recorded resources as well as all unevaluated properties containing buildings 45 years of age or older.”5 The subject building, 3415-17 Palm Drive (3414-18 Hermosa Avenue), was not identified as an eligible historic resource. A records search was also conducted as part of the 2013-14 historic resources survey. The subject property was not identified in the records search. Source: City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Draft EIR EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY Broad patterns of history, historic events criteria. -Hermosa Beach Criterion A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history. -Hermosa Beach Criterion B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history -National Register Criterion A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history 5 City of Hermosa Beach General Plan Update EIR, Existing Conditions Report, p. 7-2. Page 175 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 17 -California Register Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The apartment building at 3415-17 Palm Drive was constructed in 1956, 53 years after the Shakespeare Tract was recorded and almost 50 years after the City was incorporated. The property is not associated with the early development of the City. The buildings were not the first constructed in the northern portion of the City; rather the development was in-fill, almost the last of the vacant parcels to be developed. This building did not stimulate the development of multi-family housing in the City of Hermosa Beach. There is no evidence that any historic events are associated with the building at 3415-17 Palm Drive. The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive does not meet the criteria related to broad patterns of history or association with historic events. Association with historic persons: -Hermosa Beach Criterion B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history. -National Register Criterion B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. -California Register Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. A review of Telephone Directories did not identify any long-term occupants of the building. No biographical information was identified for any of the occupants of the building. None of the occupants achieved historic significance thus the property is not associated with the lives of historic persons. The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive does not meet the criteria related to association with historic persons. Significant historic design, work of a master architect or craftsman -Hermosa Beach Criterion C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. -Hermosa Beach Criterion D: It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect. -National Register Criterion C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. -California Register Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. The buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive/3414-18 Hermosa Avenue are not an example of any historic or significant architectural style. They do not display any architectural details or Page 176 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 18 references to any historic architectural style and neither possesses high artistic values. The buildings are not representative of any specific period. There is no evidence that the building was designed by a master architect. The workmanship is not that of a master craftsman. The buildings on the property at 3415-17 Palm Drive do not meet the criteria as an example of any historic architectural style and do not possess excellence of architectural design or craftsmanship. There is no evidence that the buildings are associated with a master architect. The materials and workmanship are not representative of that of a master craftsman. Potential to yield information related to pre-history or history -National Register Criterion D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history -California Register Criterion 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The property was developed in the mid-20th Century and budling techniques of the period are well documented. There is no unknown information about construction techniques or engineering that would be provided by this building. This report does not evaluate archeological resources. The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive does not meet the criteria to yield historic information about the building. Familiar visual feature -Hermosa Beach Criterion E. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community, or the City. The building at 3415-17 Palm Drive is located mid-block on the 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue; the Palm Drive elevation faces what is essentially an alley. The buildings on the parcel are not in a prominent location in terms of visibility. The property at 3415-17 Palm Drive does not meet the criteria of a familiar visual feature of the Walk Street Neighborhood. Historic District There is no concentration of buildings from any period of history, nor of any architectural style or property type to form an historic district. No historic district that includes the 3400 block of Palm Drive was identified in the Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Survey. Integrity Analysis Location: The buildings at the 3415-17 Palm Drive property are in their original location. Page 177 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 19 Design: While the buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive retains original massing and volume as a simple rectangular building, they do not represent or illustrate any historic architectural style or any significant construction techniques. The buildings are not examples of significant aesthetic design. Setting: The 3400 blocks of Palm Drive or Hermosa Avenue are not part of any historic district nor is the subject property representative of any historic setting. Workmanship: There is no evidence of skill of construction or of the work of a master craftsman. Materials: The materials used on the exteriors of the buildings are unremarkable; they are not representative of any specific historical period nor are they of exceptional quality. The exteriors of the buildings have undergone sandblasting at least two times. Feeling: The buildings do not communicate any historic aesthetic or sense of a particular period of time Association: There is no association with any historic persons or events. The property and buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive do not retain historic integrity. CONCLUSION The buildings at the property known as 3415-17 Palm Drive do not meet any of the criteria for eligibility as a historic resource. The findings of this report concur with the City of Hermosa Beach Historic Resources Survey that did not identify the subject building as an eligible historic resource. The property does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources or as a City of Hermosa Beach landmark. Page 178 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 20 REFERENCES Aerial Photographs. EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. California Index, Los Angeles Central Library. City Directories, EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Telephone Directories for Hermosa Beach. EDR City Directory data. City of Hermosa Beach, Building Permit Records City of Hermosa Beach, General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report, Technical Appendices, 2014. City of Hermosa Beach, Draft EIR for General Plan Update, 2017. City of Hermosa Beach, Historical Resources in Hermosa Beach, http://www.hermosabch.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1351 City of Hermosa Beach, City of Hermosa Beach Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, 2017. https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9872/637001018228830000 Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter. Los Angeles: An Architectural Guide. Salt Lake City: Gibbs-Smith. 2003. Gleye, Paul. The Architecture of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Rosebud Press. 1981. Hermosa Beach Historical Society, http://www.hermosabeachhistoricalsociety.org Los Angeles County Assessor Records McAllister, Virginia and Lee McAllister. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1984 Page 179 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan i May 16, 2024 Attachment A: Photographs 3400 Block of Hermosa Avenue 1. Looking north along 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue 2. West side of 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue looking north from 34th Street Page 180 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii May 16, 2024 3.East side of 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue looking north from 34th Street 4. East side of 3400 block of Hermosa Avenue looking south from 35th Street Page 181 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii May 16, 2024 5. 111 34th Street, vacant lot (corner of 34th Street and Hermosa Avenue 6. 3410 Hermosa Avenue Page 182 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv May 16, 2024 7. 3415-17 Palm Drive, facing Hermosa Avenue (aka 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) 8. 3422 Hermosa Avenue Page 183 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan v May 16, 2024 9. 3430 Hermosa Avenue 10. 108 35th Street (corner of 35th Street and Hermosa Avenue) Page 184 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi May 16, 2024 3400 Block of Palm Drive 11. 3400 block of Palm Drive, looking north from 34th Street 12. 111 34th Street, vacant lot, along Palm Drive Page 185 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii May 16, 2024 13. 3410 Hermosa Avenue, along Palm Drive 14. 3415-17 Palm Drive, along Palm Drive (east building) Page 186 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii May 16, 2024 15. 3422 Hermosa Avenue, along Palm Drive 16. 3430 Hermosa Avenue, along Palm Drive Page 187 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix May 16, 2024 17. 108 35th Street 18. Looking south along Palm Drive from 35th Street Page 188 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan x May 16, 2024 3415-17 Palm Drive (aka 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) 19. West elevation of west building, facing Hermosa Avenue (aka 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) 20. West elevation of west building facing Hermosa Avenue and its south elevation Page 189 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi May 16, 2024 21. West elevation of west building facing Hermosa Avenue and its north elevation 22. Garage door detail of west building, facing Hermosa Avenue Page 190 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii May 16, 2024 23. Window detail of west building, facing Hermosa Avenue 24. Side elevation of west building Page 191 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii May 16, 2024 25. Side elevation (south) of west building 26. Stucco detail Page 192 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiv May 16, 2024 27. East elevation of east building facing Palm Drive and its north elevation 28. East elevation of east building facing Palm Drive and its south elevation Page 193 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xv May 16, 2024 29. Garage door on east elevation of east building facing Palm Drive 30. Upper story overhang and window on east elevation of east building facing Palm Drive Page 194 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvi May 16, 2024 31. North side elevation of east building from Palm Drive 32. Area between west and east buildings Page 195 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvii May 16, 2024 33. Area between west and east buildings 34. Area between west and east buildings Page 196 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xviii May 16, 2024 35. South elevation of west building 36. Window detail on side of west building Page 197 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xix May 16, 2024 37. Area between east and west buildings 38. Area between east and west buildings, door and railing detail Page 198 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xx May 16, 2024 39. Area between east and west buildings, window detail 40. Area between east and west buildings Page 199 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxi May 16, 2024 41. Area between east and west buildings, window detail 42. Area between east and west buildings with railing detail Page 200 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan i May 16, 2024 Attachment B: Maps Aerial photograph (ca. 2022) Los Angeles County Assessor's Map Page 201 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii May 16, 2024 Original Tract Map (Page 1) Page 202 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii May 16, 2024 Original Corner Record (Page 1) Page 203 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv May 16, 2024 Original Corner Record (Page 2) Page 204 of 440 Historic Resource Assessment 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 ATTACHMENT C: Building Permits Page 205 of 440 941473418 HERMOSA AVE. LOT 4 BLK 101': SHAKESPEARE 4-unit apt. tt ex 9141 9/6/56 4-unit apt: Owner- arry Sac: Conti-Vincen Pickett: Plumb & H.S.-5716: Furn-5778 & 7779: Swr-3504;Temp.power-6174: Wiring 6214: OK 6/7/57 9918 _ 9/26/67°Water htr replaced: (3414 Hermosa) Owner- H. ax: Contr-Pac. Installers:No access for insp. eV() S r 4 -73 f 1/ q 7- 8-3I-13 Plbg. #12644, Remove laundry tray, Owner Barger; Contr: Herrin Plbg. OK 8/27/75. e).YZ 14- 3 a.-1 CQ - Ridn. y37 F q'//•78 Page 206 of 440 3414;= 3418 HERMOSA AVENUE, LOT 4, BLOCK 101 SHAKESPEARE' 18509 - 9/25/80 - Wet Sandblast, Owner: Colbank, Contr: A-1 22476 bldg. , sandblasting, 6/1/92; finaled: 8/3/92. V11:1 ( ti^fv(z -PA/14Pr A\k-es 'Roc 0 ipci n'6- 3/zSk' -.e4.0-nfCi-.11- 3 f1c c g r e( Page 207 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 BUILDING PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: B97-00144 Finaled 06/16/1997 12/19/1999 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3418 HERMOSA AVENUE Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: In House Plan Check - Alteration/Remodel Description: INTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND ADD ROOF DECK (620 SF) Lot Size: 30 X 85 # Units: 4 Valuation: $21,341.00 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: R-3 # Bldgs: 2 Owner: CHRIS SMITH 3418 HERMOSA AVE HERMOSA BEACH,CA , 90254 Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $445.50 1.00Building $356.40 1.00Building Plan Check $2.13 1.00Seismic Fees Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $804.03 $804.03 $0.00 Page 208 of 440 Redaction Log Reason Page (# of occurrences)Description no reason 1 (1)--- Page 209 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 BUILDING PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: B97-00301 Finaled 07/31/1997 02/02/1998 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3415 PALM DR Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Alteration/Remodel Description: REROOF Lot Size: # Units: 1 Valuation: $1,700.00 # Stories: 1 Use Zone: # Bldgs: 1 Owner: , Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $82.00 1.00Building $0.50 1.00Seismic Fees Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $82.50 $82.50 $0.00 Page 210 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ELECTRICAL PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: E97-00178 Finaled 06/16/1997 09/24/1999 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3418 HERMOSA AV Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Alteration/Remodel Description: 3 CIRCUITS, OUTLETS (10), LIGHT FIXTURES Lot Size: # Units: Valuation: # of Meters: 4 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: # Bldgs: Owner: , Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $92.40 1.00Electrical Permit Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $92.40 $92.40 $0.00 Page 211 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 MECHANICAL PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: M97-00042 Finaled 06/16/1997 09/15/1998 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3418 HERMOSA AV Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Alteration/Remodel Description: 1 FURNACE Lot Size: # Units: Valuation: # of Meters: 4 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: # Bldgs: Owner: , Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $35.30 1.00Plumbing Permit Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $35.30 $35.30 $0.00 Page 212 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 PLUMBING PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: P97-00079 Finaled 06/16/1997 09/15/1999 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3418 HERMOSA AV Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Alteration/Remodel Description: 2 FIXTURES, WATER HEAT, 5 FIXTURES, 4 VENT PIPING Lot Size: # Units: Valuation: # of Meters: 4 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: # Bldgs: Owner: , Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $90.20 1.00Plumbing Permit Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $90.20 $90.20 $0.00 Page 213 of 440 r 3415 — 17. Palm Drive See 3414-18 Hermosa Ave. M-1-3o ' l 5/0/V7 —roe tti Page 214 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 BUILDING PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: B02-00103 Finaled 03/04/2002 10/19/2010 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3417 PALM DR Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: In House Plan Check - Alteration/Remodel Description: A BAMBOO PATIO AWNING ON FRONT BUILDING (2 UNITS) (EXPIRED 6/21/04) (Charge 10% of building permit fee $14.80 to re-activate permit per B. Rollins, created a new job card for inspections 4/12/10) Lot Size: # Units: 4 Valuation: $4,500.00 # Stories: 2 Use Zone: # Bldgs: 2 Owner: CHRISTOPHER AND PATRICIA SMITH 3417 PALM DR 90254 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 Phone: Contractor: Fee Item Item TotalUnit $162.80 1.00Building $118.40 1.00Building Plan Check $0.50 1.00Seismic Fees Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $281.70 $281.70 $0.00 Page 215 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 MECHANICAL PERMIT Record #: Status: Issued: Completed: Expires: M22-00086 Issued 06/07/2022 06/07/2023 Job Address: 3415 PALM DR Location: 3414 & 3418 Hermosa Avenue (aka 3415 Palm Drive) Parcel No: 4181-033-017 Appl Type: Over The Counter - Other Description: A/C Add on's 2 Daikin fit (Heat Pumps) Lot Size: # Units: Valuation: # of Meters: # Stories: Use Zone: # Bldgs: Owner: FERRARO,TONY AND RENARDA L MISSISSAUGA CAN L5B, W2 99999-9999 Phone: Contractor: SOUTHWEST HVAC INC DOWNEY, CA 90241 Phone: License: 932164 Fee Item Item TotalUnit $74.00 1.00Mechanical Fee for Issuing Each P $104.00 2.00Heating, Ventilations, Air Condition $38.00 2.00Gas Piping System of 1 to 5 Outle $52.00 1.00Repair/Alter/Addition to Heating Ap Total Building Permit Fee: Total Payments: Balance Due: $268.00 $268.00 $0.00 Page 216 of 440 Redaction Log Reason Page (# of occurrences)Description no reason 1 (3)--- Page 217 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan i May 16, 2024 Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Historic Aerials Aerial Photo 1928 Page 218 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1938 Page 219 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1947 Page 220 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv May 16, 2024 s Aerial Photo 1953 Page 221 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan v May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1963 Page 222 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1972 Page 223 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1977 Page 224 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1983 Page 225 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1989 Page 226 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan x May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 1994 Page 227 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2002 Page 228 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2005 Page 229 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2009 Page 230 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiv May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2012 Page 231 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xv May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2016 Page 232 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvi May 16, 2024 Aerial Photo 2020 Page 233 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvii May 16, 2024 Sanborn Insurance Maps Sanborn Insurance Map 1912 Page 234 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xviii May 16, 2024 Sanborn Insurance Map 1927 Page 235 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xix May 16, 2024 Sanborn Insurance Map 1946 Page 236 of 440 Historic Resource Evaluation 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan xx May 16, 2024 Sanborn Insurance Map 1960 Page 237 of 440 Historic Resource Assessment 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 ATTACHMENT E: DPR Records Page 238 of 440 Page1of 2 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA P1. Other Identifier: ____ DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date *P2. Location:Not for PublicationUnrestricted *a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' QuadDateT; R; of of Sec; B.M. c. Address City 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA Zip 90254 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone, mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 4181-033-017 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) There are two buildings on the parcel. Both buildings are two-stories tall and rectangular in plan with flat roofs. The Hermosa Avenue elevation (with address of 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue) has a roof with a front eave that is slightly pitched with a flat roof with a deck behind the eave. The front elevation is symmetrically balanced with two garage doors at the first level and with a tripartite window above each of the garage doors. The building is stucco clad except for the upper level of the front (west) elevation which projects out slightly and is clad with vertical siding. The building that faces Palm Drive with the address of 3415-17, has a projecting upper level with two windows. The lower level has two garage doors. The area between the buildings has mechanical and support equipment. Wood stairways with lattice lead to the upper-level units. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP3 *P4. Resources Present:X Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) April 2024 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: X Historic Prehistoric Both 1956 *P7. Owner and Address: *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 2526 18thSt., Santa Monica, CA 90405 *P9. Date Recorded: 5/2024 Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Historic Resources Survey, 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 5/2024 *Attachments:NONELocation MapContinuation SheetBuilding, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological RecordDistrict RecordLinear Feature RecordMilling Station RecordRock Art Record Artifact RecordPhotograph Record Other (List): P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 50400290175040029017 Page 239 of 440 1*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA *NRHP Status Code: 6Z Page2of2 DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD (This space reserved for official comments.) 2100 N Cahuenga Blvd B1Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Multi-Family Dwelling B4. Present Use: Multi-family Dwelling *B5. Architectural Style: None *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) In1956 a building permit was taken out to construct a four-unit apartment building with a four-car garage. The owner was Harry Sac (a 1967 permit notation lists owner as “Sax”). There was no architect listed. The contractor was Vincent Pickett. The address for the project was 3414-18 Hermosa Avenue on the 1956 permit card. The buildings are vernacular in style and do not reference any specific architectural style. It appears there are two buildings on the parcel. It is unclear if the smaller building facing Palm Drive was a four-car garage originally. Currently there are two garage doors on the Hermosa Avenue elevation and two garage doors on the Palm Drive elevation. It is possible the Palm Drive building originally was the garage for the property, as it is a smaller structure, but there is no documentation confirming that. Currently the residential units are on the upper story of each building and parking in the first-floor garages. It is unclear whether the configuration of parking is original of if it was originally all in the building facing Palm Drive. Building permit records list that the buildings were re-roofed in 1987. Permits list that the building was sandblasted in 1980 and 1992. A number of building permits were taken out in the period between 1997 and 1999. These included statements about remodeling, interior alterations, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work, and addition of a roof deck. *B7. Moved? No Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: None b. Builder: Vincent Pickett *B10. Significance: Theme Multi-family Residential Development Area: Period of Significance: 1895-1970 Property Type: Multi-family dwelling Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity. The buildings at 3415-17 Palm Drive/3414-18 Hermosa Avenue are not an example of any historic or significant architectural style. They do not display any architectural details or references to any historic architectural style and neither possesses high artistic values. The buildings are not representative of any specific period. There is no evidence that the building was designed by a master architect. The workmanship is not that of a master craftsman. There is no evidence that anyone of historic significance or historic events associated with the property. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: Historic Resources Survey, 3415-17 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 5/2024 B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen Kaplan *Date of Evaluation: 5/2024 Page 240 of 440 Historic Resource Assessment 3415-17 Palm Drive Hermosa Beach Kaplan Chen Kaplan May 16, 2024 ATTACHMENT F: Resumes/Qualifications Page 241 of 440 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Historic Preservation Kaplan Chen Kaplan is an award-winning architecture and planning firm with a specialty in historic preservation. Historic resources are touchstones to the past that tell the stories of our diverse cultures. Kaplan Chen Kaplan believes that a thoughtful and balanced approach to historic preservation shapes the best designs and enhances communities. For over 20 years KCK has been providing services ranging from identifying historic resources for planning and environmental review to preserving and rehabilitating historic resources to ensure their future as useful, sustainable buildings and places. Historic preservation planning services include historic research and resource assessments, including CEQA level reports for environmental review, on a wide range of property types. Other services include development of historic contexts, HABS documentation, preparation of landmark designation nominations for local, state and federal levels, Mills Act and Federal Tax Act applications, master planning of historic resources, coordination with governmental agencies and reviews including Section 106 compliance. Architectural services include rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic resources. development of concept documents for approvals and fundraising efforts, architectural design and construction documents, specifications for treatment of historic structures and materials, as well as comprehensive construction phase services. We utilize the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Structures and State Historical Building Code to assist in analyzing and preserving original historic design within a safe environment. For construction projects we meet with architects, engineers, conservators and other consultants to develop an overall preservation strategy leading to detailed specifications. We meet frequently with review and plan-checking agencies as well as the State Historic Building and Safety Board. Our extensive experience with historic construction monitoring helps us anticipate and minimize the impact of unknowns Pam O'Connor and David Kaplan have worked together since 1995 on historic preservation issues, originally with Dr. Knox Mellon, former California's State Historic Preservation Officer. David Kaplan, licensed Architect, studied Architecture at University of Pennsylvania and received his graduate degree from UCLA. Pam O’Connor, planner and architectural historian, holds a Master of Science degree in Historic Preservation Planning from Eastern Michigan University. Kaplan Chen Kaplan meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for Historic Architect and Architectural Historian. Kaplan Chen Kaplan is identified as qualified for historic architecture and architectural history by the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and as qualified for CEQA level historic resource assessments in the City of Los Angeles. Page 242 of 440 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners Selected Architectural Projects Greystone Mansion (NRHP), Comm'l. Kitchen, HVAC, ADA and Library Restoration, City of Beverly Hills, 2010-2020 Fairfax HS Arts Gallery Project, Historic Resource Impacts Evaluation, 201 Fire Station15 Relocation and Adaptive Re-Use, USC School of Cinema Arts, 2014-2016 Biscuit Lofts (Nabisco Building) Landmark & Mills Act, Maintenance Plan 2007-2020 LAUSD Fort McArthur Naval Station Buildings, Assessment, Relocation & Rehabilitation, 2010-2016, Documentation & Monitor 2013-2014 El Pueblo Siqueiros Mural & Interpretive Center, Historic Architect. 2010–2013 El Palacio & Lotus Apartments, West Hollywood, Mills Act Maintenance Plan update, 2009 Chinese American Museum, Condition Assessment Report, Los Angeles, 2005 LAUSD Armory - Annenberg Science Center, CEQA Monitor, Historic Architect, 2000–2005 LAUSD Ambassador Hotel, Historic Documentation, Supplemental EIR & Monitor, 2006-2009 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Historic CEQA Monitor, 1997-2001, and Historic Architect, Project Restore, Council Chambers & Furniture, 2001 University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Historic Documentation, Construction Monitoring, Seismic Repair: Powell Library, Kerckhoff Hall, Royce Hall, Haines Hall, Kinsey Hall, Men’s Gym, Kaufman Hall (Dance), Mira Hershey Hall, Geffen Playhouse, Chancellor’s Residence, Clark Library, 1995-2007 University of Southern California, Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Seismic Repair: Doheny Memorial Library, Student Union, Mudd Hall, Kerckhoff House, Cockins House, Town & Gown, Physical Education, Business Administration, North Science, Hancock Hall, and Alumni House (Relocation) 1995-2019 Selected Historic Resource Assessment Projects Institutional facility, McLaren Hall, El Monte, Historic Resource Assessment, County of Los Angeles, 2020 Residence, 1711 Tropical Avenue, Beverly Hills, Historic Resource Assessment and Secretary of Interior’s Compliance Evaluation, 2020 Garden apartment complex, Dorset Village, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2020 Mixed use building, Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 College Campus, Los Angele Trade Technical College, Los Angeles, Auditorium Building and Campus, Historic Resource Assessment, 2019 Car wash, 7617 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Office building, 6464 Canoga Avenue, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Historic Context, Cathedral City Historic Context and Resource Report, 2017 Residence, 11100 Chalon Road, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2017 Motel, 15485 Ventura Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Business district, Swarthmore Avenue Historic Resource Assessment and HABS documentation, Pacific Palisades, 2016 Airport, Burbank Bob Hope Airport Historic Resource Evaluations, Burbank, 2014 Historic Resource Assessments for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 40 properties Historic Resource Assessments for West Hollywood properties, approximately 50 properties Page 243 of 440 Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 David Kaplan Principal Historic Architect David Kaplan is a registered architect with 30 years of experience working on historic preservation in Southern California. He brings a wide range of experience working in all phases of historic preservation including evaluations, assessments, documentation, and analysis of potential project impacts through construction monitoring. His knowledge of historic properties is furthered by his firm’s own design and construction documents for historic projects. Mr. Kaplan meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards for Historic Architecture and Architectural History. His work includes: CEQA level Historic Resource Assessments;; Secretary of Interior’s Standards compliance; HABS documentation, Mills Act submittals and local, state and federal landmark nominations. Selected Projects Greystone Mansion (NRHP), Comm'l. Kitchen, HVAC, ADA and Library Restoration, City of Beverly Hills, 2010-2020 HRA for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 40 properties 2016-2020 HRA for West Hollywood properties, approximately 30 properties, 2016–2019 Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 Residence, Venice Canal District, Historic Resource Assessment, 2020 MLK Jr. Medical Center, CEQA Cultural Resource Assessment & Monitor, 2015- 2020 Fairfax HS Arts Gallery Project, Historic Resource Impacts Evaluation, 2016 7617 Santa Monica Boulevard Carwash – EIR Cultural Resources Review, 2018 Fire Station15 Relocation and Adaptive Re-Use, USC School of Cinema Arts, 2014- 2016 Biscuit Lofts (Nabisco Building) Landmark & Mills Act, Maintenance Plan 2007-2020 LAUSD Fort McArthur Naval Station Buildings, Assessment, Relocation & Rehabilitation, 2010-2016 Sixth & Lucas Adaptive Re-use (1926, 8 story) Cultural Resource Assessment, Historic Documentation & Monitor 2013-2014 El Pueblo Siqueiros Mural & Interpretive Center, Historic Architect. 2010–2013 El Palacio & Lotus Apartments, West Hollywood, Mills Act Maintenance Plan, 2009 Chinese American Museum, Condition Assessment Report, Los Angeles, 2005 LAUSD Armory - Annenberg Science Center, CEQA Monitor, Historic Architect, 2000–2005 LAUSD Ambassador Hotel, CEQA Historic Documentation, Supplemental EIR & Mitigation Monitor, 2006-2009 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Historic CEQA Monitor, 1997-2001, and Historic Architect, Project Restore, Council Chambers & Furniture, 2001 Page 244 of 440 Architects & Planners David Kaplan Principal Historic Architect Page 2 University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Historic Documentation, Construction Monitoring, Seismic Repair: Powell Library, Kerckhoff Hall, Royce Hall, Haines Hall, Kinsey Hall, Men’s Gym, Kaufman Hall (Dance), Mira Hershey Hall, Geffen Playhouse, Chancellor’s Residence, Clark Library, 1995-2007 University of Southern California, Historic Buildings, Historic Architect, Seismic Repair: Doheny Memorial Library, Student Union, Mudd Hall, Kerckhoff House, Cockins House, Town & Gown, Physical Education, Business Administration, North Science, Hancock Hall, and Alumni House (Relocation) 1995-2019 Awards California Preservation Foundation, USC Historic Resources Restoration & Maintenance, 2017 Los Angeles Conservancy, American Tropical, Presidents Award, 2013 California Preservation Foundation, UCLA Kaufman Hall Rehabilitation, 2007 Los Angeles Conservancy, Wallis Annenberg Bldg. for Science (Armory), Honor Award, 2006 Los Angeles Conservancy, Geffen Playhouse Rehabilitation, Honor Award, 2006 Los Angeles Conservancy, USC Mudd Hall Seismic Upgrade, Honor Award, 2004 California Preservation Foundation, USC Doheny Library Seismic Renovation, 2002 Governor's Award for Historic Preservation, Powell Library Ceiling Restoration, UCLA, 1997 Additional Qualifications and Experience NPS Qualifications: Historic Architecture, Architecture History CHRIS - Historic Architect & Architectural History Registered Architect, State of California C12875, LEED AP Kaplan Chen Kaplan, Santa Monica, California, Principal, 1987 to present Knox Mellon and Associates, Riverside, California, Consultant, 1994 - 2000 Moore Ruble Yudell Architects and Planners, Santa Monica, Associate, 1986 - 1993 Urban Innovations Group, Los Angeles, California, Designer, 1977 – 1980 Education University of California, Los Angeles, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Master of Architecture, 1979 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Bachelor of Arts in Design of the Environment, honors major, cum laude, 1975 Page 245 of 440 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners 2526 Eighteenth Street Santa Monica CA 90405 Telephone 310.452.7505 Facsimile 310.452.1494 Pam O’Connor Preservation Planner and Architectural Historian Pam O’Connor is a preservation planner and architectural historian with 30 years of experience working in California. She brings a multi-disciplinary approach with experience in historic preservation planning, cultural geography, and architectural history as well as experience in planning policy and municipal governance to her work. Ms. O’Connor meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualification Standards for Architectural History. Professional Services: Historic Resource Assessments (including CEQA level); Development of Historic Context Statements; Impacts Analyses and Secretary of Interior’s Standards compliance; Historic documentation; Section 106 review; Local, state and federal landmark nominations Property types: Educational facilities and campuses: UCLA, USC, LATTC, CSU Channel Islands, LACC Institutional facilities and medical centers: Mc Laren Hall, MLK Jr. Medical Center Commercial buildings: office, retail, car wash, restaurant, banks, motels/hotels Industrial buildings and facilities: manufacturing, aerospace facilities, airports, automobile dealership Residential: single-family, multi-family, garden apartments, mixed use buildings Education: Master of Science, Planning/Historic Preservation, Eastern Michigan University Master of Liberal Studies, Technology Management, Eastern Michigan University Bachelor Science, Journalism, Southern Illinois University Awards: California Preservation Foundation (CPF) Design Awards: USC Doheny Library, 2002; CSU Channel Islands, 2000; UCLA Royce Hall, 1998; UCLA Powell Library, 1997, CPF Milton Marks Legislator of the Year Award, 1999. LA Conservancy Award, UCLA Royce Hall, 1999. Governor’s Award for Historic Preservation, UCLA Powell Library Ceiling Restoration, 1996. Public Service: Director (Alternate) Metrolink, Southern California Regional Rail Authority (2018-present); State of California Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee (2015-preent); Councilmember, City of Santa Monica (1994-2018; Mayor 1997, 1999, 2005, 2013-14); Director, Los Angeles County Metro (2001-2015); Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council (1996-2017); California Coastal Commission (Alternate, 2010- 2012); President, California Association of Councils of Governments (2015-2017) Page 246 of 440 Kaplan Chen Kaplan Architects & Planners Pam O’Connor Preservation Planner and Architectural Historian Page 2 Select Consulting Projects: Darrow Building by John Lautner, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2022 Los Angeles Daily News, 14539 Sylvan Street, Van Nuys, Historic Resource Assessment, 2021 Dorset Village Garden Apartments, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2021 HRA for CEQA review, City of Los Angeles, approximately 50 residential properties 2016-2023 HRA for West Hollywood properties, approximately 30 residential properties, 2016–2023 McLaren Hall, El Monte, Historic Resource Assessment, Los Angeles County, 2020 Jennie C. Brayton Building, 5119 Eagle Rock Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment/Landmark Nomination, 2020 Los Angele Trade Technical College, Los Angeles, Auditorium Building and Campus, Historic Resource Assessment, 2019 Car Wash, 7617 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Aerospace HQ, 6464 Canoga Avenue, Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Motel, 15485 Ventura Blvd, Los Angeles, Historic Resource Assessment, 2018 Cathedral City Historic Context and Resource Report, 2017 Swarthmore Avenue Business District, Pacific Palisades, Historic Resource Assessment and HABS documentation, 2016 Martin Luther King Jr. Medical Center, Historic Documentation, 2015 Burbank Bob Hope Airport Historic Resource Evaluations, Burbank, 2014 Aerospace industrial facility, (37 Buildings), San Fernando Road, Burbank, CA, 2013 Los Angeles City Hall Seismic Rehabilitation, Site Monitoring, 1998-2001 Page 247 of 440 Public Notification Package: 3415 Palm Drive Page 248 of 440 Page 249 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1.PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNITAPARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO CA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES.2.PARKING PLAN (PARK 25-01) AMENDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SHARED PARKINGPLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONVERSION OF 1,200 SQUARE FEET OF PREVIOUSLYNON-LEASED SPACE TO OFFICE OR RETAIL USE(S) AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(HERMOSA PAVILLION) IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 8 (SPA-8) ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15301(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES.3.TRI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR ON -SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2024, TO DECEMBER 31, 2024. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION15301OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES.4.REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) 23-10 TO ALLOW THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REMODEL OF AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING INCLUDING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF FOUR UNITS AND ADDITION OF A NEW TWO CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT 830 THE STRAND IN THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. FOR PURPOSES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA AND IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING. PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66317 AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REQUIRES A MINISTERIAL REVIEW. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. Page 250 of 440 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alexis Oropeza Planning Manager Page 251 of 440 Page 252 of 440 212 3412 235250247229 3402 201 20921022121622323624024933353320 3314 3414 3408 3404 3313373306 325 32163232218 2252202272312322412422452483205 3204310314 32252152002052112082302342372432523030 21922422624429062918 2072172142222924 2920 1221271301381422901 2930 3026 3022 3018 3010 30023020119 1501473130 3122 3112 120128135310131253224 3206 115 121126132139136320132173316 3312 3302 330014014433133324 3510 3504 35153501108 3430 3422 3410 111 123118125124133 137 3419 3518 3411 3417 3423 3435 34363443 3405 3330 3318 3310 3301 3233 3231 3222 3220 3207 3133 3124 3116 3108 3104 3100 3035 3033 3031 3007 3129 3003 33rd St Manhatt anAveHi ghl andAv e34th St 29th St 33rd Pl Palm D r Hermosa A ve 34th Pl Cr est Dr35th St 31st StBayviewDr 30th St Longfell o w A v e 30th Pl 3 4 th S t34th Pl 31st Pl 32nd Pl 35th Pl Neptune 35th St The Str a n d3415 300' RADIUS MAP ADDRESS: 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 r Page 253 of 440 Community Development Department – Planning Division City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 3415 Palm Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Assessor Parcel Number 4181-033-017 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the request described below. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO CA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860 Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 eComment - Submit an eComment by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to Community Development at communitydevelopment@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item plus meeting date in the subject line and must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. In order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254 Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Alexis Oropeza Planning Manager Page 254 of 440 34th St Hi ghl andAve33rd PlThe S t rand Manhat t an AvePalm D r 33rd St 34th Pl Cr es t Dr35th St BayView D r Hermo sa Ave 3 4 th S tLongfell o w A v e 34th Pl 31st Pl 31st S t 32nd Pl 35th Pl Neptun e A v e 35th S t Project Zoning MapPlanning CommissionMarch 18, 2025 Description 3415 Palm Drive APN: 4181-033-017 Zone: R-3 Multiple Family Residential 5-unit project, Precise Development Plan Legend R-1 Single Family Residential R-1A Limited Single-Family Residential R-2 Two Family Residential R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential R-3 Multiple Family Residential R-P Residential-Professional RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development C-1 Neighborhood Commercial C-2 Downtown Commercial C-3 General Commercial M-1 Light Manufacturing OS Open Space OS-1 Restricted Open Space OS-2 Restricted Open Space OS-O Open Space Overlay MHP Mobile Home Park SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) 300' Notification Radius Page 255 of 440 From:Christa Lyons To:Planning; City Council Subject:3415 Palm Ave Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 5:44:34 PM You don't often get email from christamlyons@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Hello, Please see below the notice posted at 3415 Palm Ave. How are they able to decrease the density from 10units to 5? Please the attached listing fro 2010 stating there are 10 units and showing the total rentscollected. This is very unfair considering how many people have been financially impacted by thedensity laws. Why is this being allowed? And why is this particular owner allowed to build so high? 50’ 6” is muchmuch higher than height limit. My understanding is that it's a family that simply wants to build 5 unitsfor each family member. This seems extremely unfair to the neighboring properties. CHRISTA LYONS REALTOR® | CalDRE#01489213 D + 310.722.7115 https://mattmorrisrealestategroup.com I have not and will not verify or investigate the information supplied by third parties. Begin forwarded message: From: Christa Lyons <christamlyons@gmail.com> Subject: 3415 Hermosa Ave Date: March 10, 2025 at 5:25:37 PM PDTTo: Christa Lyons <christamlyons@gmail.com> Page 256 of 440 Page 257 of 440 Page 258 of 440 Christa LyonsBRE# 01489213310-722-7115Sent from my iPhone Page 259 of 440 From:Rodger Deuerlein To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive: Restart public notice process with useful, honest imagery Date:Thursday, March 13, 2025 9:31:53 AM You don't often get email from rodger.deuerlein@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Greetings, As a first step, the Planning Commission needs to restart the public-notice process withrealistic images of what this building will look like in its actual surroundings. "50' 6" isn't very meaningful without context (and it's 53' 9" from the Hermosa Ave. sidewalk). Useful imagerywould depict the proposed building together with its surrounding neighbor buildings. The drawings at the City website do not provide this. In fact, the one non-blueprint picture isoutright deceptive, as it vanishes the home to the north, and replaces the home to the south with some generic fictional structure of unknown height. Regards, Rodger J. Deuerlein236 34th Street Hermosa Beach, CA310-245-8954 Page 260 of 440 Page 261 of 440 Page 262 of 440 From:Christa Lyons To:Planning; City Council Subject:3415 Palm Ave Date:Monday, March 10, 2025 5:44:34 PM You don't often get email from christamlyons@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Hello, Please see below the notice posted at 3415 Palm Ave. How are they able to decrease the density from 10units to 5? Please the attached listing fro 2010 stating there are 10 units and showing the total rentscollected. This is very unfair considering how many people have been financially impacted by thedensity laws. Why is this being allowed? And why is this particular owner allowed to build so high? 50’ 6” is muchmuch higher than height limit. My understanding is that it's a family that simply wants to build 5 unitsfor each family member. This seems extremely unfair to the neighboring properties. CHRISTA LYONS REALTOR® | CalDRE#01489213 D + 310.722.7115 https://mattmorrisrealestategroup.com I have not and will not verify or investigate the information supplied by third parties. Begin forwarded message: From: Christa Lyons <christamlyons@gmail.com> Subject: 3415 Hermosa Ave Date: March 10, 2025 at 5:25:37 PM PDTTo: Christa Lyons <christamlyons@gmail.com> Page 263 of 440 Page 264 of 440 Page 265 of 440 Christa LyonsBRE# 01489213310-722-7115Sent from my iPhone Page 266 of 440 Page 267 of 440 Page 268 of 440 From:Rodger Deuerlein To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive: Restart public notice process with useful, honest imagery Date:Thursday, March 13, 2025 9:31:53 AM You don't often get email from rodger.deuerlein@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Greetings, As a first step, the Planning Commission needs to restart the public-notice process withrealistic images of what this building will look like in its actual surroundings. "50' 6" isn't very meaningful without context (and it's 53' 9" from the Hermosa Ave. sidewalk). Useful imagerywould depict the proposed building together with its surrounding neighbor buildings. The drawings at the City website do not provide this. In fact, the one non-blueprint picture isoutright deceptive, as it vanishes the home to the north, and replaces the home to the south with some generic fictional structure of unknown height. Regards, Rodger J. Deuerlein236 34th Street Hermosa Beach, CA310-245-8954 Page 269 of 440 Planning Comm Re; Agenda Item 7.c. 3415 Palm Ave I request that the Commission deny this applicaAon. I hope the illustraAons of City docs go through. The submission from the Feb meeAng is quite extensive, & I am not a property lawyer. However, as evidenced at the last City Council meeAng, I think that my quesAons & arguments are shared by others. I hope that the City will come prepared to address these issues. 1. It seems that as there is no intenAon of following the obligaAons of GSC 65941.1, there should be no exempAon based upon that now cancelled filing, with a new updated and rouAne building plan. 2. In addiAon to giving this project the height exempAon – (hard to read the plans-is the roof deck FLOOR at 50’?), & referring to our own development stds, (pg6/11). why do you plan on allowing less than half of the required on-site parking? Is there an ADA parking space? Is that ever a consideraAon? An EV charging staAon?) 3. Why are you also disregarding both the Coverage% & the dwelling unit size criteria? I consider this project to be a true threat to the ciAes building codes, or is it as simple as that there are now State rules that effecAvely render local efforts null & void. Is there anything to stop the current project at 3430 Palm Ave. from holding at the demo phase and submidng a new plan? Aeer all, as stated in the staff historical assessment (pg 10/11,) “..the project would not result in a significant cumulaAve impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over Ame…” How about those other R3 similar lots along the North end of Palm Ave? And so the dominoes begin to fall… Thank you for your ajenAon, Richard Gojhoffer Page 270 of 440 Page 271 of 440 From:Richard Gotthoffer To:Planning Cc:Richard Gotthoffer Subject:2nd try in case Date:Sunday, March 16, 2025 1:48:34 PM Attachments:Devlpmt Stds table.pngKaplan comment.pngScreenshot 2025-03-16 at 10.56.27 AM.png You don't often get email from wysurfin@aol.com. Learn why this is important Planning Comm Re; Agenda Item 7.c. 3415 Palm Ave I request that the Commission deny this application. I hope the illustrations of Citydocs go through. The submission from the Feb meeting is quite extensive, & I am not a propertylawyer. However, as evidenced at the last City Council meeting, I think that myquestions & arguments are shared by others. I hope that the City will come preparedto address these issues. 1. It seems that as there is no intention of following the obligations of GSC65941.1, there should be no exemption based upon that now canceled filing, with a new updated and routine building plan. 2. In addition to giving this project the height exemption – (hard to read the plans-is the roof deck FLOOR at 50’?), & referring to our own development stds,(pg6/11). why do you plan on allowing less than half of the required on-site parking? Is there an ADA parking space? Is that ever a consideration? An EVcharging station?) 3. Why are you also disregarding both the Coverage% & the dwelling unit sizecriteria? I consider this project to be a true threat to the cities building codes, or is it as simpleas that there are now State rules that effectively render local efforts null & void. Is there anything to stop the current project at 3430 Palm Ave. from holding at thedemo phase and submitting a new plan? After all, as stated in the staff historical assessment (pg 10/11,) “..the project would not result in a significant cumulativeimpact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time…” How about those other R3 similar lots along the North end of Palm Ave? And so thedominoes begin to fall… Thank you for your attention, Richard Gotthoffer wysurfin@aol.com Page 272 of 440 Page 273 of 440 From:donotreply@escribemeetings.com on behalf of eSCRIBE.Admin To:Jake Whitney Subject:Public Comment Received Date:Monday, March 17, 2025 11:08:28 AM User John Rogers has enter the following comment(s): I have lived at my residence since 1983. With my location at 125 34th st. I have lost view afterview of the ocean. Without buying on the strand you are susceptible to this loss of view. I can accept this because it's the Hermosa Beach building guide lines. To keep the city small andquaint, unlike Santamonica with its high rise building plan.The planned 5 story building at 3415 Palm Drive North Hermosa will disrupt this City plan. A building 20 feet above the 30'height limit will start the decay of Small and Quaint Hermosa, a reason we live here. for REQUEST TO APPROVE PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO ALLOWA NEW FIVE-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO THE HOUSINGACCOUNTABILITY ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5 - 25-CDD-008 in PLANNING COMMISSION 3/18/2025 7:00:00 PM Please log into eSCRIBE to review the submitted comment(s). Page 274 of 440 From:HB Connnect To:Planning Subject:Fw: Strong opposition to PDP 24–08 Date:Tuesday, March 18, 2025 3:19:38 PM Hi Planning Division, I am forwarding an email that may be related to your department. Thank you! Community Resources Department City of Hermosa Beach O: 310-318-0280 E: hbconnect@hermosabeach.gov From: Katy Jenssen <jenssenkaty@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 2:12 PM To: HB Connnect <HBConnect@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Strong opposition to PDP 24–08 You don't often get email from jenssenkaty@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Attention Planning Manager, Alexis Oropeza, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to increasing the height allowance on theapartment building for 3415 Palm Dr. My family has lived in Hermosa since the early 1940s, building our current family home in 1951. We have a strong desire to keep our town from becoming a high-rise nightmare. Please let me know where and how I need to make sure my voice is heard to stop this fromproceeding further. Thank you, Katy Jenssen and family Mosaic Surf Art Page 275 of 440 Page 276 of 440 Page 277 of 440 Page 278 of 440 Peter J. Howell Direct Dial: (714) 662-4661 E-mail: phowell@rutan.com March 18, 2025 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714-546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 planning@hermosabeach.gov Re: March 18, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Item 7c - Precise Development Plan (PD 24-08) for 3415 Palm Drive Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter is sent on behalf of HNP Investments LLC, which owns a property in the vicinity of the proposed development at 3415 Palm Drive (“Project”) and is one of many neighbors concerned about the proposed improper use of the “Builder’s Remedy” to approve an outrageously oversized and incompatible project in a residential neighborhood. As acknowledged in the Staff Report for the Project, the Project fails to comply with numerous objective building standards; among other things, it exceeds the 30 foot height standard by more than 20 feet, significantly exceeds the maximum lot coverage, and fails to provide necessary parking. If built as proposed it would have a substantial detrimental impact on the neighborhood, blocking views from dozens of other homes and reducing property values. The City of Hermosa Beach (“City”) nonetheless seems poised to approve the Project under the mistaken assumption that it has no choice. As discussed below, the Staff Report for the Project appears to be based on the incorrect premise that the City is forbidden from applying any development standards to the Project, because it is being processed under the Builder’s Remedy. To the contrary, recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) clarify that the City may require a Builder’s Remedy project to comply with “objective, quantifiable, and written development standards,” so long as doing so does not render the project infeasible. (See Government Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A).) Simply put, assuming arguendo1 that the Project qualifies for the Builder’s Remedy and that the applicant is entitled to cram 5 units onto its 2,553 square foot lot, that does not mean that the City has to approve any 5-unit project, without any consideration of the City’s objective development standards or regard for how it will impact the surrounding neighborhood. 1 Without the complete project file, it is impossible to determine whether the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project. We have submitted a Public Records Act request for documents relating to the Project, and reserve the right to raise this issue in any further proceedings relating to the Project. Page 279 of 440 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 2 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 In addition, the HAA expressly provides that local agencies must comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the California Coastal Act (“Coastal Act”) in processing a Builder’s Remedy project application. Here, the Staff Report indicates that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA, but fails to consider whether the Project may have a significant environmental impact due to unusual circumstances, including the fact that the Project is located in the City’s Coastal Zone and is adjacent to public beach access and The Strand. These circumstances, along with the fact that the Project does not comply with many of the standards designed to ensure development will not negatively impact the surrounding area, necessitate environmental review. Among other things, the Project will have significant impacts on views and conflicts with numerous land use policies. Accordingly, at a minimum, the City must prepare an initial study pursuant to CEQA to evaluate whether the Project may have a significant effect on the environment (to be followed by a full environmental impact report if the initial study indicates the possibility of such an impact). Similarly, while noting the Project is subject to the Coastal Act and will require approval from the California Coastal Commission, the Staff Report fails to discuss whether the Project is consistent with the Coastal Act. As discussed below, it is not. The size and height of the Project will significantly impact coastal views. The Project is not compatible with the character of surrounding area. And the lack of parking will detrimentally impact access to the City’s public coastal resources. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reject the Project, as currently configured. The Project must be redesigned to comply with the City’s objective development standards, to the extent feasible, and the City must comply with CEQA before the Planning Commission can lawfully consider approving a revised version of the Project. A. The City Can Apply Objective, Quantifiable, and Written Development Standards to the Project. The Staff Report for the Project incorrectly suggests that the City is barred from applying any of its objective design standards to the Project. While previous versions of the Builder’s Remedy provision were ambiguous as to a local agency’s ability to apply objective development standards to a Builder’s Remedy project, the recent amendments in Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1893 make clear that local agencies are not categorically prohibited from enforcing such standards.2 Specifically, AB 1893 provides that a city may “require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant,” so long as doing so would not “[r]ender the project infeasible.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A), (B).) 2 The Staff Report indicates that the applicant has elected to proceed under the updated law to avoid providing the affordable housing required under the previous version of § 65589.5. Page 280 of 440 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 3 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Staff Report erroneously assumes that the City cannot enforce objective development standards related to minimum lot coverage, height, open space, and parking as a result of the Builders’ Remedy provisions, without attempting to demonstrate that applying such standards would reduce the proposed density or otherwise render the Project infeasible. Importantly, even a cursory review of the Project plans shows that it would be possible to build a more-compliant version of the Project without sacrificing any density. For example, the top (Fourth) floor of the Project consists mainly of office space for Unit 5, which also includes 1,640 square feet of living area on the Third Floor. An extra story for an office and rooftop deck does not further any purpose of the HAA, which is intended to encourage the development of additional, affordable residential units. Accordingly, it would be very simple to eliminate the Fourth Floor—and lower the height of the Project by approximately ten feet—without reducing the number of units. Similarly, the garage is currently at grade level. A partially below-grade garage—like that utilized in the building directly adjacent to the Project site—would lower the height of the Project by approximately 2.5 feet. Likewise, reducing ceiling heights to 8 feet would lower the overall height by another 6 feet. Thus, even a few minor changes could reduce the overall height of the Project to approximately 32 feet. Similarly, while the staff report indicates the Project complies with setback requirements, a review of the plans appears to indicate that all floors above the ground floor encroach well into the required setback, almost to the property line. (See Hermosa Beach Municipal Code § 17.46.070 [“Required yard areas shall be unobstructed from ground to sky except specifically allowed…”].) It would be possible to comply with the required 10 foot front setback from the property line without reducing the number of units by reducing the size of the living areas and bedrooms and/or eliminating a bathroom. The height and setback standards are only two examples. As indicated in the Staff Report, the Project fails to comply with numerous objective, quantifiable, and written criteria, including the standards for minimum lot area (1,320 sf per dwelling unit), lot coverage maximum (65%), height (30 ft.) parking (13 parking spaces and 10 garage spaces), and private open space (300 sf per unit). (Staff Report, pp. 6–7.) All of these standards must be enforced unless doing so would render the Project infeasible. In short, nothing in the Builder’s Remedy requires the City to entirely ignore its objective development standards and rubberstamp any project that does not exceed the maximum density permitted by the HAA, no matter the design of the project. It is indisputable that it is possible to design a feasible 5-unit project that better conforms to the City’s objective standards and that would be less impactful to the surrounding community. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should reject the Project, as currently configured, and direct staff to work with the applicant to redesign the Project to conform to the City’s objective standards to the extent possible. Page 281 of 440 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 4 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 B. The City Must Comply with CEQA Before Considering Whether to Approve the Project. Projects proceeding under the Builder’s Remedy provisions must still comply with all requirements of CEQA. (Gov. Code § 65598.5(e) [“Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).].) CEQA requires that public agencies analyze whether a project might have any significant environmental impacts before granting any approval of such a project, unless the project is clearly “exempt” from CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15004(a).) While the CEQA Guidelines set forth exemptions for several categories of projects that have been determined generally not to have any significant impacts on the environment, such “categorical exemptions” “are construed narrowly,” in keeping with the requirement that CEQA “be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment.” (County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 943-944, 966.) Further, a categorical exemption may not be relied upon where there is a “reasonable possibility” that an otherwise exempt project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) Here, the Staff Report asserts that the Project is exempt from CEQA under the “Class 3” exemption for small structures, because “it consists of a multi-family residential project that is less than six units in an urbanized area.” (Staff Report, p. 10, citing CEQA Guidelines § 15303(b).) While the Staff Report correctly notes that projects that may have significant environmental impacts due to unusual circumstances cannot rely on a categorial exemption, it fails to provide any sort of analysis of this issue. The Staff Report and accompanying materials themselves demonstrate the existence of unusual circumstances that may result in significant environmental impacts. Unusual circumstances that differentiate the Project from a typical Class 3 project and give rise to at least a “reasonable possibility” that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment include the following: (1) the Project is located within the Coastal Zone near important public facilities (Staff Report, p. 6); and (2) the Project does not comply with numerous development standards that are designed, in part, to minimize potential adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Such circumstances are likely to result in adverse impacts to at least two CEQA categories: aesthetics and land use and planning. CEQA requires consideration of aesthetic impacts, including impacts on scenic views. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, section I; see also Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist., (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [even non-expert opinions regarding Page 282 of 440 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 5 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 aesthetic impacts may constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact, requiring preparation of an EIR].) As set forth in the City’s General Plan, “[t]he character and beauty of Hermosa Beach are inextricably linked to its coastal location and natural topography.” (General Plan, Ch. 5, p. 160 [“In addition to the ocean vistas, the visual character of Hermosa Beach itself is considered a unique resource.”].) Allowing a project that is only a block away from the beach to substantially exceed the maximum height limit (by more than 40 percent!) and lot coverage standard will have significant adverse impact on views from public and private viewpoints, including dozens of homes. Unfortunately, it is impossible for the public and Planning Commission to understand and evaluate the extent to which the Project will block views, because the City has not undertaken the required analysis. An expert view analysis involving view simulations from multiple vantage points and/or the use of story poles is necessary and must be completed by the City as part of its CEQA process. Such a study should also consider the cumulative impacts that could result from the Project and other future development. Nonetheless, even a rudimentary attempt to look at how the Project would impact views indicates that it will obstruct ocean views from public rights-of-way. (See, e.g., Exhibit A.)3 Moreover, while it is sometimes said that CEQA is primarily concerned with public views, impacts to private views cannot be ignored, especially when numerous members of the public will be impacted. (See, e.g., Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 402 [“The District cites nothing in CEQA that relieves it from considering the impact of the project on private views. To say there is no common law right to a private view, is not to say that the District is relieved from considering the impact of its project on such views.”].) Thus, an analysis of the Project’s impact on views from both public and private viewpoints is required by CEQA. CEQA also requires consideration of whether a project may “conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.” (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, section XI.)4 When a project is within the Coastal Zone, this task must include an analysis of whether the project is consistent with the Coastal Act. (See, e.g., Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1233 [finding EIR adequately analyzed Coastal Act consistency].) 3 We are in the process of gathering additional evidence of view impacts that we anticipate submitting to the City in advance of further proceedings on the Project. Again, however, it is the City’s responsibility to undertake the required view analysis. 4 Notably, while the Staff Report purports to include an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan “for reference purposes” (Staff Report, p. 10), it fails to analyze numerous relevant General Plan policies, including those discussed herein. Page 283 of 440 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 6 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Project is inconsistent with numerous City General Plan goals and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating aesthetic impacts, including, but not limited to the following: • Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced. The culture and identity of Hermosa Beach is defined in part by scenic value. The City seeks to maintain and enhance the beauty of Hermosa Beach, and to ensure future development does not substantially detract from identified scenic public viewpoints or uninterrupted viewing areas, particularly within the Coastal Zone. • Policy 5.2 Visual character. Accommodate economic growth and new buildings in a way that is consistent with and reflects the visual character of the community. • Policy 5.3 Building site and design. Massing, height, and orientation of new development adjacent to Prominent Public Viewpoints and Uninterrupted Viewing Areas shall be evaluated and, to the extent reasonable, new development will be sited and designed to minimize additional obstructions of public coastal views to and along the ocean and scenic areas. As discussed above, the Project is located within the Coastal Zone, just a block from the ocean, yet it fails to comply with building height and massing standards designed to protect views as well as the visual character of the area. The Project is likewise inconsistent with General Plan policies designed to protect public access to the City’s coastal resources, including: • Goal 6. The coast and its recreational facilities are easily accessible from many locations and by multiple transportation modes. Providing and maintaining public access both to and along California’s coast is a central premise of the California Coastal Act. The City of Hermosa Beach is committed to maintaining and enhancing public access through the provision of multiple access points, increased visibility and signage, and increased opportunities for alternative modes to safely travel to the beach. • Policy 6.7 Minimal impact to access. Require new development and substantial redevelopment projects to minimize impacts to existing public access to and along the shoreline. (See also General Plan, Ch. 3, p. 116 [“Provide measures to expand coastal access through sufficient parking and alternative transportation.”]; General Plan, Ch. 5, p. 160 [“Provide measures to ensure new development does not impede access and is compatible with public access areas.”].) Page 284 of 440 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 7 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 Here, the Project is adjacent to public beach access as well as a pedestrian/bicycle path that runs along The Strand.5 Parking in such area is limited and already difficult to find, particularly during the summer. Nonetheless, the Project only provides about half of the parking required by the City’s zoning code, meaning residents of the Project will be forced to use the limited street parking along Hermosa Ave, 34th Street, 35th Street, and Manhattan Ave. (See Staff Report, p. 6.) Moreover, the parking proposed by the Project is even worse than suggested by the numbers, because it includes driveway spaces that would block access to the garage, thus encouraging additional street parking to avoid inconvenience. Accordingly, the Project will reduce the amount of parking available to members of the public seeking to visit the beach and reduce public access to the coast. As discussed further below, the Project is also inconsistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act. In sum, the Project clearly has the potential to have significant aesthetic and land use impacts due to usual circumstances. As a result, the City may not lawfully approve the Project in reliance on a categorical exemption. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c) [“A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”].) Instead, the City must prepare an initial study to analyze the Project’s potential impacts (or alternatively, commence preparation of a full environmental impact report). (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15063.) C. The Builders’ Remedy Does Not Excuse Compliance With the Coastal Act. As with CEQA, the HAA expressly provides that Builder’s Remedy projects are subject to the Coastal Act. (Gov. Code § 65598.5(e) [“Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).”].) While the Staff Report notes that the Project is located within the Coastal Zone and will require separate approval from the California Coastal Commission, it fails to provide any discussion of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act was enacted to provide “a comprehensive scheme to govern land use planning for the entire coastal zone of California.” (Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobil Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 55 Cal.4th 783, 793; see also Pub. Res. Code § 30001.) The Coastal Act expressly requires the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas to be considered and protected as a resource of public importance: Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the 5 The City’s General Plan recognizes The Strand as “a feature unique to this beach front residential area.” (General Plan, p. 83.) Page 285 of 440 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 8 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. (Pub. Res. Code, § 30251.) Here, the Project both fails to protect views and is inconsistent with the character of the surrounding area. The Project sits within an existing residential neighborhood, but would not comply with many objective development standards designed to ensure new development is compatible with the neighborhood and does not adversely affect existing residents. (See Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 997, 1009, quoting Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 517–518 [“A zoning scheme, after all, is similar in some respects to a contract; each party foregoes rights to use its land as it wishes in return for the assurance that the use of neighboring property will be similarly restricted, the rationale being that such mutual restriction can enhance total community welfare.”].) At more than 50 feet tall6—some 20 feet taller than permitted by Code—it will tower over its neighbors, blocking views and casting shade upon adjacent properties. However, despite this significant deviation in height, the Staff Report does not analyze, or even mention, the potential impacts such a large building may have on the surrounding area. The Coastal Act also requires development in the Coastal Zone to “maintain and enhance public access to the coast.” (Pub. Res. Code § 30252.) To achieve this goal, the Coastal Act requires developments to provide “adequate parking facilities” to ensure access to coastal resources is preserved. (Ibid.) As currently proposed, the Project includes six less parking spaces and six less garage spaces than would be required by the City’s objective design criteria. As a result, vehicle traffic from the Project will have to use limited street parking to meet demand. Considering the Project is adjacent to a public entrance to the beach and the Strand, this lack of parking necessarily limits available parking in the area for those seeking to access the City’s coastal resources. The lack of parking for the Project will necessarily require residents to compete with the public and beachgoers for parking in this area. Therefore, the Project fails to comply with mandatory provisions of the Coastal Act and should be rejected or conditioned on compliance with these provisions. The Project’s lack of consistency with the Coastal Act is both a CEQA impact that precludes reliance on a categorical exemption and an independent basis for denying the Project. (See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at 1233 [finding EIR adequately analyzed Coastal Act consistency].) * * * 6 While the Staff Report indicates a maximum height of 50.5 feet, the Project plans appear to indicate a total height of 53.9 feet. Page 286 of 440 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Page 9 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 For the reasons set forth above, the Planning Commission should reject the Project, as concurrently configured. Any future redevelopment of the property must be compliant with the Coastal Act and, to the extent feasible, the City’s objective development standards. Further, any such project can only be considered after the City completes the necessary CEQA review. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Peter J. Howell Enclosure: Exhibit “A” cc: City Attorney Patrick Donegan - Patrick.Donegan@bbklaw.com City Clerk Myra Maravilla - cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov Page 287 of 440 Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 | 714-641-5100 | Fax 714-546-9035 Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com 3084/039567-0001 21932235.3 a03/18/25 EXHIBIT “A” Page 288 of 440 -1- Exhibit A Taken March 16, 2025 from 35th Street between Manhattan Ave. and Highland Ave. Red box indicates approximate project location. Page 289 of 440 -2- Page 290 of 440 Rory Barish Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Delivered via "e-comment" portal on agenda posted on the City website and via email: planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov March 18, 2025 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Planning Commission Hearing March 18,2025 Agenda Item 7.c.- PDP 24-08; 3415 Palm Avenue Commissioners, I strongly oppose this development and request the Commission at the March 18 hearing to recommend City Council DENY the application or would like Commission to continue this discussion to a later date. The address given by the applicant is 3415 Palm Avenue, this property fronts on Hermosa Avenue at 3414-3418. I feel it the duty of the Planning Staff and the City to be open to working with the applicant in other ways that can help them achieve their goal of enlarging their property without putting an enormous strain on the community, defying height and zoning restrictions and ruining the coastline forever more. Just because the City failed to have its Housing Element certified in a timely manner, does not mean that Planning staff should conclude that the City does not have grounds to deny this application ("Builder's Remedy). This is not black or white. There is a middle ground to be achieved here. It might take a bit of work but it is essential that another route be considered. Why should any doors be shut? Why should the book be closed in the Commission's minds or the City's minds when there is a better solution in the next chapter of the book? I do not believe that the spirit of the Builder's Remedy was intended for this purpose. It was meant for much larger projects that included affordable housing offered to the public. This will not exist here and offers no solution to help the situation of affordable housing. In this case, it appeared to me that the applicant, wanted to increase the size of their footprint and could only think to use this Builder's Remedy because of the restrictive current state housing laws. However, I am told by the applicant that the major roadblock here was the City of Hermosa Beach whose restrictive codes and not the states, prevented him from accomplishing his goal of increasing the size of his property while at the same time respecting height restrictions of the neighborhood. That is frustrating to hear indeed. The Page 291 of 440 applicant's intention was not to build the highest home at the beach but to simply increase the size of their residence which the City would not allow. I implore the applicant to give us something to work with, other plans that conform to the neighborhood while increasing the square footage of his home. so that we all can work on this with the City. It is a lot easier to deal with Municipal codes rather than lobbying to change state laws. The neighborhood would much prefer to fight with the applicant on getting this modification accomplished rather than fighting against the applicant if this project intends to stand as it is. Some of my arguments against and regarding this project include, but are not limited to; There is an abundance of essential information that could not possibly be digested by the public to prepare for their possible arguments in the short time before the meeting on the tonight (on the18th). This only serves as a gain to the applicant and does not take the public's views into consideration. Necessary information was not given to the public in a timely manner nor was the information posted correctly. The height, for example, posted at the property at 50 .5 ft is not accurate. It is 53.9 ft, as measured from the sidewalk on Hermosa. The NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING was posted on the property (hard for most people to see) only 6 City working days before the Planning Commission Meeting on the 18th and it came in the mail to the surrounding neighbors days later. Aside from being inconsistent with various underlying zoning and general plan standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, density, lot area per dwelling unit, parking and open space (as if this isn't enough to deny this project), I strongly feel that it violates Government Code 65589.5 (d) (2), health and safety. The neighbors directly to the north, Brian and Anna Jung will be robbed of their sunlight which has been proven to have detrimental affects on physical and mental health. To my knowledge there has not been a shadow study. There needs to be one. Why have the Jungs or this issue, one of many, not been taken into consideration? What traffic studies have been done? It is not reasonable to even think that adding another vehicle parking space on Palm Drive would be a good idea. It is narrow enough for cars to get through and maneuver in and out of their garages but adding garbage trucks, mail trucks, delivery trucks, fire trucks, workmen, bikers, dogs and pedestrians into the mix, well this is a legitimate safety concern and an accident waiting to happen. And relating to the Coastal Act? Section 30251 states that scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and PROTECTED as a resource of public importance. This property with its surrounding properties will be completely inconsistent with the others and violates this provision. This charming beach town as it stands has a mix of charming beach bungalows and newly built modern homes that do not exceed 30 ft on Hermosa Avenue and 25 ft on The Strand. Its height, mass and scale will dwarf all other structures and its incompatibility is glaring and obvious. Page 292 of 440 Also, in relation to parking, does the project provide sufficient off-street parking to avoid burdening this area where public parking is in short supply? Has this been thoroughly taken into consideration as well? A lot more work needs to be done here. I believe that there are enough legal grounds to deny this project and it should be denied. At the same time, the next order of business to be done here, as stated above, is to accomplish getting the much needed square footage for the applicant while adhering to present height requirements and addressing safety and health concerns.... Thank You, Sincerely, Rory Barish Page 293 of 440 Jim and Janet Hamilton Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Delivered via “e-comment” portal on agenda posted on the City website and via e-mail: planningcommission@hermosabeach.gov March 18, 2025 Planning Department City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Planning Commission Hearing March 18, 2025; Agenda Item 7.c. - PDP 24-08; 3415 Palm Drive Honorable Commissioners: We have lived in our home on the Strand for over 47 years directly across Hermosa Avenue from the subject property which is currently a 4 unit, 2 story property between Palm Drive and Hermosa Avenue. Over all those years, we have enjoyed the great character and vibe of Hermosa Beach and hate to even think of its character being as dramatically changed as it would be with the completion of the proposed 5-story development on 3415 Palm Drive and 3414-3418 Hermosa Avenue. We oppose this proposed project as grossly failing to comply with and conform to many of the City’s laws and ordinances concerning residential projects, including its 5 stories and height of 53 feet, more than 75% higher than the City’s height maximum! We are shocked to learn that there is a law, the so-called Builder’s Remedy, which might possibly allow this project to proceed, dramatically altering the character of the City’s residential areas for the worse. We are even more shocked to see that there is already a detailed draft ruling prepared by the City Attorney for the Planning Commission approving this project. Last but not least, we do not understand why a hearing on this project, raising unique, complex and significant issues, has been scheduled on such short notice. This leaves us and our neighbors with insufficient time to gather all the relevant facts, obtain legal advice on the related legal issues and present all the reasons this project should not be approved. How can this be? Page 294 of 440 We have yet to receive any written notice of this hearing, though it was allegedly mailed out only 11 days ago on March 6. We only became aware of the proposed 3415 Palm development last Tuesday at about 5:30 pm when a neighbor informed us of the same. We understand that at least two residents made public records requests to the City for the documents relevant to this matter, and that no such records have been made available to date. Why the rush to move this matter to a public hearing before the Planning Commission on such short notice? Why a draft ruling in favor of this project before the public has had a fair and meaningful amount of time to present their opposition? We respectfully request that the March 18, 2025 hearing be continued for at least 30 days. Should this request be denied, we encourage the Planning Commission to carefully consider the points we understand will be made by some of our neighbors, keeping in mind that the burden is on the Applicant to establish that the proposed project truly qualifies for approval despite its huge adverse impact on the character of our neighborhood, not to mention the City as a whole. This includes the failure of the Applicant to show that this project will not create unsafe conditions by increasing the height to 53’ and five stories, over 75% higher than the City’s maximum 30-foot height limit, without adequate ingress and egress to the top floors. As we understand neighbors will advocate, the proposed project does not pass muster even under the Builder’s Remedy. From what we have been able to learn on such short notice, there are a number of reasons the pending Application should be denied, or at least deferred to allow open questions to be answered. Please do not treat this issue lightly. Please recognize its importance and make sure your decision about this project is the right decision and warranted from the evidence, with no material questions unanswered for lack of the same. Please call the question only after a full and fair hearing where all the relevant facts are known and on the record and all parties have had the opportunity to be heard. Respectfully submitted, Jim and Janet Hamilton Page 295 of 440 -----Original Message--- From: tony higgins <tony.higgins123@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 8:43 PM To: DG_PlanningCommission <DG_PlanningCommission@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Suja Lowenthal <suja@hermosabeach.gov>; City Clerk <cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov>; Patrick Donegan <Patrick.Donegan@bbklaw.com> Subject: Re: 3415 palm edit On Mar 14, 2025, at 8:19 PM, tony higgins <tony.higgins123@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Planning Commission i sure hope you are prepared to answer public questions along these lines in the upcoming 3/25/25 meeting during the hearing on 3415 palm First, this is an interesting read that seems to suggest that the density bonus height remedies may be subject to coastal commission height and scenic view provisions. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2560 basically, the question is, regardless of the status of the above bill, what happens when state coastal comm rules conflict with state builders remedies? what is the max height allowed in hb coastal zones by the coastal commission? if builders remedy allows more height which law rules? do coastal commission scenic view rules apply to builders remedy concessions? has the planning commission or the council explained this clearly to the public? its also interesting to note the staff report says; 3. Denial or imposition of conditions on the project is required to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no other feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable. https://pub-hermosabeach.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=9033 anyway how conflicts between coastal commission and builders remedy rules play-out is beyond my understanding but the questions is if their height or any other state law conflicts (eg height or scenic view) and what happens then? i hope you are prepared to identify all potential conflicts between the 3415 palm concessions and coastal commission rules or any other state law. the 3415 palm situation is an affront to the residents of north hermosa. a greedy builder is being allowed to suck the value out of neighboring homes and enrich himself under the guise of affordable housing even though there are no low or moderate income units. 3415 is all market rate units!!! simply outrageous! and to add insult to injury the residents have been put in this situation because the city didnt aggressively pursue hcd approval of the housing element until it was too late and builders remedy had already kicked in; and now residents are paying the price. ah Page 296 of 440 Good afternoon, I was made aware of a project at 3415 Palm Drive/3400 block of Hermosa Ave. today. I understand that there is a City Council meeting today and the planning commission is on March 18. I am not able to attend the meetings and wanted to share my opposition to this project to the commission. Please vote no on this project. The proposed project does not offer affordable or low income housing units. I m hoping the city will insure they have investigated the proposed project by: 1. Scrutinized the application and confirmed that is was a COMPLETE SB 330 application filed before the Housing Element was approved on, at latest, August 1, 2024? The preliminary application was submitted in January 2024 and the formal submittal in June 2024. HOWEVER, in January 2025 there was a formal resubmittal to remove the prior affordable housing unit and take advantage of a new law. Was that resubmittal, AFTER the Housing Element was approved and the Builder’s Remedy was no longer available in Hermosa Beach, legal? 2. Investigating if the City has any means to require the new unit (or really any of the units) actually be placed into the rental market? Could the absentee owner could simply keep one or more units for use by themselves and friends and family, as they do with units in the existing structure. 3. Determining if there health or safety issues associated with such a large project on a small lot, which will tower over the neighboring properties? Is there grounds to deny the project on health grounds, given the shadow it will cast on the property to the north? Does the proposed 3 car off- street parking on Palm Drive cause raise safety concerns as it is very narrow and already difficult to maneuver? 4. Is the proposed project, which is located in the Coastal Zone, inconsistent with any provisions of the Coastal Act which would allow the project to be denied on that basis? Because the City does not yet have delegated development approval authority from the Coastal Commission, these arguments may need to be raised with the Coastal Commission. If it had the political will, could the City oppose the project at Coastal Commission or join with or otherwise assist residents in that challenge? 5. Possibilities of violations of the Coastal Act include Section 30251, which states that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Being completely inconsistent with the surrounding properties seems violative of this provision. 6. Another possibility is a violation of Coastal Act provisions related to parking/public access. Does the project provide sufficient off-street parking to avoid burdening this area, where public parking is already in short supply? There may be more, again we believe it is the City’s responsibility to investigate these matters for the good of our community. Thank you, Jill Hewes *** Monterey Blvd. Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 310-***-67*1 Page 297 of 440 From: Katy Jenssen <jenssenkaty@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 2:12 PM To: HB Connnect <HBConnect@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Strong opposition to PDP 24–08 Attention Planning Manager, Alexis Oropeza, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to increasing the height allowance on the apartment building for 3415 Palm Dr. My family has lived in Hermosa since the early 1940s, building our current family home in 1951. We have a strong desire to keep our town from becoming a high-rise nightmare. Please let me know where and how I need to make sure my voice is heard to stop this from proceeding further. Thank you, Katy Jenssen and family Mosaic Surf Art You don't often get email from jenssenkaty@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Page 298 of 440 From:Hayes Noel To:Planning Subject:53’ building! Date:Friday, April 11, 2025 11:54:36 AM [You don't often get email from hayesanoel@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Please deny approval of the proposed building at 3415 Palm Drive. It is way out of character for Hermosa to have an apartment building 20’ above code limits. We fear it will change our neighborhood irretrievably. Thank you. Hayes Noel 2800 Strand Hermosa Beach Sent from my iPhone Page 299 of 440 From:Dana Jacobs To:Planning Subject:50 foot tower in Hermosa Beach? Really Date:Sunday, April 13, 2025 9:25:07 AM You don't often get email from djacobs16828@gmail.com. Learn why this is important This cannot be allowed to happen. How do you miss a deadline like this? Dana Jacobs123 29th St. Page 300 of 440 From:renee wright To:Planning Subject:3415 Palm Drive proposed development Date:Wednesday, April 16, 2025 3:07:46 PM [You don't often get email from wreneetnt@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Planning Department I am asking you to PLEASE leave our Hermosa Beach town intact by denying such a monstrosity from being built in our beach town. We have so few small bungalows remaining to keep the beach image of our town alive. Building such a tall building with so many resident will impact our image, our traffic, our living density and block the view of so many residents who call this their home and treasure their living space Please…. YOU must STOP this and any future similar buildings from destroying our homes, our beaches, out beach town. I beg you! Sincerely, Renee Wright 576 21 st street Hermosa Beach Page 301 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 9 Meeting Date: March 18, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-046 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission REQUEST TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SHARED PARKING PLAN (PARK25-01) TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSOLIDATION OF FOUR RETAIL TENANT UNITS TOTALING 5,368 SQUARE FEET INTO TWO UNITS, AND TO ALLOW THE ACTIVATION OF 1,203 SQUARE FEET OF PREVIOUSLY NON-LEASED COMMON SPACE INTO NEW LEASABLE OFFICE OR RETAIL SPACE WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 8 (SPA-8) ZONE (Associate Planner Jake Whitney) CEQA: Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2) Approve a Parking Plan Amendment (PARK25-01) to allow for the consolidation of four retail tenant units totaling 5,368 square feet into two units, and to allow the activation of 1,203 square feet of previously non-leased common space into new leasable office or retail space without providing additional parking at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway in the Specific Plan Area 8 zone, subject to conditions. Executive Summary: The Planning Commission (PC) approved a shared parking plan for the commercial property at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway (commonly known as the Hermosa Pavillion) beginning in 1986 through PC Resolution 86-40. Over the years, the parking plan has been amended several times for new mixes of uses to occupy tenant spaces in the building and to allow for their expansion. The applicant now requests an amendment to the parking plan to allow for the consolidation of four retail tenant units into two office or retail suites, as well as to convert 1,203 square feet of non-leased common space into leasable space without increasing parking. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the requested Parking Plan amendment subject to conditions. Background: The property involved in the request is a multi-tenant shopping center, with 128,069- square-feet of leasable area as well as a six-level parking structure containing 496 Page 302 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 9 marked spaces collectively known as Hermosa Pavillion located at the corner of Pacific Coast Highway and 16th Street. The site is designated as Community Commercial (CC) in the General Plan and is zoned Specific Plan Area 8 (SPA-8).The site is located outside of the Coastal Zone boundary. The Planning Commission (PC) first approved a parking plan for the site (commonly known as the Hermosa Pavillion) beginning in 1986 through PC Resolution 86-40. Over the years that original parking plan has been amended several times to allow different types of uses to occupy the building’s tenant spaces and to accommodate their expansion. The site was first approved for development as a theater, restaurant, and shopping complex. The most recent modification to the parking plan occurred in 2016 with the Planning Commission’s approval of PC Resolution 16-2 allowing for an expansion to an existing tutoring/educational facility. The site is governed by various entitlements, some governing the site at large, and others governing individual uses within the shopping complex. The relevant entitlements currently governing the parking plan at the site are CC Resolution 06-6482 (requiring free parking for the first validated two hours), PC Resolution 08-23 (modifying the allocation of uses), and PC Resolution 16-2. (Sustaining the prior allocation of uses). A summary table of prior meetings and actions regarding parking plan management and amendments are included below for reference. Past Board, Commission, and Council Actions Meeting Date Description July 15, 1986 Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan for a theater, restaurant, and shopping complex May 7, 1991 Planning Commission denies a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan Amendment for a Billard’s Hall with a restaurant, and on-sale alcohol service January 19, 1999 Planning Commission approves a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan Amendment for an expansion and remodel to the Hermosa Pavillion and to accommodate a new allocation of uses within the center February 19, 2002 Planning Commission approves a Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, and Variance to expand and remodel the Hermosa Pavillion to accommodate a new mix of uses, and to allow the enclosure of an upper floor open deck above the parking structure exceeding the 35-foot height limit Page 303 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 9 Meeting Date Description April 9, May 28, and June 11, 2002 City Council sustains the PC’s decision to approve a Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, and Variance to expand and remodel the Hermosa Pavillion to accommodate a new mix of uses, and to allow the enclosure of an upper floor open deck above the parking structure exceeding the 35-foot height limit August 19, 2003 Planning Commission approves a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan to expand and remodel Hermosa Pavillion and to accommodate new uses within the center April 18, 2006 Planning Commission modifies the Conditions of Approval in the existing Parking Plan to require two-hours of free parking for validated patrons of the businesses within the Hermosa Pavillion July 11, 2006 City Council sustains the Planning Commission’s decision to modify the Conditions of Approval in the existing Parking Plan to require two-hours of free parking for validated patrons of the businesses and offices within the Hermosa Pavillion August 15, 2006 Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale general alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant and approves a Parking Plan Amendment to modify the allocation of uses within the Hermosa Pavillion December 12, 2006 City Council sustains the Planning Commission’s decision to allow on-sale general alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant and approve a Parking Plan Amendment to modify the allocation of uses within the Hermosa Pavillion April 15, 2008 Planning Commission approves a Parking Plan Amendment to modify the allocation of uses to include a personal wine storage facility in the Hermosa Pavillion August 18, 2009 Planning Commission denies a request by property ownership to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan to eliminate the two-hour free validated parking Conditions of Approval January 11, 2011 Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan Amendment to allow a Page 304 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 9 Meeting Date Description Tutoring/Educational Facility with a maximum of 35 students January 19, 2016 Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan Amendment to expand an existing Tutoring/Educational Facility Site Information Table: The following table describes the existing site characteristics. Site Information General Plan Community Commercial (CC) Zoning Specific Plan Area 8 (SPA-8) Lot Size 83,268 square feet Existing Leasable Square Footage 128,089 square feet Surrounding Zoning North: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) East: Specific Plan Area 8 (SPA-8) South: Specific Plan Area 8 (SPA-8) West: Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Surrounding Uses North: Residential East: Commercial South: Commercial West: Residential The purpose of the proposed Parking Plan Amendment is to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the parking demand analysis based on the proposed allocation of space and on-site uses and determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the proposed allocation without adding additional parking. Based on the parking demand analysis dated February 19, 2025, prepared by Minegar & Associates, staff is supporting the proposed amendment on the basis that there will be sufficient on-site parking for the proposed allocation of uses under existing conditions. Please refer to the section titled “Parking Study Analysis” below for additional details. Project Description The applicant proposes to amend the Parking Plan for the Hermosa Pavillion to allow for the consolidation of four retail tenant units totaling 5,368 square feet into two office or Page 305 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 9 retail units, and to allow the activation of 1,203 square feet of previously non-leased common space into new leasable space. The applicant proposes to satisfy the demand for parking through the shared parking plan instead of providing additional parking. The applicant has provided a updated parking study dated February 19, 2025, prepared by Minagar & Associates, Inc. to evaluate the parking demand of this proposal on the availability and utilization of on-site parking. Discussion: Development Standards Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.44.015 (D)(2) requires that when a building is expanded by greater than 10 percent or more than 500 square feet, (whichever is greater) parking shall be provided as specified in Chapter 17.44. Given that the proposed project will expand the leasable square footage of the property by 1,203 square feet, additional parking is required. In accordance with HBMC Section 17.44.030 an office or retail use requires one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. As a result, five new parking spaces would typically be required to accommodate this proposed expansion. However pursuant to HBMC Section 17.44.210, a parking plan may be approved by the Planning Commission to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required with the appropriate studies documenting that adequate parking would be provided due to the specific characteristics and circumstances of the development. It has been the City’s practice that parking plans and amendments to existing parking plans are accompanied by a parking study to demonstrate the peak parking demand for a site and recommend any operational changes. Parking Study Analysis The Parking Study provided to staff dated February 19, 2025 shows parking data in the Hermosa Bach Pavillion pertaining to a collection period spanning 21 days from January 15, 2025 to February 5, 2025 utilizing 24-hour daily monitoring. The observed peak parking demand occurred at 10:00 AM on a Saturday, with 433 spaces occupied out of the available 496. This demonstrates a surplus of 63 spaces (12.7 percent) even during peak conditions. The study revealed distinct patterns in parking utilization across weekdays and weekends. Weekday utilization demonstrated a typical office-use pattern ranging from a low of approximately 18.15 percent during early morning hours to peak occupancy during mid-day business hours and followed by evening declines. Weekend patterns showed later morning peaks with more sustained afternoon usage. If the proposed 1,203-square-foot expansion were allowed to occur, it is assumed based on the municipal code required parking ratios for office uses, that the demand generated by this expansion would total five parking spaces. This would result in a peak utilization of 88 percent of the existing parking supply (438 spaces out of 496) when taking into account existing office vacancies on site. Page 306 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 6 of 9 When the analysis looked at a future condition in which the entire Hermosa Beach Pavillion was at full occupancy, there was one morning hour on Saturday where it was projected that there would be a deficit of one parking space amounting to a 100.2 percent utilization rate. However, this analysis is based on a very conservative set of assumptions. Planning staff and the city’s traffic engineer both reviewed and found this very conservative estimate is unlikely to occur given the variability of business operating hours and days as well as vacancies. HBMC Section 17.44.060(A) provides the following general criteria for the Planning Commission’s considerations for shared parking arrangements (or Common Parking Facilities): 1. Whether the affected requirements are those of permanent buildings, or those of mere occupancies; The project would accommodate a new tenant suite configuration onsite as well as a 1,203-square-foot expansion of leasable space that would require maintaining the shared parking arrangement. 2. The peak as well as normal days and hours of operation of such buildings and of the structures and occupancies with which it is proposed to share multiple-use parking areas; The applicant provided an addendum to the prior parking study prepared by Minegar and Associates dated February 19, 2025 describing the changes in hour- by-hour parking demand. Specifically, when the converted common space is evaluated as an office use, the total projected peak parking demand (10 am on a Saturday) would reach 438 parking spaces required out of the existing 496 spaces available on site. This number is derived by taking the current peak parking demand under existing conditions (433 spaces used at the peak hour during a 7- day week) and adding five utilized spots to this total which represents the theoretical parking demand generated by the proposed 1,203-square-foot expansion based on the City’s existing parking ratios for office space (1 space per 250 square feet). This amounts to an 88 percent utilization rate of the existing parking supply when taking into account existing office vacancies on site. When the analysis looked at a future condition in which the entire Hermosa Beach Pavillion was at full occupancy, there was one morning hour in a seven-day week where it was projected that there would be a deficit of one parking space amounting to a 100.2 percent utilization rate. However, this analysis is based on a very conservative set of assumptions. Planning staff and the city’s traffic engineer both reviewed and agree this very conservative estimate is unlikely to occur given the variability of business operating hours and days as well as vacancies. (Attachment 3, Pages 19-20) 3. Whether the proposed multiple-use parking area is normally or frequently used by the patrons, customers or employees of other buildings or occupancies which will share such parking area at the same time as the applicant’s patrons, customers and employees will normally or frequently utilize such parking area; Page 307 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 7 of 9 The project maintains the shared use of parking by both employees and customers. The Parking Study considers the parking demand by both employees and customers within its calculations and finds an adequate supply to allow a 1,203-square-foot expansion in leasable space under existing vacancy conditions and further finds that in a future scenario in which the Hermosa Beach Pavillion is at full occupancy levels, there shall be one hour in a given 7 day week where there is projected to be a deficit of one parking space. However, this analysis is based on a conservative set of assumptions that all vacant office space on site is being fully utilized on weekends, which does not account for variability in business operations and market conditions. 4. The certainty that the multiple-use parking area(s) will be available for satisfying such parking requirements to the extent approved, and the permanency of such availability; and The project maintains the shared parking arrangement previously approved by the Planning Commission as recently as 2016, with minor changes in tenant suite configuration and an expansion of 1,203 square feet of leasable space. The applicant will be required to record a copy of the approved resolution describing the shared parking arrangement, as well as an affidavit of acceptance demonstrating the applicant acknowledges the entitlement in its entirety (See Condition #7). 5. The proximity and accessibility of the multiple-use parking area(s). The project proposes no change to site circulation or use of tandem parking. Additionally, the project will not change the location of provided parking in relation to uses on all engaged sites or means of access. General Plan Consistency This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: General Plan Consistency Land Use Element Findings Goal 1. Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high quality of life for residents. The property will continue to provide enough parking to accommodate the combination of uses onsite. Further, the shared parking arrangement provides enough shared parking during peak hours of operation, to ensure all parking will be onsite and no spillover into adjacent residential neighborhoods is expected under existing occupancy conditions. Policy 1.7 Compatibility of uses. Ensure the placement of new uses does not create or exacerbate nuisances between different types of land uses. Goal 4. A variety of corridors throughout the city provide opportunities for The Community Commercial General Plan Designation is intended to provide Page 308 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 8 of 9 General Plan Consistency shopping, recreation, commerce, employment and circulation. commercial goods and services that primarily serve the local market and community. The proposed tenant space reconfiguration and leasable area expansion would amend the type of office/retail offerings in the community for added employment and commerce opportunities in the area. Policy 4.1 Shared parking. Facilitate park-once and shared parking policies among private developments that contribute to a shared parking supply and interconnect with adjacent parking facilities. Goal 13. Land uses patterns that improve the health of residents. The project proposes the reconfiguration of commercial tenant spaces as well as a 1,203-square-foot expansion permitted under a shared parking arrangement. Shared parking promotes efficient use of land, reduces traffic, and encourages walking. The reconfiguration would amend the type of office/retail offerings in the community for added employment and commerce opportunities. Policy 13.2 Social and health needs. Support the continuation of existing and new uses that enhance the social and health needs of residents. Policy 13.4 Private health uses. Allow for the development of private recreation, cultural, educational, institutional and health care uses along Corridors and in Districts, where they are compatible with existing uses. Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption for Existing Facilities as defined in section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it consists of an expansion of less than 50 percent of the existing floor area before the addition and less than 2,500 square feet total. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption(s) apply, nor would the project result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Public Notification: For the March 18, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, a total of 953 public hearing notices were mailed to the applicant, occupants, and property owners of properties within a 500-foot radius on March 5, 2025. A legal ad was published on March 6, 2025 in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC 17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as Attachment 7. As of the writing of the report, staff has received no public comments. Page 309 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 9 of 9 Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Project Plans 3. Updated Parking Study dated Feb 19, 2025 4. Zoning Map 5. CC Resolution 06-6482 6. PC Resolution 08-23 7. PC Resolution 16-2 8. Public Notification Package Respectfully Submitted by: Jake Whitney, Associate Planner Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney Approved: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Page 310 of 440 PC Resolution 25-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT (PARK 25-01), TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSOLIDATION OF FOUR RETAIL TENANT UNITS TOTALING 5,368 SQUARE FEET INTO TWO UNITS, AND TO ALLOW THE ACTIVATION OF 1,203 SQUARE FEET OF PREVIOUSLY NON-LEASED COMMON SPACE INTO NEW LEASABLE OFFICE OR RETAIL SPACE WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING, AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 8 (SPA-8) ZONE AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve, and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Margaret Taylor and John Farrace on November 26, 2024 on behalf of the property owner 1601 PCH LP to amend an existing Parking Plan to accommodate the consolidation of four existing retail tenant units totaling 5,368 square feet into two office or retail units, and to allow the activation of 1,203 square feet of previously non-leased common space into new leasable office or retail space without providing additional parking at the site’s shared parking structure, at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway in the Specific Plan Area 8 (SPA-8) Zone. Section 2. The applicant provided an updated parking study prepared by Minegar and Associates dated February 19, 2025 to analyze the parking impacts to the site based on the above listed scope. Section 3. The Planning Commission (PC) first approved a parking plan for the site (commonly known as the Hermosa Pavillion) beginning in 1986 through PC Resolution 86-40. Over the years that original parking plan has been amended several times to allow different types of uses to occupy the building’s tenant spaces and to accommodate their expansion. The site was first approved for development as a theater, restaurant, and shopping complex. The most recent modification to the parking plan occurred in 2016 with the Planning Commission’s approval of PC Resolution 16-2 allowing for an expansion to an existing tutoring/educational facility. The site is governed by various entitlements, some governing the site at large, and others governing individual uses within the shopping complex. The relevant entitlements currently governing the parking plan at the Page 311 of 440 site are CC Resolution 06-6482 (requiring free parking for the first validated two hours), PC Resolution 08-23 (modifying the allocation of uses), and PC Resolution 16-2. (Sustaining the prior allocation of uses). Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the subject application on March 18, 2025, at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 5. The proposed project is found by the Planning Commission to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, as it consists of an expansion of less than 50 percent of the existing floor area before the addition and less than 2,500 square feet total. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption(s) apply, nor would the project result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Section 6. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares the following pertaining to the application for a Parking Plan, pursuant to the review criteria for Parking Plans pursuant to HBMC Section 17.44.060(A) 1. Whether the affected requirements are those of permanent buildings, or those of mere occupancies; The project would accommodate a new tenant suite configuration onsite as well as a 1,203-square-foot expansion of leasable space that would require maintaining the shared parking arrangement. 2. The peak as well as normal days and hours of operation of such buildings and of the structures and occupancies with which it is proposed to share multiple- use parking areas; The applicant provided an addendum to the prior parking study prepared by Minegar and Associates dated February 19, 2025 describing the changes in hour- by-hour parking demand. Specifically, when the converted common space is evaluated as an office use, the total projected peak parking demand (10 am on a Saturday) would reach 438 parking spaces required out of the existing 496 spaces available on site. This number is derived by taking the current peak parking demand under existing conditions (433 spaces used at the peak hour during a 7- Page 312 of 440 day week) and adding five (5) utilized spots to this total which represents the theoretical parking demand generated by the proposed 1,203-square-foot expansion based on the City’s existing parking ratios for office space (1 space per 250 square feet). This amounts to an 88 percent utilization rate of the existing parking supply when taking into account existing office vacancies on site. When the analysis looked at a future condition in which the entire Hermosa Beach Pavillion was at full occupancy, there was one morning hour in a seven-day week where it was projected that there would be a deficit of one parking space amounting to a 100.2 percent utilization rate. However, this analysis is based on a very conservative set of assumptions. Planning staff and the city’s traffic engineer both reviewed and agree this very conservative estimate is unlikely to occur given the variability of business operating hours and days as well as vacancies. 3. Whether the proposed multiple-use parking area is normally or frequently used by the patrons, customers or employees of other buildings or occupancies which will share such parking area at the same time as the applicant’s patrons, customers and employees will normally or frequently utilize such parking area; The project maintains the shared use of parking by both employees and customers. The Parking Study considers the parking demand by both employees and customers within its calculations and finds an adequate supply to allow a 1,203- square-foot expansion in leasable space under existing vacancy conditions and further finds that in a future scenario in which the Hermosa Beach Pavillion is at full occupancy levels, there shall be one hour in a given 7 day week where there is projected to be a deficit of one parking space. However, this analysis is based on a conservative set of assumptions that all vacant office space on site is being fully utilized on weekends, which does not account for variability in business operations and market conditions. 4. The certainty that the multiple-use parking area(s) will be available for satisfying such parking requirements to the extent approved, and the permanency of such availability; and The project maintains the shared parking arrangement previously approved by the Planning Commission as recently as 2016, with minor changes in tenant suite configuration and an expansion of 1,203 square feet of leasable space. The applicant will be required to record a copy of the approved resolution describing the shared parking arrangement, as well as an affidavit of acceptance Page 313 of 440 demonstrating the applicant acknowledges the entitlement in its entirety (See Condition #7). 5. The proximity and accessibility of the multiple-use parking area(s). The project proposes no change to site circulation or use of tandem parking. Additionally, the project will not change the location of provided parking in relation to uses on all engaged sites or means of access. SECTION 7. Based on the evidence received at the public meeting, the Planning Commission hereby further finds, determines, and declares that the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa) because the Parking Plan Amendment is consistent with Land Use Policies 1.7, 4.1, 13.2 and 13.4 as shown below. Goal 1. Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high quality of life for residents. Policy: 1.7 Compatibility of uses. Ensure the placement of new uses does not create or exacerbate nuisances between different types of land uses. Conformity: The property will continue to provide enough parking to accommodate the combination of uses onsite. Further, the shared parking arrangement provides enough shared parking during existing peak hours of operation, to ensure all parking will be onsite and no spillover into adjacent residential neighborhoods is expected under existing occupancy conditions. Goal 4. A variety of corridors throughout the city provide opportunities for shopping, recreation, commerce, employment and circulation. Policy: 4.1 Shared parking. Facilitate park-once and shared parking policies among private developments that contribute to a shared parking supply and interconnect with adjacent parking facilities. Conformity: Page 314 of 440 The Community Commercial General Plan Designation is intended to provide commercial goods and services that primarily serve the local market and community. The proposed tenant space reconfiguration and leasable area expansion would amend the type of office/retail offerings in the community for added employment and commerce opportunities in the area. Goal 13. Land uses patterns that improve the health of residents. Policies: 13.2 Social and health needs. Support the continuation of existing and new uses that enhance the social and health needs of residents. 13.4 Private health uses. Allow for the development of private recreation, cultural, educational, institutional and health care uses along Corridors and in Districts, where they are compatible with existing uses. Conformity: The project proposes the reconfiguration of commercial tenant spaces as well as a 1,203 square foot expansion permitted under a shared parking arrangement. Shared parking promotes efficient use of land, reduces traffic, and encourages walking. The reconfiguration would amend the type of office/retail offerings in the community for added employment and commerce opportunities. SECTION 8. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Parking Plan Amendment Case No. PARK 25-01 subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed modifications to the building, allocation of uses, and square footages shall be consistent with those identified in the Updated Parking Analysis, prepared by Minegar and Associates Inc. dated February 19, 2025, and shall be substantially consistent with the plans and application submitted and approved by the Planning Commission on March 18, 2025. The Community Development Director shall review and may approve minor modifications that do not otherwise conflict with the Municipal Code or requirements of this approval. 2. Any material change to the allocation of uses that increases parking demand shall require a Parking Plan Amendment. Modifications that do not increase Page 315 of 440 parking demand pursuant to HBMC 17.44 (Off-Street Parking) may be approved by the Community Development Director. 3. The use shall be subject to and bound by all other restrictions pertaining to the building and parking structure as well as any parking management program applicable to a use in the building generally. The use and management of parking at the Hermosa Beach Pavilion shall continue to be subject to the programs set forth in City Council Resolution 06-6482, and Planning Commission Resolution 08-23, in addition to the specific approvals set forth in resolutions applied to various tenant spaces. Meanwhile the allocation of commercial uses shall be subject to the allocation specified in Condition #1. 4. All parking shall be shared among all uses within the Hermosa Beach Pavilion and shall be available within the structure for employees and customers of all tenants in the building. All parking shall be available on a first come, first served basis (i.e., no assigned or reserved spaces for any person, tenant space or use, except that tandem spaces may be assigned to employees). 5. A minimum of two-hour free validated parking within the Hermosa Beach Pavilion parking structure shall be provided for employees and patrons of the businesses. Signs shall be prominently displayed at all entry locations and in all public areas of the Hermosa Pavillion to promote the two-hour free validated parking program. 6. The Parking Plan Amendment shall not be effective unless and until the tenant space and its use conform to all codes, and Conditions of Approval have been complied with. Approval of these permits shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission, unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided. Page 316 of 440 7. Prior to issuance of the building permit, an ‘Acceptance of Conditions’ affidavit and recording fees shall be filed with the Community Development Department stating that the applicant/property owner is aware of, and agrees to accept, all of the conditions of this grant of approval. This approval shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Parking Plan Amendment shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Section 9. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 18th day of March, 2025. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 25-05 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 March 18, 2025. Kate Hirsh, Chair Alexis Oropeza, Secretary Page 317 of 440 ____________________ Date Page 318 of 440 155OFFICE165OFFIC E PROJECT SUMMARYTHE PROJECT CONSISTS OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS WORK:CONSOLIDATION OF 4 EXISTING RETAIL TENANT SITES AND PORTION OF EXISTING ARCADECOMMON SPACE INTO 2 SPEC OFFICE SUITESNEW PARTITIONS AND ELECTRICALEXISTING SF FOR EACH SUITE:SUITE #155 - 853 SFSUITE #160 - 663 SFSUITE #165 - 1,173 SFSUITE #170 - 2,623 SFEXISTING COMMON SPACE: 4,275 SFAMOUNT OF SF BEING ADDED TO EACH EXISTING SUITE:SUITE #155 - 811 SFSUITE #165 - 392 SFNEW TOTAL SF FOR EACH SUITE:SUITE #155 - 2,254 SFSUITE #165 - 4,317 SFFIRE SUPPRESSION SPRINKLERS: ALTER EXISTING SYSTEM AND ADD NEW CONSTRUCTION,KEEPING EXISTING IN OPERATION.FIRE ALARM: ALTER EXISTING SYSTEM AND ADD NEW CONSTRUCTION, KEEPING EXISTING INOPERATION.TELEPHONE: ALTER EXISTING SYSTEM AND ADD NEW CONSTRUCTION, KEEPING EXISTING INOPERATION.KEY PLANVICINITY MAPBUBRDLMBLKGBDBOLLDBLDG&AVGAUTOARCHAPPLANODANNUNCALTALAFFACOUSACCESBUILT UP BROADLOOM BLOCKINGBOARDBOLLARD BUILDING ANDAVERAGEAUTOMATICARCHITECT(URAL)APPLIANCE ANODIZEDANNUNCIATOR ALTERNATEALUMINUMABOVE FINISHED FLOORACOUSTIC(AL)ACCESSORY WTRPRFWTW/OWDWWDWCW/VIFVERTVEHU.N.O. UTIL UNDRLAYTYPT&GTRTDTRANSTRAFTLTTHKSYSSUSPSURFSTRUCTSTRFRSTLSTDSSTSIMSHORGSGLSFSECURSCRWATERPROOFINGWEIGHTWITHOUTWINDOWWOODWATER CLOSETWITHVERIFY IN FIELDVERTICALVEHICLEUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEUTILITYUNDERLAYMENTTYPICALTONGUE AND GROOVETREATED TRANSPARENTTRAFFIC TOILET THICKSYSTEM(S)SUSPENDEDSURFACE STRUCTURALSTOREFRONT STEELSTANDARDSTAINLESS STEELSIMILARSHORING SINGLE SQUARE FEETSECURITY SCRIBE CABINET CARPET CEMENT(ITIOUS)CERAMICCEILINGCOATING COILING CONCRETECONSTRUCTIONCONTINUOUS(ATION)CONTRACT(OR)COVERCONCRETE MASONRY UNITDOUBLEDEPARTMENTDESIGN(ED)DETAILDRINKING FOUNTAINDIAMETERDIFFUSERDIMENSIONDISPENSERDIVISIONCABCPTCEMCERCLGCOATGCOILGCONCCONSTRCONTCONTRCOVCMUDBLDEPTDESDETDFDIADIFFDIMDISPDIVDOWNDOLLAR (US CURRENCY)DOOR DISCONNECT DRAWERELASTOMERICELECTRICALEMBEDD(ED)(ING) ENGINEER(ED)ENTRANCEEQUALEQUIPMENTEXISTING EXPANSION JOINTDN$DRDSCONDWRELASTELECEMBEDENGRENTREQEQUIPEXISTEXP JTEXTERIORFABRICATION FLOOR DRAINFIRE EXTINGUISHER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETFIRE HOSE CABINETFINISHFOLDINGFIREPLACE FIRE RAT(ING)(ED) FRAMINGFIXED FIXTUREFLOOR(ING)FURNITUREFABRIC WALL COVERINGGAUGEGLASS FIBER REINFORCEDGLASS FIBER REINFORCEDGLASS FIBER REINFORCEDGLASSGRAD(E)(ING)GYPSUMEXTFABFDFEFECFHCFINFLDGFPLCFRFRMGFXDFXTRFLRFURNFWCGAGFRCGFRGGFRPGLGRGYPPLASTERGYPSUMCONCRETEEXPOSE(D) EXPSAIR CONDITIONINGJANINFILTRINTINTLKINSULINSTRUMINFOHVACHORIZHMHDWEHDWDHDJANITORINFILTRATION INTERIOR INTERLOCK(ING)INSULATIONINSTRUMENT(ATION) INFORMATIONHEATING, VENTILATING, ANDHORIZONTALHOLLOW METALHARDWAREHARDWOODHEADKITCHENLAVATORYPOUNDKITLAVLBLIGHTLEVELING LOUVERMAXIMUMMANUFACTURED MANUFACTURERMECHANICALMETALMEMBRANEMEZZANINEMINIMUMMISCELLANEOUSMILLWORKMOISTURE MOTOR(IZED) MOUNTEDLTLVLGLVRMAXMFDMFRMECHMETMEMBMEZZMINMISCMLWKMOISTMOTMTDNOT IN CONTRACTNUMBERNOT TO SCALEORNAMENTALOVERFLOWOVERHEAD OPENING(S)OPERABLE PARTITIONPEDESTRIANPARTICLE BOARDPANELPOLYSTYRENEPORTABLEPREFINISHEDPREFABRICATED PLASTIC LAMINATEPLASTERPLASTIC PLYWOODPROTECTION READERRECESSED RECEPTACLEREFER(ENCE)REFLECTEDREFRIGERATORREQUIREDRESIST(ANT)(IVE) NICNONTSORNAOVFLOVHDOPNGOPRPTNPEDTRPBDPNLPOLYSTPORTPREFINPREFABPLAMPLASPLSTCPLYWDPRTECNRDRRECESRECPTREFREFLREFRREQ'DRESISRESILIENTROOFINGROOMROUGH OPENINGRESILRFGRMROREINFORCE(D)(ING)(MENT)REINFPROJECT DIRECTORYAPPLICABLE CODESTRUENORTHPLANNORTHABBREVIATIONSAN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ONTHE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOROF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. PER ORDINANCE 170,158)(INCLUDES COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS AND TI WORK OVER $10,000) SEPARATE PLUMBING PERMIT ISREQUIRED.SEISMIC GAS VALVE:THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTRICT A FIVE-FOOT CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TOANY WATER OR POWER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULL-BOXES, TRANSFORMERS,VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS, APPURTENANCES, ETC) OR TO THE LOCATION OF THEHOOK-UP. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN-FEET OF ANY POWER LINES -WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAYCAUSE CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND / OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT-OF-WAY:DESIGN-BUILD NOTES:1. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DRAWINGS, CALCULATIONS,GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY APPROVALS AND FEES TO COMPLETE THIS WORK FOR ALLSPRINKLER AND FIRE/LIFE SAFETY WORK/SCOPE.2. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SUPERSEDE ALL ENGINEERING DRAWINGSW FOR QUANTITY ANDLOCATION OF MATERIALS AND FIXTURES.3. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYREQUIRED CERTIFIED CALCULATIONS AND/OR DRAWINGS REQUIRED TO SATISFY INSPECTIONREQUIREMENTS THAT RESULT FROM ON-SITE CONDITIONS OR WORK PERFORMED.FIRE SPRINKLERS, FIRE ALARM, LOW VOLTAGEMEP UNDER SEPARATE PERMITSDEFERRED SUBMITTALS: A0-00COVER SHEETN/ASRMGMPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK NNo. C 21600LIC E NSEDARCHITECTGUIL L ERMOMONTERSTATEOFCALI FORNIAREN.4-30- 2 5SIGNED ON JULY 26, 2024Telephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES2ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/243ISSUE FOR PLAN CHECK07/26/24C:\Users\ShannonRoseMcShea\Desktop\1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A0-00-COVER SHEET.dwg 1601 PCHSTREET LEVEL SPEC SUITES1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CABUILDING MANAGEMENT:CBRE, INC.BUILDING OWNER1601 PCH LPC/O HIDDEN HARBOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 290HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254TEL. (310) 612-3594INTERIOR DESIGNERONE design collectiveTEL. (562) 355-0879CONTACT: SHANNON MCSHEAAPPLICABLE CODES2022CBC (BASED ON 2021 IBC)2022CPC (BASED ON 2021 UPC)2022CEC (BASED ON 2021 NEC)2022CMC (BASED ON 2021 UMC)2022CBC ENERGY CODE TITLE 24, PART 62022 CGBC*2023CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CA AMENDMENTS PER ORDINANCE 16-4252019CALIFORNIA FIRE CODECHAPTER 3 USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONCLASSIFICATION1. GROUP B: BUSINESSTOTAL USABLE SPACE: 6,571 USFTOTAL AREA OF WORK: 6,571 USFACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS: YESNUMBER OF STORIES: 2CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE 1-FRSPRINKLERED BUILDING: YESPROJECTAREAINTERIOR DESIGN:A0-00COVER SHEETA0-01GENERAL NOTESA0-02GENERAL NOTESA0-03GENERAL NOTESA0-04 GENERAL NOTESPARKING STRUCTURE PLANSA2.1AS-BUILT PARKING P2 LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.2AS-BUILT PARKING P3 LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.3P4 LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.4P5 LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.5AS-BUILT PARKING P6 LEVEL FLOOR PLANINTERIOR DESIGNA1-00DEMOLITION PLANA1-01PARTITION PLANA3-00DEMOLITION REFLECTED CEILING PLANA3-01REFLECTED CEILING PLANA4-01FINISH PLANA5-01EGRESS PLANA6-01ELEVATIONSA7-01DETAILSA7-03GLAZING DETAILSDA-01PATH OF TRAVELDA-02EXISTING ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMSDA-03ACCESSIBLE NOTESDA-04ACCESSIBLE NOTESDRAWING INDEX"AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ARE FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS ONLY AND IS NOTREVIEWED BY LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THEDISABLED ACCESS PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN THE CURRENT CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC).IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S AND THEIR AGENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH ALLFEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES."Page 319 of 440 Page 320 of 440 PROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK NNo. C 21600LIC E NSEDARCHITECTGUIL L ERMOMONTERSTATEOFCALI FORNIAREN.4-30- 2 5SIGNED ON JULY 26, 2024Telephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES2ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/243ISSUE FOR PLAN CHECK07/26/24DEMOLITION PLANEXISTING PARTITIONS TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING PARTITIONS TO REMAINEXISTING DOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED1.REFER TO "A0.00" , 'A0.01", "A0.02", "A0.03"' "A0.04" AND "A0.05" DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONALNOTES AND INFORMATION.2.SEE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN FOR ANY REQUIRED CEILING DEMOLITION.3.PATCH AND SKIM COAT WALLS TO RECEIVE SPECIFIED WALL FINISH.4.SAVE DOORS, FRAMES AND HARDWARE FOR RELOCATION OR RETURN TO BUILDING STOCK.COORDINATE STORAGE WITH BUILDING MANAGEMENT.5.EXISTING WINDOW COVERINGS TO BE REMOVED, CLEANED AND REINSTALLED AFTERCOMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. CHECK BUILDING STOCK BEFORE GENERATING NEW ORDERFOR MISSING ITEMS.6.REMOVE ALL EXISTING FLOORING FINISHES ( CARPET & PAD) AND BASE. CONFIRM REMOVAL OFHARD SURFACE FLOORING, WOOD, TILE, VCT & STONE WITH ONE design collective. PREP DECKFOR NEW SCHEDULED FINISH.SUITE 155DEMO EXISTING STOREFRONT THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL WALLS, DOORS/FRAMES, ALL MILLWORK/DISPLAY CABINETS.DEMO ALL EXISTING CEILING, SOFFITS, LIGHTING AND HVAC.DEMO ALL KITCHEN EQUIPMENT AND PLUMBING THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL FLOORING.SUITE 160DEMO EXISTING STOREFRONT THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL WALLS, DOORS/FRAMES AND ANY MILLWORK.DEMO ALL EXISTING CEILING, SOFFITS, LIGHTING AND HVAC.DEMO ALL FLOORING.SUITE 165DEMO EXISTING STOREFRONT THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL WALLS, DOORS, SLIDING DOORS TYP.DEMO ALL EXISTING CEILING, SOFFITS, LIGHTING AND HVAC.DEMO ALL EXISTING MILLWORK AND PLUMBING THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL FLOORING.SUITE 170DEMO EXISTING STOREFRONT THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL WALLS, MIRRORS, DOORS TYP.DEMO ALL EXISTING CEILING, SOFFITS, LIGHTING AND HVAC.DEMO ALL EXISTING MILLWORK AND RESTROOM PLUMBING THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL FLOORING, SPORTS MATS.DEMO EXISTING TERRAZZO TILE FLOOR IN HATCHED AREA ONLY.TRY TO SALVAGE TILES IN GOOD CONDITION FOR POSSIBLE REUSE/FILL IN AFTERREMODEL.DEMO FAUX TREE TRUNKS IN ARCADE.DEMO FAUX TREE TRUNK - COLUMN TO REMAIN.PARTITIONSDEMOLITION KEY NOTES1SCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1DEMOLITION NOTESC:\Users\ShannonRoseMcShea\Desktop\1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A-1_Partition_&_Demolition_Plans.dwg A1-00DEMOLITION PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGM23SUITE 155853 SFSUITE 160663 SFSUITE 1651,173 SFSUITE 1702,623 SF1234455556767EXISTING COMMON SPACE4,275 SFPage 321 of 440 155OFFICE165OFFICE100COMMON SPACEA6.0101A6.0102Aa155A a170 45'-7"81'-10"51'-4" 63'-5"DOOR SCHEDULEDOOR FRAMES TO MATCH EXISTING WITH CONTINUOUS MUTES U.N.OASSEMBLIES MORE THAN 20 MINUTES OR DOUBLE EGRESS USE HOLLOW METAL WELDED FRAMES WITH 2" FRAME PROFILE PAINTEDSELECTCOLOR, WITH 8 SILENCERS .ASTRUCTURAL GLASS PAIR: 80" X 96 X 12", SATIN, POLISHED STAINLESS STEEL, 4 FLOOR DOOR STOPS 2 HEADER MOUNTED STOPS DOORSTO MATCH EXISTING, SEE DOOR ELEVATIONS FOR HANDLE LOCATIONS AND CR LAURENCE PATCH TYPES.*HARDWARE SCHEDULEALL HARDWARE TO BE US26 (626) FINISH - SATIN CHROME U.N.O.aSUITE ENTRY PAIR LOCKSET; TO MATCH EXISTING*HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONSALL HARDWARE TO BE SATIN CHROME FINISH UON. ALL LEVERS TO BE L-03 WITH ESCUTCHEON UONDEVICEMANUFACTURERCLOSERLCNLCN 1461 SMOOTH SLIM LINE COVER US26D, INSTALL ON INTERIOR SIDE OF DOORS.COORDINATORIVESCOR MATCH DOOR FRAME FINISH WITH FL FILLER BARS AS REQUIRED.AUTO FLUSH BOLTSIVESFB41P WITH DUST PROOF STRIKE DP1 AT THRESHOLD, DP2 AT FLOOR MATCH HARDWARE FINISH.THRESHOLDPEMKO1665A MILL FINISH ALUMINUMHINGESHAGERBB NRP 1279 BALL BEARING NON REMOVABLE PIN 4-1/2' X 4-1/2"BB 1279 BALL BEARING 4-1/2' X 4-1/2" BB 12791279 STANDARD 4-1/2' X 4-1/2"ETW ELECTRONIC TRANSFER 4-1/2' X 4-1/2"DOOR STOPMOCKETTDS3 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUMCOAT HOOKMOCKETTCH23 METALLIC SILVER (23)ENDTYPE 'A'8'-0"TEMPERED GLASS3'-10"PARTITION PLANPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK NNo. C 21600LIC E NSEDARCHITECTGUIL L ERMOMONTERSTATEOFCALI FORNIAREN.4-30- 2 5SIGNED ON JULY 26, 2024Telephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES2ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/243ISSUE FOR PLAN CHECK07/26/24EXISTING PARTITIONS TO REMAIN1 HOUR RATED PARTITION, SEE DETAILDETAIL NUMBERSHEETSHEETELEVATION NUMBERROOM NAME1.REFER TO 'A0.00", 'A0.01', 'A0.02', 'A0.03', 'A0.04' AND 'A0.05' DRAWINGS FORADDITIONAL NOTES AND INFORMATION.2.ALL TRADES TO INSPECT EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTINGBIDS. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY DESIGNER OF ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE WORK.3.REPAIR AND PATCH ALL SURFACES WHERE WALLS HAVE BEEN REMOVED ORSCARRED FROM DEMOLITION.4.REPAIR AND SKIM COAT ALL EXISTING PARTITIONS TO RECEIVE NEW FINISHES.5.CONTRACTOR TO PREPARE ALL FLOORING SURFACES TO RECEIVE NEWFINISHES. FLASH PATCH AS REQUIRED FOR SMOOTH FINISH. PATCH ALL HOLESIN THE SLAB TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITION.6.CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW PARTITION TYPES AGAINST MECHANICAL DRAWINGSTO COORDINATE AREAS OF PLENUM AND NON-PLENUM CEILINGS.7.CONTRACTOR SHALL FURR OUT AND OR REMOVE PORTIONS OF EXISTING WALLCONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED TO INSTALL NEW OUTLETS, SWITCHES,CONDUITS, PIPING, THERMOSTATS, ETC. AND REFINISH AS REQUIRED TORECEIVE NEW FINISH.8.EXTEND AND/OR MODIFY THE H.V.A.C., FIRE LIFE SAFETY & SPRINKLER SYSTEMSAS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION AND REVISEDPARTITION CONFIGURATIONS. REFER TO ENGINEERING DRAWINGS9.REPLACE ALL WINDOW COVERINGS WHICH WERE REMOVED DURINGDEMOLITION.10.PROVIDE NEW BUILDING WINDOW COVERINGS AT EXTERIOR WINDOWS WHEREREQUIRED BASED ON NEW LAYOUT11.FIRE / LIFE SAFETY & SPRINKLER ENGINEERING SHALL BE DESIGN BUILD, ANDG.C. MUST INCLUDE ENGINEERING COSTS IN THE BID. CONTACT BUILDINGMANAGEMENT REGARDING LIST OF MANDATORY/ SUGGESTEDSUB-CONTRACTORS AND BUILDING STANDARDS.12.PATCH DRYWALL AT ALL ABANDONED OUTLET LOCATIONS.13.ALL LOCKSETS SHALL BE CODED AND/OR KEYED IN ACCORDANCE WITHBUILDING REQUIREMENTS. CODES AND/OR KEYS ARE TO BE DELIVERED TOTENANT PROPERLY TESTED AND/OR TAGGED. THE NUMBER OF MASTER ANDPASS KEYS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH BUILDING MANAGEMENT UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.14.EGRESS DOORS SHALL BE READILY OPERABLE FROM THE EGRESS SIDE OF THEWITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT.SLAB TO SLAB PARTITION TO BE CONFIRMED WITH BUILDING ENGINEER.RATING CONFIRMATION REQUIRED.EXISTING RESTROOMS TO BE SHARED WITH THE ENTIRE BUILDING.FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET USE LARSEN'S ARCHITECTURAL SERIES,PAINTED STEEL VERTICAL DUO PAINT TO MATCH PARTITION WITHOUTLOCK SEMI-RECESSED 2409-R3 , R.O. 1012" W X 3" D X 25" H WITH 2A-10BCFIRE EXTINGUISHER WITH SFM TAG.. VERIFY LOCATION AND COUNTS WITHFIRE INSPECTOR PRIOR TO CLOSING WALLSPARTITION NOTESSECTION DESIGNATIONSHEET1A-51A7-003A7-01GLASS PARTITION, SEE DETAIL1A7-02DOOR NUMBER101DOOR NUMBERHARDWARE PER SCHEDULEDOOR TYPE PER SCHEDULEDh000FEC 1A-601PARTITION KEYNOTESEQUIPMENTSYMBOLS00OFFICE100ROOM NUMBERSQUARE FOOTAGEPARTITIONSDOOR, FRAME AND HARDWARE TYPESSCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1 A1-01PARTITION PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGMSLAB TO SLAB NON RATED PARTITION, SEE DETAIL2A7-01SUITE 165 - 4,317 SFSUITE 155 - 2,254 SF222SF ADDED TOSUITE 155 - 811 SFSF ADDED TOSUITE 165 - 392 SFPage 322 of 440 REFLECTED CEILING DEMOLITION PLANPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PRICING NTelephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES1ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/24SCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1REFLECTED CEILING PLAN SYMBOLSMATCH EXISTING LAMP APPEARANCE CLASSIFICATION. IF NEW THROUGHOUT ALL LAMPS SHALL HAVE CRI OF MIN 80 + 3500K ( 835) CLASSIFICATION.EXISTINGDEMOEXISTING TO REMAINSPECIFICATIONSPECEXISTING TO REMAINED A2-00REFLECTED CEIL'GDEMO PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGMDEMO LIGHT FIXTURES AND CEILING IN AREA SHOWNREFLECTED CEILING NOTESREFLECTED CEILING KEY NOTES1.SEE 'A0-00', 'A0-01', 'A0-02', 'A0-03', 'A0-04' AND 'A0-05' DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND INFORMATION.2.EXISTING CEILING GRID, TILE AND FIXTURES TO REMAIN U.N.O.1Y:\PROJECTS\1200\1264 - 1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A-2-00_Ceiling Demo_Plan.dwg 11111111111Page 323 of 440 155OFFICE170OFFICECEILING PLANPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PRICING NTelephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES1ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/24EXISTING LIGHTING TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT ARCADE.ALTERNATE - REPLACE ALL EXISTING LIGHTING IN ARCADE PER THE SPECIFICATIONS.MATCH NEW DRYWALL SOFFIT HEIGHT TO THE ADJACENT SOFFIT HEIGHT.EXPOSED CEILING THROUGHOUT NEW OFFICE SPEC SUITES.REFLECTED CEILING NOTESREFLECTED CEILING KEY NOTESREFLECTED CEILING PLAN SYMBOLS1.SEE 'A0-00', 'A0-01', 'A0-02', 'A0-03', 'A0-04' AND 'A0-05' DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND INFORMATION.2.ALL LIGHTING FIXTURES SHOWN ON PLAN ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3.REFER TO ENGINEERING FOR NEW FIXTURES AND DAYLIGHT CONTROLS4.REFER TO MEP DRAWINGS FOR RELOCATION OR RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING BUILDING RISERS, DUCTS OR PIPING IN RENOVATEDAREAS.5.RE-WORK/ADD HVAC AS REQUIRED PER ENGINEERING DRAWINGS.6.CONTRACTOR TO RE-USE EXISTING HVAC AND REDISTRIBUTE AND ADD NEW AS REQUIRED FOR NEW LAYOUT, CODES AND BUILDINGSTANDARD.REFER TO MECHANICAL DRAWINGS.7.ALL CEILING MOUNTED DEVICES; SENSORS, FIRE LIFE SAFETY ETC. TO BE WHITE.8.RE-WORK EXISTING FIRE/LIFE/SAFETY DEVICES AND PROVIDE NEW AS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING STANDARD, LOCAL CODEAND NEW LAYOUT. THIS WORK SHALL BE FILED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.9.RE-WORK EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS REQUIRED. THIS WORK TO BE FILED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. PROVIDE CONCEALEDHEADS IN AREAS OF GYP. BOARD CONSTRUCTION.10.REPLACE MISSING OR DAMAGED/STAINED SPRINKLER COVERS THROUGHOUT SUITE.11.PROVIDE NEW TENANT STANDARD 2'X2' ACOUSTIC CEILING GRID AND TILES IN AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION/NEW CEILING. GC TOCONSOLIDATE EXISTING CEILING TILES WITH EXISTING AND NEW TILES WITH NEW.MATCH EXISTING LAMP APPEARANCE CLASSIFICATION. IF NEW THROUGHOUT ALL LAMPS SHALL HAVE CRI OF MIN 80 + 3500K ( 835) CLASSIFICATION.REFLECTED CEILING PLAN SYMBOLS+00'-00"CEILING HEIGHT FROM FINISHFLOOR1SPECIFICATIONNEWASCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1Y:\PROJECTS\1200\1264 - 1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A-2_Ceiling_Plan.dwg NEW ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE TO MATCH EXISTING (GC TO CONFIRM SPEC) A2-01REFLECTED CEILING PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGMHE WILLIAMS - AT2 LEDARCHITECTURAL TROFFER - CURVED DEEP CENTERBCHE WILLIAMS - 4DR LED4.5" DOWNLIGHT - ROUNDLEDI LIGHTINGINSPIRE MUD-IN COVE CHANNELHE WILLIAMS LEDLLM ARCHITECTURAL SLIMLINE - EMERGENCY LIGHTING+11'-00"+11'-06"+12'-00"+11'-00"+11'-00"+11'-00"+12'-00"+12'-00"+12'-00"+11'-06"+11'-00"23111111111122222222333MATCH EXISTINGD444Page 324 of 440 155OFFICE170OFFICEP1CON1B1P1CON1B1P-FINISH SCHEDULENOMATERIALMFG.MFG. NOCOLORREMARKSREMARKSCONTACTWALL FINISHESP-1PAINTDUNN EDWARDSDEW383COOL DECEMBERALL SURFACES UON100% ACRYLIC GLOSS UNITS NOT TO EXCEED 18 FOR WALLSURFACES, 5 FOR CEILINGSARCHITECTURAL PAINTS,COATINGS AND PRIMERS APPLIED TO INTERIOR WALLS ANDCEILINGS: DO NOT EXCEED THE VOC CONTENT LIMITSESTABLISHED IN GREEN SEAL STANDARD GS-11, PAINTS,FIRST EDITION, MAY 20, 1993.FLATS: 50 G/LNON-FLATS: 150 G/L1. ASTM E84 SURFACE-BURNING CHARACTERISTICSA. FLAME SPREAD: 15B. SMOKE DEVELOPED: 0C. CLASS AP-2PAINTDUNN EDWARDSMATCH EXISTINGMATCH EXISTINGCEILING PAINTBASEB-14" RUBBER BASEJOHNSONITE08ICICLEUSE WITH P-1, COVED AT HARDSURFACE, STRAIGHT AT CARPETASTM E 648 (NFPA 253): CRITICAL RADIANT FLUX – CLASS IASTM E 84/NFPA 255 (FLAME/SMOKE) – CLASS B, < 450USE ROLLED GOODS FOR ALL UON . USE ADHESIVE THATCOMPLIES WITH SCAQMD DISTRICT RULE #1168.FLOORINGCON-1CONCRETEHARD SCRAPETS-1RUBBER TRANSITIONSTRIPTBDCARPET TO CONCRETE TRANSITIONXXXXXXFINISH PLANSCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1EXISTING FLOORING AND FINISHES TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT ARCADE.IN ARCADE - GC TO INFILL WITH EXISTING, SALVAGED FLOOR TILE IF POSSIBLE.ALTERNATE - GC TO MATCH EXISTING FIELD TILE FOR NEW FLOOR LAYOUT IN THIS AREA ONLY.GC TO MATCH ARCADE PAINT COLOR AND APPLY AT NEW CONSTRUCTED WALLS.1.SEE 'A0-00', 'A0-01', 'A0-02', 'A0-03', 'A0-04',' AND 'A0-05' DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES ANDINFORMATION.2.ALL TRADES TO INSPECT EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BIDS. CONTRACTORTO NOTIFY DESIGNER OF ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE WORK.3.GC TO PROVIDE CERTIFIED INSTALLERS FOR ALL FLOORINGS.4.ALL EXTERIOR GLASS AND WINDOW MULLIONS TO BE CLEANED UPON COMPLETION OFCONSTRUCTION AS A PART OF THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CLEAN-UP.5.GC TO VERIFY EXISTING WINDOW SHADES MAY BE RE-INSTALLED (CORRECT SIZES) AT AREAS OFNEW OFFICE CONSTRUCTION. GC TO PROVIDE NEW IF REQUIREDFINISH NOTESFINISH KEY NOTES:1Y:\PROJECTS\1200\1264 - 1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A-4_Finish_Plan OPT 1.dwg A4-01FINISHPLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGMPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PRICING NTelephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES1ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/2423111223334441Page 325 of 440 SOUTH ELEVATION1EAST ELEVATION23SCALE3/8" = 1'-0"SCALE3/8" = 1'-0"SCALE3/8" = 1'-0"4SCALE3/8" = 1'-0"-- A6-01ELEVATIONSAS NOTEDSRMGMPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PRICING NTelephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES1ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/24Y:\PROJECTS\1200\1264 - 1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A6-ELEVATIONS.dwgPage 326 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY for the Conversion of 1,203 SF of Hallway Space Use to Office/Retail Use for the Hermosa Beach Pavilion at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department Civic Center – 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation Planning – Traffic Engineering – ITS Consultants 23282 Mill Creek Drive, East Tower, Suite 120 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: (949)707-1199 PRESENTED TO: PREPARED BY: Page 327 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FOR CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE FOR THE HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Prepared for: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Date: FEBRUARY 19, 2025 I, Fred Minagar do hereby certify that this Parking Study was performed under my supervision. The enclosed memorandum summarizes the results of a parking utilization survey conducted for the existing Hermosa Beach Pavilion site located at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Hermosa Beach. The parking study identifies the existing parking supply and demand, and addresses the potential parking impacts associated with the requested conversion of 1,203 SF of Hallway Space Use to Office/Retail Use. The following analyses were performed in compliance with local, state, national and industry wide standard principles, methodologies and best practices for parking accumulation and utilization studies, and shared parking demand forecasting. The field survey data presented in this report illustrate the true and accurate conditions of the HBP parking structure study site during the time periods described herein. Fred Minagar, MS, RCE, PE, Registration No. 53466 Project Manager Page 328 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 3 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 5 2.0 Existing Parking Conditions 9 2.1 Existing Parking Supply 9 2.2 Existing Parking Requirement (City Code) 9 2.3 Existing Weekday Parking Utilization 10 2.4 Shared Parking at HBP Site 15 3.0 Proposed Parking Conditions 17 3.1 Proposed Conversion of 1,203 SF of Hallway Space Use to Office/Retail Use 17 3.2 Parking Requirement: Proposed Conversion of 1,203 SF Hallway Space Use Facility to Office/Retail Building 17 3.2.1 Parking Requirement (City Code) 17 3.2.2 Parking Requirement (Shared Parking Analysis) 18 3.2.3 Sensitivity Assessment 21 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 23 Page 329 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 4 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. List of Figures 1-1 Vicinity Map 6 1-2 Project Site 7 2-1 Existing HBP Parking Utilization—Weekdays 11 2-2 Existing HBP Parking Utilization—Weekend 12 List of Tables 1-1 Existing and Proposed Tenant Use By Suite 8 2-0 Parking Availability at the HBP Parking Structure 9 2-1 Existing-Occupied Use Parking Requirement per City Code 10 2-2 Existing-Vacant Use Parking Requirement (Theoretical) 10 3-1 Existing-Vacant Use Under Shared Parking Requirement (Theoretical) 19 3-2 Shared Parking Demand (Proposed Condition) 19 3-3 Future Condition: Full Occupancy of HBP 20 3-4 Future Condition: Adjusted Full Occupancy of HBP 21 Attachments A Proposed Hermosa Beach Pavilion Conversion to Office/Retail Use Site Plans B City of Hermosa Beach Applicable Parking Rates (Municipal Code) C As-Built Parking Plan D Parking Site Occupancy Data Page 330 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 5 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Minagar & Associates, Inc. was requested by the City of Hermosa Beach to conduct a parking utilization study for the Hermosa Beach Pavilion (HBP), a Mixed-Use Use commercial development located at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) at the corner of PCH and 16th Street, in the City of Hermosa Beach. The HBP is a two-story building and home to various office, retail, and health & fitness businesses operating out of leased suites on both floors. The vicinity of the site with respect to the local street system is shown in Figure 1-1. The HBP owner/manager is planning to convert 1,203 square feet of first floor common area to spec suites (office/retail use). For reference, a summary of the existing suites within the building is provided below: Existing-Occupied (92,347 square feet): • 1st floor: Mixed-Use office and retail accumulating an area of 58,999 square feet (suites 101, 145, 150, 180). • 2nd floor: Mixed-Use office and retail accumulating an area of 33,438 square feet (suites 245, 265-B, 280, 285, E) Existing-Vacant (24,236 square feet): • 1st floor: Mixed-Use office and retail suites accumulating an area of 13,170 square feet (suites 140,155,160, 165, 170, and 175) • 2nd floor: Mixed-Use office and retail suites accumulating an area of 11,066 square feet (suites 265-A, E) Minagar & Associates, Inc. conducted a study to evaluate whether the HBP can sufficiently accommodate the additional parking demands caused by the conversion of 1,203 square feet Hallway Space Use to Office/Retail Use with respect to the existing parking conditions at the HBP. The HBP currently provides a cumulative 128,089 rentable square feet, or 116,583 square feet usable gross floor area. Attached to the main building is a six-level parking structure with covered parking spaces for employees and customers of the HBP. The parking structure contains 496 marked parking spaces and provides elevators, escalators, and stairwells at various levels to allow patrons to access the main storefront. As shown in Figure 1-2, vehicular access to the parking structure is provided from two entrance- ways on 16th Street. Page 331 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 6 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map Project Site Page 332 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 7 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure 1-2. Project Site Minagar & Associates, Inc. conducted parking accumulation surveys at the existing parking structure site, estimated the probable shared-use parking demand of proposed developments at the HBP, and then compared the results with the City’s Municipal/Parking Code requirements. The results of the parking analyses are described in the sections below. Table 1-1 summarizes the existing and proposed uses of the HBP site. Street Access to Parking Structure Delivery Entrance Lower 4F access; Down to 2F/3F Upper 4F access; Up to 5F/6F In Out Page 333 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 8 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE 1-1: Shared Parking Demand Existing and Proposed Tenant Use by Suite* N/C: No Change *The list is updated as of February 5, 2025 Rent Roll Vacant/For Lease [1]Per Hermosa Beach’s Parking Code 17.44.030-0 (October 2021) 1/250 (general retail commercial) used in place of restaurant (1/100). [2]“Service” Use based on related uses per Hermosa Beach’s Parking Code 17.44.030, such as General Retail (1/250), General Office (1/250), and Gym/Health & Fitness Center <3,000 SF (1/250). [3]1,203 Square Feet is the Total Area of Proposed Conversion (Occupied+Vacant) per Plan Set in Appendix A [4]92,347 Square Feet is the Total Area of Existing-Occupied (Proposed Conversion + Unchanged) Suites Page 334 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 9 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Existing Parking Supply The Hermosa Beach Pavilion site provides 496 parking spaces within the existing parking structure. Parking spaces consist of a mix of standard and compact sized, handicap accessible stalls, motorcycle stalls, designated spaces for bicycles with bike racks, and several signed/marked stalls for customers and employees of specific tenants within the HBP. A breakdown of the total number of available marked parking spaces at each level of the parking structure is listed below: Table 2-0 Parking Availability at the HBP Parking Structure ■ Level 2 122 spaces ■ Level 3 118 spaces ■ Level 4 81 spaces ■ Level 5 93 spaces ■ Level 6 82 spaces Total: 496 available spaces The parking structure is accessible at the street level at Level 4 via the public parking entrances on 16th Street. Parking Levels 2 and 3 are located underground, while Levels 5 and 6 are located aboveground. 2.2 Existing Requirement Per City Code In accordance with the City of Hermosa Beach’s Municipal Code, Chapter 17.44 (030), “Off Street Parking-Commercial and Business Uses,” the owner of the site must provide the minimum number of required parking spaces to accommodate all of the site’s existing and anticipated proposed parking demands. This requirement is determined initially on the basis of the City’s Parking Code, which provides a schedule of parking rates to apply to individual land use types. In applying the City’s parking rates to the individual existing uses within the HBP, the cumulative number of required off-street parking spaces calculates to 787 (686 occupied + 96 (theoretical) +5 proposed). Table 2-1, shown below, summarizes this code-based requirement for the existing active tenant uses at the HBP. Subsequently, Table 2-2 highlights the theoretical projected Page 335 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 10 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. parking demand for the existing vacant spaces based on the square footage of the existing suites. Table 2-1: Existing-Occupied Use Parking Requirement per City Code EXISTING SITE Required Parking (496 provided on-site) Ste. Tenant Land Use Size (SF) Parking Ratio[1] # of Spaces 101 24-Hour Fitness Gym/health center 50,765 1 space per 100 SF 508 145 Absolute Laser Tattoo Removal Retail 1,662 1 space per 250 SF 7 150 Pacific Crest Multi Specialty Surgery Office (Medical) 3,702 1 space per 200 SF 19 180 South Bay Golf Club Gym/health center 2,870 1 space per 250 SF 12 245 Walker Law Firm, Inc Office 2,865 1 space per 250 SF 12 265-B Fusion Academy Office (General) 6,478 1 space per 250 SF 26 280 Salon Republic Service [2] 16,179 1 space per 250 SF 65 285 Massage Envy Health Center 3,666 1 space per 250 SF 15 E (various office suites) Office (General) 4,160 1 space per 250 SF 17 New Office Suites Office (General) 1,203 1 space per 250 SF 5 Parking Requirement, Existing Uses (City Code based): 686 Spaces (28.0% shortage) Actual Peak Parking Demand [3]: 433 Spaces (13.7% surplus) [1] Per City of Hermosa Beach Municipal/Parking Code [2] “Service” Use based on related uses per Hermosa Beach’s Parking Code 17.44.030 (October 2021), such as General Retail (1/250), General Office (1/250), and Gym/Health & Fitness Center <3,000 SF (1/250). [3] Based on peak-day/peak-hour parking accumulation surveys conducted at the HBP site by Metropolis Table 2-2: Existing-Vacant Use Parking Requirement (Theoretical) EXISTING SITE Required Parking (496 provided on-site) Ste. Tenant Land Use[2] Size (SF) Parking Ratio[1] # of Spaces 140 Vacant N/A 1,662 1 space per 250 SF 7 155 Vacant N/A 1,102 1 space per 250 SF 4 160 Vacant N/A 831 1 space per 250 SF 3 165 Vacant N/A 1,480 1 space per 250 SF 6 170 Vacant N/A 3,357 1 space per 250 SF 13 175 Vacant N/A 4,738 1 space per 250 SF 19 265-A Vacant N/A 4,800 1 space per 250 SF 19 E Vacant N/A 6,266 1 space per 250 SF 25 Total Projected Parking Demand: 96 Spaces Page 336 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 11 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. [1] Assumption of 1 space per 250 SF based on City of Hermosa Beach’s Parking Code 17.44.030 General Office (1/250) [2] Land Use not available due to vacancy status Given the supply of 496 spaces and the calculated requirement for 787 (686 occupied + 96 (theoretical) vacant) spaces, there is a shortfall of 291 spaces. This shortfall is based on theoretical/city code data and represents current uses, intended to show the minimum demand for additional parking spaces based strictly on the City of Hermosa Beach’s Municipal Code parking rates. It does not reflect growth, increases in demand, or the actual field-survey demand as discussed below. Due to the lack of land use data, a parking ratio of 1 space per 250 SF was assumed per the municipal code for all vacant suites for the purpose of this calculation. 2.3 Existing Weekday & Weekend Parking Utilization Minagar & Associates, Inc. performed a comprehensive parking utilization analysis utilizing hourly occupancy data provided by Metropolis. The study encompassed a 21- day period from January 15, 2025, to February 5, 2025, with continuous 24-hour daily monitoring. According to the provided site occupancy data: 7-day peak occupancy (occurred at 10:00 AM on a Saturday): 433 spaces Corresponding available spaces during the peak occupancy: 496 The analysis reveals a contrast between the City's Municipal Code parking requirements and the actual observed peak usage. While the code-based calculations indicate a parking shortage, the real-world utilization data demonstrates a marginal surplus in parking capacity. This disparity highlights the effectiveness of shared parking in Mixed-Use developments like the Hermosa Beach Pavilion, where complementary peak hours among different uses allow for more efficient use of parking resources. Page 337 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 12 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. The Mixed-Use commercial center's shared parking utilization on typical weekdays ranged from 18.15% to 79%, with an overall peak parking utilization/occupancy of 79.03% (392 out of 496 spaces occupied). This weekday peak utilization, typically occurring around 4:00 p.m. on weekdays, leaves 21.97% of spaces available even during periods of highest demand. The data shows a surplus of 104 spaces during peak demand, representing a 21.97% surplus in parking capacity (not accounting for the parking demand generated by future occupied vacant suites.). The Mixed-Use commercial center's shared parking utilization on typical weekends ranged from 24.40% to 87%, with an overall peak parking utilization/occupancy of 87.3% (433 out of 496 spaces occupied). This weekend peak utilization, typically occurring around 10:00 a.m. on weekends, leaves 12.7% of spaces available even during periods of highest demand. The data shows a surplus of 63 spaces during peak demand, representing a 12.7% surplus in parking capacity based on the existing land use/space occupancy, existing parking supply (not accounting for the parking demand generated by future occupied vacant suites.) This observed parking behavior demonstrates the benefits of Mixed-Use development in optimizing parking utilization. The staggered peak hours of various uses within the Hermosa Beach Pavilion contribute to a more balanced and efficient use of the parking facilities throughout the day. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 provide a visual summary of the existing parking utilization data for the site. Page 338 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 13 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 2-1 WEEKDAY PARKING UTILIZATION Time Occupied Parking Spaces Vacant Parking Spaces Percent Occupancy: 7:00 AM 255.0 241.0 51.41% 8:00 AM 277.0 219.0 55.85% 9:00 AM 338.0 158.0 68.15% 10:00 AM 346.0 150.0 69.76% 11:00 AM 344.0 152.0 69.35% 12:00 PM 329.0 167.0 66.33% 1:00 PM 348.0 148.0 70.16% 2:00 PM 361.0 135.0 72.78% 3:00 PM 386.0 110.0 77.82% 4:00 PM 392.0 104.0 79.03% 5:00 PM 390.0 106.0 78.63% 6:00 PM 369.0 127.0 74.40% 7:00 PM 314.0 182.0 63.31% Average 342 154 69.00% Peak Hour Weekday 7AM-7PM Parking Utilization EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY = 496 Spaces Page 339 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 14 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 2-2 WEEKEND PARKING UTILIZATION Time Occupied Parking Spaces Vacant Parking Spaces Percent Occupancy: 7:00 AM 157.0 339.0 31.65% 8:00 AM 276.0 220.0 55.65% 9:00 AM 396.0 100.0 79.84% 10:00 AM 433.0 63.0 87.30% 11:00 AM 411.0 85.0 82.86% 12:00 PM 379.0 117.0 76.41% 1:00 PM 370.0 126.0 74.60% 2:00 PM 332.0 164.0 66.94% 3:00 PM 309.0 187.0 62.30% 4:00 PM 271.0 225.0 54.64% 5:00 PM 262.0 234.0 52.82% 6:00 PM 243.0 253.0 48.99% 7:00 PM 197.0 299.0 39.72% Average 311 186 62.59% Peak Hour EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY = 496 Spaces Weekend 7AM-7PM Average Parking Utilization Page 340 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 15 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2.4 Shared Parking Demand at the Hermosa Beach Pavilion The City of Hermosa Beach offers a multitude of attractions for visitors. During the Spring and Summer seasons, particularly on sunny days and on weekends, locals and visitors are drawn to the beach located just a few blocks to the west of Pacific Coast Highway. Beachgoers also visit local retail stores, restaurants, conduct business and vice versa. Thus, multiple land uses are visited, yet only one parking space is needed. This type of shared parking activity, where the use of a parking space serves two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment, is seen at the Hermosa Beach Pavilion as a result of two key observed factors: 1) The complementary relationships between land uses within the HBP, resulting in multiple trip purposes for visitors on the same "parked" trip (e.g., office employees using the 24-hour fitness upon arriving or departing from the HBP, etc.); 2) The demand for HBP uses varied during different times of the day. For example, the 24-hour fitness experienced peak patronage before and after typical weekday work hours. When considered for all of the different uses within the center, these arrival variations and staggered business activities lend to the shared parking qualities of the HBP. Mixed-Use developments like the HBP are often able to capitalize on the benefits of shared parking by developing a variety of diverse, but complementary land use types on a single site. This usually results in a parking demand for the overall site that is appreciably lower than the sum of individual parking demands for each land use when considered as separate, freestanding developments. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) calls these types of trips with primary/secondary visit purposes “internal trips/capture,” for which trip and parking reductions can be taken. In reducing the number of parking spaces required to such uses, shared parking provides spatial benefits to the community, especially for the surrounding built-out beach neighborhood and downtown district of Hermosa Beach where public parking during peak periods comes at a premium. After conducting several field visits and reviewing the proposed tenant uses of the Hermosa Beach Pavilion, it was determined that the site does currently provide, and will continue to provide, opportunities for shared Page 341 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 16 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. parking resulting in the need to consider an appropriate discount to the overall parking requirement to reflect more realistic shared parking demands. While the relationship between complementary land uses might reduce the overall parking demand, there are limits to the influence of captive market effects, such as the relative proximity of land uses to one another, and also to available parking facilities. Minagar & Associates, Inc.’s field visits, however, verified that with respect to such physical constraints there are indeed high incentives for shared parking at the HBP, due to several factors such as: • Connectivity and proximity of each land use within the HBP. The shops are located side-by-side and enclosed in an indoor mall type of environment; • Direct indoor access from the parking structure to the shops, and vice versa, within the HBP; • Use of a vertical parking structure that minimizes walk times from user vehicles to the shops, and the added convenience for visitors and employees of being able to access each level via escalator, elevator or stairwell; and • Convenient pedestrian accessibility to the HBP from adjacent streets and sidewalks. As described in Section 3.3.2, a shared parking analysis and forecast was conducted using the above observations, in order to estimate a more realistic potential for peak shared parking demand at the Hermosa Beach Pavilion under the proposed condition. Page 342 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 17 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3.0 PROPOSED PARKING CONDITIONS 3.1 Proposed Conversion of 1,203 SF Hallway Space Use to Office/Retail Use The HBP owner/manager is planning to convert 1203 square feet of first floor common area to spec suites (office use). The proposed action plan will impact the following suites (per plan set provided in Appendix A): Existing-Vacant (6,770 square feet): • 1st floor: Mixed-Use office and retail suites (suites 155, 160, 165, 170) 3.2 Parking Requirement: Proposed Conversion of 1203 SF Hallway Space Use to Office/Retail Use 3.2.1 Required Parking per City Code The City of Hermosa Beach’s Parking Code (October 2021) requires that a site’s proposed parking demand be determined on the basis of square footage, in accordance with established parking ratios and the proposed land use types for the project site. Using the City’s municipal code parking rate requirements for the conversion of Mixed- Use Space Hermosa Beach Pavilion to an Office Use Space, the HBP will be required to provide an additional 5 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed 1203 SF office conversion. The total required parking for the HBP site under the proposed conditions, calculated by adding the estimated City Code-based parking requirement for the proposed use to the baseline observed peak parking demand of the site, is therefore 534 parking spaces (433 peak weekend demand + 96 (vacant) + 5 new spaces). This estimation method represents the state-of-the-practice for evaluating the updated parking requirement of a Mixed-Use development, and is the accepted practice in beach communities of Los Angeles County, Orange County, and other coastline cities throughout the State of California. Page 343 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 18 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3.2.2 Shared Parking Requirement (ULI Shared Parking Analysis) A shared parking analysis was conducted to provide an alternative, more practical estimate of the projected peak parking demands of the HBP. As stated in Section 2.4, multiple field visits, site observations and parking survey data collected at the HBP confirmed that the Pavilion experiences shared parking characteristics on typical weekdays and weekends. Due to the location and complementary nature of the interior office, retail and service businesses, the HBP under the proposed condition will continue to be consistent with the Mixed-Use nature of the site and benefit from shared parking. Empirical data on this has been collected by ITE, and shared time-of-day parking rates have been developed for specific land uses. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Manual was used to evaluate time-of-day parking reductions for the HBP under the proposed condition. This methodology first estimates the "stand-alone" peak parking requirements for each land use, then applies a combination of reduction factors to account for shared parking effects such as seasonality, time-of-day variations, modal splits—and as needed—locally-developed parking requirements and considerations. Each of these factors is then incorporated into pre-developed calculation worksheets which apply the factors to the selected land uses comprising the development. A projected peak shared parking requirement is then calculated for the peak time-of-day, day-of-week, and season during the year in which shared parking activity at the site will reach a maximum. For this analysis, Minagar & Associates, Inc. considered the "proposed" site condition to consist of the pre-existing peak period baseline demand (based on the field-measured parking accumulation surveys from Metropolis) parking generation estimates were determined using ULI- and ITE-derived parking data for each land use. Table 3-1 depicts the theoretical parking demand generated by the vacant suites based on the ULI parking demand ratio of 1 space for every 350 SF of office use. Table 3-2, below, summarizes the results of the shared parking analysis for the proposed condition excluding the parking demand for vacant suites. The total number of shared parking spaces for each land use is listed in the table. Page 344 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 19 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Table 3-1: Existing-Vacant Use Under Shared Parking Requirement (Theoretical) EXISTING SITE Required Parking (496 provided on-site) Ste. Tenant Land Use Size (SF) Parking Ratio # of Spaces 140 Vacant N/A 1,662 1 space per 350 SF 4 155 Vacant N/A 1,102 1 space per 350 SF 3 160 Vacant N/A 831 1 space per 350 SF 2 165 Vacant N/A 1,480 1 space per 350 SF 4 170 Vacant N/A 3,357 1 space per 350 SF 9 175 Vacant N/A 4,738 1 space per 350 SF 13 265-A Vacant N/A 4,800 1 space per 350 SF 13 E Vacant N/A 6,266 1 space per 350 SF 18 Total Projected Parking Demand: 66 Spaces TABLE 3-2: Shared Parking Demand Proposed Conversion of 1,203 SF Hallway Space Use to Office/Retail Use (excluding existing vacant office suites) As shown in Table 3-2, the peak shared parking demand occurs at 10:00 AM, with a total of 438 spaces required. This includes 433 spaces from existing occupied uses and 5 spaces from the new 1,203 SF office/retail conversion. The shared parking analysis Page 345 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 20 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. demonstrates that the HBP can accommodate the proposed changes within the existing 496-space supply, with a surplus of 58 spaces during peak demand. With the addition of the converted HBP space, the HBP will be parked at 88% utilization (438 / 496 spaces). TABLE 3-3: Shared Parking Demand Future Condition: Full Occupancy of HBP The results shown in Table 3-3 reveal that the future peak parking demand will occur at 10:00 AM during the peak weekend, for a total accumulation of 497 spaces. In comparing the findings of the shared parking analysis using the ITE/ULI parking rates, it is seen that the parking demand for the full occupancy condition is not met given the current supply of parking spaces at 496. The HBP parking structure will operate at a utilization rate of 100.2% during the peak hour with an insignificant deficit of only 1 parking space during the worst hour and day of a typical 7-day week when the entire building is fully occupied. Page 346 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 21 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3.2.3 Sensitivity Assessment for Rectifying Only One (1) Parking Space Deficit The results from the shared parking analysis indicates that at full occupancy, the HBP parking structures would not be able to support the parking demand during the worst one AM hour of a Saturday of a typical 7-day week. A sensitivity assessment was conducted to determine possible mitigation measures that would allow for the proposed conversion to be approved. The analysis determined that the HBP parking structures can support the peak parking demand (at 10:00 AM on a Saturday) at full occupancy under the condition in which 1,486 SF of executive suite space is prohibited from being occupied during weekend peak hours. Table 3-4 summarizes the findings of the analysis. TABLE 3-4: Sensitivity Assessment Future Condition: Adjusted Full Occupancy of HBP* *Adjusted Full Occupancy of HBP is defined as the conditon in which only 1,486 SF of the Executive Suite Spaces ) out of the enitre building are prohibited to be occupied during the peak weekend hour. The results shown in Table 3-4 reveal that the total shared parking demand under the conditon stated above would result in 496 occupied parking spaces. Given the existing supply of 496 spaces, the HBP parking structure will operate at capacity with no parking space deficits during peak weekend hours. Page 347 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 22 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Minagar & Associates, Inc. conducted a comprehensive parking study for the Hermosa Beach Pavilion (HBP) with respect to the proposed conversion of 1,203 SF first floor spec suites (office or retail). The parking study included an analysis of hourly parking utilization data over a 21-day period from January 15, 2025 to February 5, 2025, and an assessment of relevant City Code parking requirements. Based upon the composite results of these analyses, the following conclusions were derived: 1. The existing, attached six-level enclosed parking structure provides the HBP with a total of 496 available parking spaces. During the peak weekend, a maximum of 433 of these parking spaces are occupied during the peak hour (87.29% maximum utilization), leaving 63 vacant parking spaces remaining under the existing conditions. Peak parking activity at the HBP site was observed to occur typically around 10:00 a.m. on weekends. 2. Using the City of Hermosa Beach's Municipal Code "parking rates" to directly determine off-street parking space requirements, the existing HBP site is required to provide 686 spaces to accommodate the parking of its existing tenant land uses. 3. The difference of 253 parking spaces between the City's 686-space requirement and the actual surveyed maximum accumulation of 433 parked vehicles is attributable to the prevailing shared parking activities observed at the HBP. At its most fundamental level, shared parking is demonstrated when one parking space is used to serve two or more land uses, and is the result of motorists using a single auto trip and parking space to visit multiple land uses. 4. The proposed interior developments include the 1203 SF conversion of first floor common area to office/retail use spec suites at HBP. City Code-based parking requirements for the HBP site under this condition are represented by the baseline peak parking demand from the parking utilization data (433 spaces), plus the theoretical parking demand from the vacant suites (96 spaces) plus the calculated parking demand of the proposed conversion (5 spaces) through the direct application of the City of Hermosa Beach's parking ratio formulas (1 space per 250 SF for office or retail use). This results in a total parking requirement of Page 348 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 23 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 534 spaces. Given the existing supply of 496 spaces, this yields a theoretical deficit of 38 spaces. 6. Consistent with the ITE/ULI shared parking methodology, Minagar & Associates, Inc. conducted a shared parking analysis to more realistically estimate the parking demand requirements of the HBP under the proposed conditions at full occupancy. Shared parking demand projections for the "proposed" condition (i.e., HBP conversion of 1,203 SF first floor spec suites to office/retail use) reveals the peak shared-parking demand for the HBP to be 497 parking spaces. 7. Given the existing parking supply of 496 parking spaces within the attached parking structure, it is determined that the HBP does provide an adequate supply of off-street parking spaces to accommodate the proposed conversion of 1,203 SF of hallway space to office or retail use contingent upon the condition in which 1,486 SF of executive office space is not occupied during peak weekend hours. Page 349 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 24 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Appendix A Proposed Hermosa Beach Pavilion Site Plans Page 350 of 440 155OFFICE165OFFIC E PROJECT SUMMARYTHE PROJECT CONSISTS OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTDESCRIPTION OF ALTERATIONS WORK:CONSOLIDATION OF 4 EXISTING RETAIL TENANT SITES AND PORTION OF EXISTING ARCADECOMMON SPACE INTO 2 SPEC OFFICE SUITESNEW PARTITIONS AND ELECTRICALEXISTING SF FOR EACH SUITE:SUITE #155 - 853 SFSUITE #160 - 663 SFSUITE #165 - 1,173 SFSUITE #170 - 2,623 SFEXISTING COMMON SPACE: 4,275 SFAMOUNT OF SF BEING ADDED TO EACH EXISTING SUITE:SUITE #155 - 811 SFSUITE #165 - 392 SFNEW TOTAL SF FOR EACH SUITE:SUITE #155 - 2,254 SFSUITE #165 - 4,317 SFFIRE SUPPRESSION SPRINKLERS: ALTER EXISTING SYSTEM AND ADD NEW CONSTRUCTION,KEEPING EXISTING IN OPERATION.FIRE ALARM: ALTER EXISTING SYSTEM AND ADD NEW CONSTRUCTION, KEEPING EXISTING INOPERATION.TELEPHONE: ALTER EXISTING SYSTEM AND ADD NEW CONSTRUCTION, KEEPING EXISTING INOPERATION.KEY PLANVICINITY MAPBUBRDLMBLKGBDBOLLDBLDG&AVGAUTOARCHAPPLANODANNUNCALTALAFFACOUSACCESBUILT UP BROADLOOM BLOCKINGBOARDBOLLARD BUILDING ANDAVERAGEAUTOMATICARCHITECT(URAL)APPLIANCE ANODIZEDANNUNCIATOR ALTERNATEALUMINUMABOVE FINISHED FLOORACOUSTIC(AL)ACCESSORY WTRPRFWTW/OWDWWDWCW/VIFVERTVEHU.N.O. UTIL UNDRLAYTYPT&GTRTDTRANSTRAFTLTTHKSYSSUSPSURFSTRUCTSTRFRSTLSTDSSTSIMSHORGSGLSFSECURSCRWATERPROOFINGWEIGHTWITHOUTWINDOWWOODWATER CLOSETWITHVERIFY IN FIELDVERTICALVEHICLEUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISEUTILITYUNDERLAYMENTTYPICALTONGUE AND GROOVETREATED TRANSPARENTTRAFFIC TOILET THICKSYSTEM(S)SUSPENDEDSURFACE STRUCTURALSTOREFRONT STEELSTANDARDSTAINLESS STEELSIMILARSHORING SINGLE SQUARE FEETSECURITY SCRIBE CABINET CARPET CEMENT(ITIOUS)CERAMICCEILINGCOATING COILING CONCRETECONSTRUCTIONCONTINUOUS(ATION)CONTRACT(OR)COVERCONCRETE MASONRY UNITDOUBLEDEPARTMENTDESIGN(ED)DETAILDRINKING FOUNTAINDIAMETERDIFFUSERDIMENSIONDISPENSERDIVISIONCABCPTCEMCERCLGCOATGCOILGCONCCONSTRCONTCONTRCOVCMUDBLDEPTDESDETDFDIADIFFDIMDISPDIVDOWNDOLLAR (US CURRENCY)DOOR DISCONNECT DRAWERELASTOMERICELECTRICALEMBEDD(ED)(ING) ENGINEER(ED)ENTRANCEEQUALEQUIPMENTEXISTING EXPANSION JOINTDN$DRDSCONDWRELASTELECEMBEDENGRENTREQEQUIPEXISTEXP JTEXTERIORFABRICATION FLOOR DRAINFIRE EXTINGUISHER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETFIRE HOSE CABINETFINISHFOLDINGFIREPLACE FIRE RAT(ING)(ED) FRAMINGFIXED FIXTUREFLOOR(ING)FURNITUREFABRIC WALL COVERINGGAUGEGLASS FIBER REINFORCEDGLASS FIBER REINFORCEDGLASS FIBER REINFORCEDGLASSGRAD(E)(ING)GYPSUMEXTFABFDFEFECFHCFINFLDGFPLCFRFRMGFXDFXTRFLRFURNFWCGAGFRCGFRGGFRPGLGRGYPPLASTERGYPSUMCONCRETEEXPOSE(D) EXPSAIR CONDITIONINGJANINFILTRINTINTLKINSULINSTRUMINFOHVACHORIZHMHDWEHDWDHDJANITORINFILTRATION INTERIOR INTERLOCK(ING)INSULATIONINSTRUMENT(ATION) INFORMATIONHEATING, VENTILATING, ANDHORIZONTALHOLLOW METALHARDWAREHARDWOODHEADKITCHENLAVATORYPOUNDKITLAVLBLIGHTLEVELING LOUVERMAXIMUMMANUFACTURED MANUFACTURERMECHANICALMETALMEMBRANEMEZZANINEMINIMUMMISCELLANEOUSMILLWORKMOISTURE MOTOR(IZED) MOUNTEDLTLVLGLVRMAXMFDMFRMECHMETMEMBMEZZMINMISCMLWKMOISTMOTMTDNOT IN CONTRACTNUMBERNOT TO SCALEORNAMENTALOVERFLOWOVERHEAD OPENING(S)OPERABLE PARTITIONPEDESTRIANPARTICLE BOARDPANELPOLYSTYRENEPORTABLEPREFINISHEDPREFABRICATED PLASTIC LAMINATEPLASTERPLASTIC PLYWOODPROTECTION READERRECESSED RECEPTACLEREFER(ENCE)REFLECTEDREFRIGERATORREQUIREDRESIST(ANT)(IVE) NICNONTSORNAOVFLOVHDOPNGOPRPTNPEDTRPBDPNLPOLYSTPORTPREFINPREFABPLAMPLASPLSTCPLYWDPRTECNRDRRECESRECPTREFREFLREFRREQ'DRESISRESILIENTROOFINGROOMROUGH OPENINGRESILRFGRMROREINFORCE(D)(ING)(MENT)REINFPROJECT DIRECTORYAPPLICABLE CODESTRUENORTHPLANNORTHABBREVIATIONSAN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ONTHE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOROF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. PER ORDINANCE 170,158)(INCLUDES COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS AND TI WORK OVER $10,000) SEPARATE PLUMBING PERMIT ISREQUIRED.SEISMIC GAS VALVE:THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTRICT A FIVE-FOOT CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TOANY WATER OR POWER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULL-BOXES, TRANSFORMERS,VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS, APPURTENANCES, ETC) OR TO THE LOCATION OF THEHOOK-UP. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN-FEET OF ANY POWER LINES -WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAYCAUSE CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND / OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE.CONSTRUCTION IN RIGHT-OF-WAY:DESIGN-BUILD NOTES:1. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DRAWINGS, CALCULATIONS,GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY APPROVALS AND FEES TO COMPLETE THIS WORK FOR ALLSPRINKLER AND FIRE/LIFE SAFETY WORK/SCOPE.2. ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SUPERSEDE ALL ENGINEERING DRAWINGSW FOR QUANTITY ANDLOCATION OF MATERIALS AND FIXTURES.3. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND/OR THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYREQUIRED CERTIFIED CALCULATIONS AND/OR DRAWINGS REQUIRED TO SATISFY INSPECTIONREQUIREMENTS THAT RESULT FROM ON-SITE CONDITIONS OR WORK PERFORMED.FIRE SPRINKLERS, FIRE ALARM, LOW VOLTAGEMEP UNDER SEPARATE PERMITSDEFERRED SUBMITTALS: A0-00COVER SHEETN/ASRMGMPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK NNo. C 21600LIC E NSEDARCHITECTGUIL L ERMOMONTERSTATEOFCALI FORNIAREN.4-30- 2 5SIGNED ON JULY 26, 2024Telephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES2ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/243ISSUE FOR PLAN CHECK07/26/24C:\Users\ShannonRoseMcShea\Desktop\1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A0-00-COVER SHEET.dwg 1601 PCHSTREET LEVEL SPEC SUITES1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CABUILDING MANAGEMENT:CBRE, INC.BUILDING OWNER1601 PCH LPC/O HIDDEN HARBOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 290HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254TEL. (310) 612-3594INTERIOR DESIGNERONE design collectiveTEL. (562) 355-0879CONTACT: SHANNON MCSHEAAPPLICABLE CODES2022CBC (BASED ON 2021 IBC)2022CPC (BASED ON 2021 UPC)2022CEC (BASED ON 2021 NEC)2022CMC (BASED ON 2021 UMC)2022CBC ENERGY CODE TITLE 24, PART 62022 CGBC*2023CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CA AMENDMENTS PER ORDINANCE 16-4252019CALIFORNIA FIRE CODECHAPTER 3 USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONCLASSIFICATION1. GROUP B: BUSINESSTOTAL USABLE SPACE: 6,571 USFTOTAL AREA OF WORK: 6,571 USFACCESSIBLE RESTROOMS: YESNUMBER OF STORIES: 2CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE 1-FRSPRINKLERED BUILDING: YESPROJECTAREAINTERIOR DESIGN:A0-00COVER SHEETA0-01GENERAL NOTESA0-02GENERAL NOTESA0-03GENERAL NOTESA0-04 GENERAL NOTESPARKING STRUCTURE PLANSA2.1AS-BUILT PARKING P2 LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.2AS-BUILT PARKING P3 LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.3P4 LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.4P5 LEVEL FLOOR PLANA2.5AS-BUILT PARKING P6 LEVEL FLOOR PLANINTERIOR DESIGNA1-00DEMOLITION PLANA1-01PARTITION PLANA3-00DEMOLITION REFLECTED CEILING PLANA3-01REFLECTED CEILING PLANA4-01FINISH PLANA5-01EGRESS PLANA6-01ELEVATIONSA7-01DETAILSA7-03GLAZING DETAILSDA-01PATH OF TRAVELDA-02EXISTING ACCESSIBLE RESTROOMSDA-03ACCESSIBLE NOTESDA-04ACCESSIBLE NOTESDRAWING INDEX"AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ARE FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS ONLY AND IS NOTREVIEWED BY LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THEDISABLED ACCESS PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN THE CURRENT CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC).IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S AND THEIR AGENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH ALLFEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES."Page 351 of 440 Page 352 of 440 PROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK NNo. C 21600LIC E NSEDARCHITECTGUIL L ERMOMONTERSTATEOFCALI FORNIAREN.4-30- 2 5SIGNED ON JULY 26, 2024Telephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES2ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/243ISSUE FOR PLAN CHECK07/26/24DEMOLITION PLANEXISTING PARTITIONS TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING PARTITIONS TO REMAINEXISTING DOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED1.REFER TO "A0.00" , 'A0.01", "A0.02", "A0.03"' "A0.04" AND "A0.05" DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONALNOTES AND INFORMATION.2.SEE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN FOR ANY REQUIRED CEILING DEMOLITION.3.PATCH AND SKIM COAT WALLS TO RECEIVE SPECIFIED WALL FINISH.4.SAVE DOORS, FRAMES AND HARDWARE FOR RELOCATION OR RETURN TO BUILDING STOCK.COORDINATE STORAGE WITH BUILDING MANAGEMENT.5.EXISTING WINDOW COVERINGS TO BE REMOVED, CLEANED AND REINSTALLED AFTERCOMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. CHECK BUILDING STOCK BEFORE GENERATING NEW ORDERFOR MISSING ITEMS.6.REMOVE ALL EXISTING FLOORING FINISHES ( CARPET & PAD) AND BASE. CONFIRM REMOVAL OFHARD SURFACE FLOORING, WOOD, TILE, VCT & STONE WITH ONE design collective. PREP DECKFOR NEW SCHEDULED FINISH.SUITE 155DEMO EXISTING STOREFRONT THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL WALLS, DOORS/FRAMES, ALL MILLWORK/DISPLAY CABINETS.DEMO ALL EXISTING CEILING, SOFFITS, LIGHTING AND HVAC.DEMO ALL KITCHEN EQUIPMENT AND PLUMBING THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL FLOORING.SUITE 160DEMO EXISTING STOREFRONT THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL WALLS, DOORS/FRAMES AND ANY MILLWORK.DEMO ALL EXISTING CEILING, SOFFITS, LIGHTING AND HVAC.DEMO ALL FLOORING.SUITE 165DEMO EXISTING STOREFRONT THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL WALLS, DOORS, SLIDING DOORS TYP.DEMO ALL EXISTING CEILING, SOFFITS, LIGHTING AND HVAC.DEMO ALL EXISTING MILLWORK AND PLUMBING THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL FLOORING.SUITE 170DEMO EXISTING STOREFRONT THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL WALLS, MIRRORS, DOORS TYP.DEMO ALL EXISTING CEILING, SOFFITS, LIGHTING AND HVAC.DEMO ALL EXISTING MILLWORK AND RESTROOM PLUMBING THROUGHOUT.DEMO ALL FLOORING, SPORTS MATS.DEMO EXISTING TERRAZZO TILE FLOOR IN HATCHED AREA ONLY.TRY TO SALVAGE TILES IN GOOD CONDITION FOR POSSIBLE REUSE/FILL IN AFTERREMODEL.DEMO FAUX TREE TRUNKS IN ARCADE.DEMO FAUX TREE TRUNK - COLUMN TO REMAIN.PARTITIONSDEMOLITION KEY NOTES1SCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1DEMOLITION NOTESC:\Users\ShannonRoseMcShea\Desktop\1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A-1_Partition_&_Demolition_Plans.dwg A1-00DEMOLITION PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGM23SUITE 155853 SFSUITE 160663 SFSUITE 1651,173 SFSUITE 1702,623 SF1234455556767EXISTING COMMON SPACE4,275 SFPage 353 of 440 155OFFICE165OFFICE100COMMON SPACEA6.0101A6.0102Aa155A a170 45'-7"81'-10"51'-4" 63'-5"DOOR SCHEDULEDOOR FRAMES TO MATCH EXISTING WITH CONTINUOUS MUTES U.N.OASSEMBLIES MORE THAN 20 MINUTES OR DOUBLE EGRESS USE HOLLOW METAL WELDED FRAMES WITH 2" FRAME PROFILE PAINTEDSELECTCOLOR, WITH 8 SILENCERS .ASTRUCTURAL GLASS PAIR: 80" X 96 X 12", SATIN, POLISHED STAINLESS STEEL, 4 FLOOR DOOR STOPS 2 HEADER MOUNTED STOPS DOORSTO MATCH EXISTING, SEE DOOR ELEVATIONS FOR HANDLE LOCATIONS AND CR LAURENCE PATCH TYPES.*HARDWARE SCHEDULEALL HARDWARE TO BE US26 (626) FINISH - SATIN CHROME U.N.O.aSUITE ENTRY PAIR LOCKSET; TO MATCH EXISTING*HARDWARE SPECIFICATIONSALL HARDWARE TO BE SATIN CHROME FINISH UON. ALL LEVERS TO BE L-03 WITH ESCUTCHEON UONDEVICEMANUFACTURERCLOSERLCNLCN 1461 SMOOTH SLIM LINE COVER US26D, INSTALL ON INTERIOR SIDE OF DOORS.COORDINATORIVESCOR MATCH DOOR FRAME FINISH WITH FL FILLER BARS AS REQUIRED.AUTO FLUSH BOLTSIVESFB41P WITH DUST PROOF STRIKE DP1 AT THRESHOLD, DP2 AT FLOOR MATCH HARDWARE FINISH.THRESHOLDPEMKO1665A MILL FINISH ALUMINUMHINGESHAGERBB NRP 1279 BALL BEARING NON REMOVABLE PIN 4-1/2' X 4-1/2"BB 1279 BALL BEARING 4-1/2' X 4-1/2" BB 12791279 STANDARD 4-1/2' X 4-1/2"ETW ELECTRONIC TRANSFER 4-1/2' X 4-1/2"DOOR STOPMOCKETTDS3 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUMCOAT HOOKMOCKETTCH23 METALLIC SILVER (23)ENDTYPE 'A'8'-0"TEMPERED GLASS3'-10"PARTITION PLANPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK NNo. C 21600LIC E NSEDARCHITECTGUIL L ERMOMONTERSTATEOFCALI FORNIAREN.4-30- 2 5SIGNED ON JULY 26, 2024Telephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES2ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/243ISSUE FOR PLAN CHECK07/26/24EXISTING PARTITIONS TO REMAIN1 HOUR RATED PARTITION, SEE DETAILDETAIL NUMBERSHEETSHEETELEVATION NUMBERROOM NAME1.REFER TO 'A0.00", 'A0.01', 'A0.02', 'A0.03', 'A0.04' AND 'A0.05' DRAWINGS FORADDITIONAL NOTES AND INFORMATION.2.ALL TRADES TO INSPECT EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTINGBIDS. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY DESIGNER OF ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE WORK.3.REPAIR AND PATCH ALL SURFACES WHERE WALLS HAVE BEEN REMOVED ORSCARRED FROM DEMOLITION.4.REPAIR AND SKIM COAT ALL EXISTING PARTITIONS TO RECEIVE NEW FINISHES.5.CONTRACTOR TO PREPARE ALL FLOORING SURFACES TO RECEIVE NEWFINISHES. FLASH PATCH AS REQUIRED FOR SMOOTH FINISH. PATCH ALL HOLESIN THE SLAB TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITION.6.CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW PARTITION TYPES AGAINST MECHANICAL DRAWINGSTO COORDINATE AREAS OF PLENUM AND NON-PLENUM CEILINGS.7.CONTRACTOR SHALL FURR OUT AND OR REMOVE PORTIONS OF EXISTING WALLCONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED TO INSTALL NEW OUTLETS, SWITCHES,CONDUITS, PIPING, THERMOSTATS, ETC. AND REFINISH AS REQUIRED TORECEIVE NEW FINISH.8.EXTEND AND/OR MODIFY THE H.V.A.C., FIRE LIFE SAFETY & SPRINKLER SYSTEMSAS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION AND REVISEDPARTITION CONFIGURATIONS. REFER TO ENGINEERING DRAWINGS9.REPLACE ALL WINDOW COVERINGS WHICH WERE REMOVED DURINGDEMOLITION.10.PROVIDE NEW BUILDING WINDOW COVERINGS AT EXTERIOR WINDOWS WHEREREQUIRED BASED ON NEW LAYOUT11.FIRE / LIFE SAFETY & SPRINKLER ENGINEERING SHALL BE DESIGN BUILD, ANDG.C. MUST INCLUDE ENGINEERING COSTS IN THE BID. CONTACT BUILDINGMANAGEMENT REGARDING LIST OF MANDATORY/ SUGGESTEDSUB-CONTRACTORS AND BUILDING STANDARDS.12.PATCH DRYWALL AT ALL ABANDONED OUTLET LOCATIONS.13.ALL LOCKSETS SHALL BE CODED AND/OR KEYED IN ACCORDANCE WITHBUILDING REQUIREMENTS. CODES AND/OR KEYS ARE TO BE DELIVERED TOTENANT PROPERLY TESTED AND/OR TAGGED. THE NUMBER OF MASTER ANDPASS KEYS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH BUILDING MANAGEMENT UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.14.EGRESS DOORS SHALL BE READILY OPERABLE FROM THE EGRESS SIDE OF THEWITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT.SLAB TO SLAB PARTITION TO BE CONFIRMED WITH BUILDING ENGINEER.RATING CONFIRMATION REQUIRED.EXISTING RESTROOMS TO BE SHARED WITH THE ENTIRE BUILDING.FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET USE LARSEN'S ARCHITECTURAL SERIES,PAINTED STEEL VERTICAL DUO PAINT TO MATCH PARTITION WITHOUTLOCK SEMI-RECESSED 2409-R3 , R.O. 1012" W X 3" D X 25" H WITH 2A-10BCFIRE EXTINGUISHER WITH SFM TAG.. VERIFY LOCATION AND COUNTS WITHFIRE INSPECTOR PRIOR TO CLOSING WALLSPARTITION NOTESSECTION DESIGNATIONSHEET1A-51A7-003A7-01GLASS PARTITION, SEE DETAIL1A7-02DOOR NUMBER101DOOR NUMBERHARDWARE PER SCHEDULEDOOR TYPE PER SCHEDULEDh000FEC 1A-601PARTITION KEYNOTESEQUIPMENTSYMBOLS00OFFICE100ROOM NUMBERSQUARE FOOTAGEPARTITIONSDOOR, FRAME AND HARDWARE TYPESSCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1 A1-01PARTITION PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGMSLAB TO SLAB NON RATED PARTITION, SEE DETAIL2A7-01SUITE 165 - 4,317 SFSUITE 155 - 2,254 SF222SF ADDED TOSUITE 155 - 811 SFSF ADDED TOSUITE 165 - 392 SFPage 354 of 440 REFLECTED CEILING DEMOLITION PLANPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PRICING NTelephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES1ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/24SCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1REFLECTED CEILING PLAN SYMBOLSMATCH EXISTING LAMP APPEARANCE CLASSIFICATION. IF NEW THROUGHOUT ALL LAMPS SHALL HAVE CRI OF MIN 80 + 3500K ( 835) CLASSIFICATION.EXISTINGDEMOEXISTING TO REMAINSPECIFICATIONSPECEXISTING TO REMAINED A2-00REFLECTED CEIL'GDEMO PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGMDEMO LIGHT FIXTURES AND CEILING IN AREA SHOWNREFLECTED CEILING NOTESREFLECTED CEILING KEY NOTES1.SEE 'A0-00', 'A0-01', 'A0-02', 'A0-03', 'A0-04' AND 'A0-05' DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND INFORMATION.2.EXISTING CEILING GRID, TILE AND FIXTURES TO REMAIN U.N.O.1Y:\PROJECTS\1200\1264 - 1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A-2-00_Ceiling Demo_Plan.dwg 11111111111Page 355 of 440 155OFFICE170OFFICECEILING PLANPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PRICING NTelephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES1ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/24EXISTING LIGHTING TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT ARCADE.ALTERNATE - REPLACE ALL EXISTING LIGHTING IN ARCADE PER THE SPECIFICATIONS.MATCH NEW DRYWALL SOFFIT HEIGHT TO THE ADJACENT SOFFIT HEIGHT.EXPOSED CEILING THROUGHOUT NEW OFFICE SPEC SUITES.REFLECTED CEILING NOTESREFLECTED CEILING KEY NOTESREFLECTED CEILING PLAN SYMBOLS1.SEE 'A0-00', 'A0-01', 'A0-02', 'A0-03', 'A0-04' AND 'A0-05' DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES AND INFORMATION.2.ALL LIGHTING FIXTURES SHOWN ON PLAN ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3.REFER TO ENGINEERING FOR NEW FIXTURES AND DAYLIGHT CONTROLS4.REFER TO MEP DRAWINGS FOR RELOCATION OR RECONFIGURATION OF EXISTING BUILDING RISERS, DUCTS OR PIPING IN RENOVATEDAREAS.5.RE-WORK/ADD HVAC AS REQUIRED PER ENGINEERING DRAWINGS.6.CONTRACTOR TO RE-USE EXISTING HVAC AND REDISTRIBUTE AND ADD NEW AS REQUIRED FOR NEW LAYOUT, CODES AND BUILDINGSTANDARD.REFER TO MECHANICAL DRAWINGS.7.ALL CEILING MOUNTED DEVICES; SENSORS, FIRE LIFE SAFETY ETC. TO BE WHITE.8.RE-WORK EXISTING FIRE/LIFE/SAFETY DEVICES AND PROVIDE NEW AS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH BUILDING STANDARD, LOCAL CODEAND NEW LAYOUT. THIS WORK SHALL BE FILED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.9.RE-WORK EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS REQUIRED. THIS WORK TO BE FILED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. PROVIDE CONCEALEDHEADS IN AREAS OF GYP. BOARD CONSTRUCTION.10.REPLACE MISSING OR DAMAGED/STAINED SPRINKLER COVERS THROUGHOUT SUITE.11.PROVIDE NEW TENANT STANDARD 2'X2' ACOUSTIC CEILING GRID AND TILES IN AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION/NEW CEILING. GC TOCONSOLIDATE EXISTING CEILING TILES WITH EXISTING AND NEW TILES WITH NEW.MATCH EXISTING LAMP APPEARANCE CLASSIFICATION. IF NEW THROUGHOUT ALL LAMPS SHALL HAVE CRI OF MIN 80 + 3500K ( 835) CLASSIFICATION.REFLECTED CEILING PLAN SYMBOLS+00'-00"CEILING HEIGHT FROM FINISHFLOOR1SPECIFICATIONNEWASCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1Y:\PROJECTS\1200\1264 - 1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A-2_Ceiling_Plan.dwg NEW ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE TO MATCH EXISTING (GC TO CONFIRM SPEC) A2-01REFLECTED CEILING PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGMHE WILLIAMS - AT2 LEDARCHITECTURAL TROFFER - CURVED DEEP CENTERBCHE WILLIAMS - 4DR LED4.5" DOWNLIGHT - ROUNDLEDI LIGHTINGINSPIRE MUD-IN COVE CHANNELHE WILLIAMS LEDLLM ARCHITECTURAL SLIMLINE - EMERGENCY LIGHTING+11'-00"+11'-06"+12'-00"+11'-00"+11'-00"+11'-00"+12'-00"+12'-00"+12'-00"+11'-06"+11'-00"23111111111122222222333MATCH EXISTINGD444Page 356 of 440 155OFFICE170OFFICEP1CON1B1P1CON1B1P-FINISH SCHEDULENOMATERIALMFG.MFG. NOCOLORREMARKSREMARKSCONTACTWALL FINISHESP-1PAINTDUNN EDWARDSDEW383COOL DECEMBERALL SURFACES UON100% ACRYLIC GLOSS UNITS NOT TO EXCEED 18 FOR WALLSURFACES, 5 FOR CEILINGSARCHITECTURAL PAINTS,COATINGS AND PRIMERS APPLIED TO INTERIOR WALLS ANDCEILINGS: DO NOT EXCEED THE VOC CONTENT LIMITSESTABLISHED IN GREEN SEAL STANDARD GS-11, PAINTS,FIRST EDITION, MAY 20, 1993.FLATS: 50 G/LNON-FLATS: 150 G/L1. ASTM E84 SURFACE-BURNING CHARACTERISTICSA. FLAME SPREAD: 15B. SMOKE DEVELOPED: 0C. CLASS AP-2PAINTDUNN EDWARDSMATCH EXISTINGMATCH EXISTINGCEILING PAINTBASEB-14" RUBBER BASEJOHNSONITE08ICICLEUSE WITH P-1, COVED AT HARDSURFACE, STRAIGHT AT CARPETASTM E 648 (NFPA 253): CRITICAL RADIANT FLUX – CLASS IASTM E 84/NFPA 255 (FLAME/SMOKE) – CLASS B, < 450USE ROLLED GOODS FOR ALL UON . USE ADHESIVE THATCOMPLIES WITH SCAQMD DISTRICT RULE #1168.FLOORINGCON-1CONCRETEHARD SCRAPETS-1RUBBER TRANSITIONSTRIPTBDCARPET TO CONCRETE TRANSITIONXXXXXXFINISH PLANSCALE1/8" = 1'-0"1EXISTING FLOORING AND FINISHES TO REMAIN THROUGHOUT ARCADE.IN ARCADE - GC TO INFILL WITH EXISTING, SALVAGED FLOOR TILE IF POSSIBLE.ALTERNATE - GC TO MATCH EXISTING FIELD TILE FOR NEW FLOOR LAYOUT IN THIS AREA ONLY.GC TO MATCH ARCADE PAINT COLOR AND APPLY AT NEW CONSTRUCTED WALLS.1.SEE 'A0-00', 'A0-01', 'A0-02', 'A0-03', 'A0-04',' AND 'A0-05' DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES ANDINFORMATION.2.ALL TRADES TO INSPECT EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BIDS. CONTRACTORTO NOTIFY DESIGNER OF ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE WORK.3.GC TO PROVIDE CERTIFIED INSTALLERS FOR ALL FLOORINGS.4.ALL EXTERIOR GLASS AND WINDOW MULLIONS TO BE CLEANED UPON COMPLETION OFCONSTRUCTION AS A PART OF THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CLEAN-UP.5.GC TO VERIFY EXISTING WINDOW SHADES MAY BE RE-INSTALLED (CORRECT SIZES) AT AREAS OFNEW OFFICE CONSTRUCTION. GC TO PROVIDE NEW IF REQUIREDFINISH NOTESFINISH KEY NOTES:1Y:\PROJECTS\1200\1264 - 1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A-4_Finish_Plan OPT 1.dwg A4-01FINISHPLAN1/8"=1'-0"SRMGMPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PRICING NTelephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES1ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/2423111223334441Page 357 of 440 SOUTH ELEVATION1EAST ELEVATION23SCALE3/8" = 1'-0"SCALE3/8" = 1'-0"SCALE3/8" = 1'-0"4SCALE3/8" = 1'-0"-- A6-01ELEVATIONSAS NOTEDSRMGMPROJECT NAME & LOCATION:NUMBERSEALS & SIGNATURESPROJECT NO.: 1264DESCRIPTIONDATEISSUED:SCALE:SHEET SIZE: 30X42DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:1ISSUE FOR CLIENT REVIEW01/05/24ISSUED FOR PRICING NTelephone: (562) 355-0879design collective1601 PACIFIC COASTHIGHWAYHERMOSA BEACH, CA1601 PCHSTREET LEVELSPEC SUITES1ISSUE FOR PRICING03/06/24Y:\PROJECTS\1200\1264 - 1601 PCH\6-DWG\ARCHITECTURAL\CD\LARGE\A\A6-ELEVATIONS.dwgPage 358 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 25 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Appendix B City of Hermosa Beach’s Municipal Code (as of October 2021) Page 359 of 440 MUNICIPAL CODE Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 1 HERMOSA BEACH, CA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 ZONING Chapter 17.44 Off-Street Parking Contents: 17.44.010 Definitions. 17.44.015 Applicability. 17.44.020 Off-street parking–Residential uses. 17.44.030 Off-street parking–Commercial and business uses. 17.44.040 Parking requirements for the downtown district. 17.44.050 Unlawful to reduce available parking. 17.44.060 Common parking facilities. 17.44.070 Off-street parking–Mixed uses. 17.44.080 Uses not otherwise specified. 17.44.090 Off-street parking location. 17.44.100 Size of spaces. 17.44.110 Tandem parking and entry-way standards. 17.44.120 Driveways. 17.44.130 Turning radii, stall width and aisle width. [Repealed] 17.44.140 Requirements for new construction. 17.44.150 Underground parking facilities. 17.44.160 Required improvement and maintenance of parking area. 17.44.170 Parking area in R-3 or R-P zones. 17.44.180 Resulting fractions. 17.44.190 Valet Parking. 17.44.200 Assignment of off-street residential parking spaces. 17.44.210 Parking plans. 17.44.220 Consolidated off-street parking. 17.44.230 Parking for reduced parking demand housing. 17.44.240 Mechanical vehicle lifts. 17.44.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: Page 360 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 2 Entrance-way means an opening or passageway to a building or structure which permits pedestrian or vehicular access to such building or structure. Gross floor area means the total area occupied by a building or structure, excepting therefrom only the area of any inner open courts, corridors, open balconies (except when utilized, e.g., restaurant seating or similar usage), and open stairways. Such total area shall be calculated by measuring along the outside dimensions of the exterior surfaces of such building or structure. Major city street means all public rights-of-way designated in the circulation element of the general plan as a primary, or secondary arterials or as collectors. Mechanical vehicle lift means a mechanical system that lifts or descends one (1) vehicle to make space available to park a second vehicle in a vertical tandem fashion. Off-street parking means parking upon private property as accessory to other permitted land uses, and shall not include publicly owned parking. Tandem parking means one (10 automobile parked after or behind another in a lengthwise fashion. In this title, tandem parking is limited to not more than one (1) automobile behind another. Underground parking facilities means a basement equipped, designed, used or intended to be used for parking automobiles. (Ord. 20-1419 §4(1), 2020; prior code Appx. A, § 1150) 17.44.015 Applicability. The requirements of this Chapter apply to the establishment, alteration, expansion, or change in any use or structure, as provided below. A. New Buildings and Land Uses. On-site parking shall be provided in accordance with this Chapter at the time any main building or structure is erected or any new land use is established, except as provided below. B. Change of Use of Existing Buildings. When a new use is established in an existing building, parking shall be provided as follows: 1. Late Night Alcohol Establishment. Where the new use is a late night serving alcohol establishment, parking in accordance with this Chapter shall be provided. 2. Uses Other than Late Night Alcohol Establishment. When a new use other than a late night alcohol establishment is established in an existing building no additional parking spaces shall be required. Any addition or expansion to the existing building shall provide parking pursuant to 17.44.015. D, Additions or Expansions of Existing Buildings. C. Downtown and C-1 Districts. 1. In the Downtown and C-1 Districts, no on-site parking is required for the first 5,000 square feet of ground floor non-residential, non-office, and non-late night alcohol establishment use. Parking in accordance with this Chapter shall be provided for ground floor area in excess of 5,000 square feet and for all upper story floor area. 2. In the Downtown and C-1 Districts, residential, office, and late night alcohol establishments shall provide parking in accordance with this Chapter. D. Additions or Expansions of Existing Buildings. 1. Additions less than 10 percent or 500 square feet. No additional parking is required for alterations to existing buildings that do not change the building square footage on site by more than 10 percent or 500 square feet, whichever is greater, provided the use is other than a late night alcohol establishment. Page 361 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 3 2. Additions greater than 10 percent or 500 square feet. Additional parking in accordance with this Chapter shall be provided for any alteration which would change the building square footage on site by more than 10 percent or 500 square feet, whichever is greater. 3. Late night alcohol establishments. For late night alcohol establishments, additional parking in accordance with this Chapter shall be provided for any alteration what would change the building square footage on-site. E. When Constructed. Parking facilities required by this Chapter shall be constructed or installed prior to final inspection or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the uses that they serve. (Ord. # 21-1436 §4, adopted 09/14/2021, effective 10/14/2021) Effective on: 10/14/2021 17.44.020 Off-street parking–Residential uses. The aggregate amount of off-street automobile parking spaces provided in connection with each of the following uses shall be not less than the following: Use Parking Requirement A.One (1) family dwelling Two (2) off-street parking spaces plus one (1) guest space. B.Duplex or two (2) family dwelling Two (2) off-street parking spaces for each unit plus one (1) guest space. One (1) additional space of on- site guest parking shall be provided for each on-street space lost because of new curbcuts and/or driveways. C.Multiple dwellings (three (3) or more units) Two (2) off-street spaces for each dwelling unit plus one (1) guest space for each two (2) dwelling units. One (1) additional space of on-site guest parking shall be provided for each on-street space lost because of new curbcuts and/or driveways. D.Detached servants’ quarters or guesthouses One (1) space. E. Supportive or transitional housing, medical or residential care facilities, group homes: Limited to six (6) persons. Same as one (1) family dwelling. F.Junior accessory dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit Refer to Section 17.21.050(F). (Ord. 20-1404 §14, 2020; Ord. 20-1403U §14, 2020; Ord. 18-1385 §6, 2018; Ord. 13-1342, §11, #E, July 2013; prior code Appx. A, § 1151) 17.44.030 Off-street parking–Commercial and business uses. Required Number of Spaces by Use. The aggregate amount of off-street automobile parking spaces provided for various uses shall not be less than the following, unless a parking plan approved by the planning commission pursuant to 17.44.210 allows for a reduction in the number of spaces required. A.Assembly halls: one (1) space for each five (5) seats, permanent or removable, or one (1) space for each fifty (50) square feet of gross floor area in the assembly hall, whichever is greater. B. Automobile or boat sales: one (1) space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of site area. Page 362 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 4 C. Bowling alleys: five (5) spaces for each lane plus one (1) space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area except bowling alley lanes and approach areas. D.Clubs, fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses and similar uses having sleeping and guest rooms: two (2) covered spaces for each three (3) guest rooms; in dormitories each fifty (50) square feet shall be considered a guest room; two (2) spaces shall be required for each guest room with kitchen facilities. E. Commercial Uses. 1. Bars and cocktail lounges: one (1) space for each eighty (80) square feet of gross floor area. 2. Beauty colleges: one (1) space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. 3.Business schools and trade schools: one (1) space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. 4. Furniture and hardware stores: one (1) space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 5. Offices, general: one (1) space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 6. Offices, Governmental and Public Utilities. Government offices that generate high levels of contact with the public, or have high numbers of employees, including but not limited to employment offices, public social services offices, Department of Motor Vehicle offices: one (1) space per seventy-five (75) square feet of gross floor area for the first twenty-thousand (20,000) square feet of the building(s), plus one (1) space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area for the remaining floor area. 7. Offices, medical: five (5) spaces for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. 8.Restaurants: one (1) space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area plus one (1) per 200 square feet of on-site outdoor seating area in excess of 400 square feet. 9. Retail, general retail commercial uses: one (1) space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. 10. Gymnasiums/health and fitness centers, as follows: a. Less than or equal to three thousand (3,000) square feet and with less than or equal to twenty (20) students at one time if classes are offered: one (1) space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. b. Greater than three thousand (3,000) square feet but not more than six thousand (6,000) square feet, or with more than forty (40) students at one time if classes are offered: one (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area. c. Greater than six thousand (6,000) square feet, or with more than forty (40) students at one time if classes are offered: one (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. F. Hospitals: two (2) spaces for each patient bed. G. Hospitals (mental), convalescent homes, guest homes, rest homes, sanitariums and similar institutions: one (1) space for each three (3) beds. H.Hotels: one (1) space for each unit for the first fifty (50) units; one (1) space per one (1) and one-half (1/2) units after fifty (50); and one (1) space per two (2) units after one hundred (100) units. Hotels with facilities including restaurants, banquet rooms, conference rooms, commercial retail uses and similar activities shall provide parking for the various uses as computed separately in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. I. Industrial Uses. The parking requirements of this subsection apply only to industrial uses; parking for commercial and other permitted uses in industrial zones shall provide the number of spaces as otherwise specified by this chapter. 1. Industrial uses of all types, except, public utility facilities and warehouses: one (1) space for each vehicle used in conjunction with the use; plus one (1) space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area. Page 363 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 5 2. Warehouses, buildings or portions of buildings used exclusively for warehouse purposes: one (1) space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet for the first twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; plus, one (1) space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet for the second twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; plus one (1) space for each four thousand (4,000) square feet in excess of forty thousand (40,000) square feet; plus one (1) space for each vehicle operated from the property. Prior to approval of a warehouse use by the city, a covenant shall be recorded, guaranteeing the warehouse area, facility or building will not be converted, remodeled or changed to a nonwarehouse use unless the number of spaces otherwise required by this chapter are secured and provided prior to such change or unless approved by planning commission in accordance with this chapter. J. Mobilehomes or trailer parks: two (2) spaces for each dwelling unit with at least one (1) space adjacent to the trailer site. K. Mortuaries or undertaking establishments: one (1) space for each seventy-five (75) square feet of building area for the chapel or public assembly area. L.Motels: one (1) space for each unit, plus two (2) for the manager’s unit. M. Recreation or amusement establishments: one (1) space for each seventy-five (75) square feet of gross floor area. N. Service stations: one (1) space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of site area. O.Snack Bar/Snack Shop. The parking requirements for a snack bar and/or snack shop shall be the same as that for a restaurant. P.Short-term vacation rentals in commercial zones: one (1) space per bedroom, in no case less than one (1) space per unit and a maximum of two (2) spaces per unit being required. (Ord. 19-1395 §5, 2019; Ord. 17-1378 §7, 2017; Ord. 14-1346 §4, 2014; Ord. 04-1241 §4, 2004; Ord. 95-1126 §1, 1995; prior code Appx. A, § 1152) 17.44.040 Parking requirements for the downtown district. The following requirements apply within the boundary of the downtown district, as defined by the map incorporated by this reference: A. The amount of parking shall be calculated for each particular use as set forth in Section 17.44.030 with the exception of the following: 1. Retail, general retail commercial uses: one (1) space for each 333.33 square feet of gross floor area (or three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet). 2. Offices, general: one (1) space for each 333.33 square feet of gross floor area (or three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet). 3. Office, medical: one (1) space for each 333.33 square feet of gross floor area (or three (3) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet). B. Parking In-Lieu Fees. When the city council provides for contributions to an improvement fund for a vehicle parking district in lieu of parking spaces so required, said in-lieu fee contributions shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of this chapter pursuant to a parking plan approved by the planning commission. (Ord. # 21-1436 §4, adopted 09/14/2021, effective 10/14/2021) Effective on: 10/14/2021 17.44.050 Unlawful to reduce available parking. Page 364 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 6 The provision and maintenance of required off-street parking facilities and areas, and of area available to the owner or user of real property for meeting minimum required parking standards, shall be a continuing obligation of the property owner and user. An owner or user of real property containing uses for which off-street parking facilities or areas are required by this chapter shall be prohibited from the following: A. Reducing, diminishing or eliminating existing required off-street parking facilities or area under the ownership or control of such owner or user, whether on the same lot or on a separate lot from the use requiring such off-street parking facilities or area; or B. Selling, transferring, leasing or otherwise making unavailable for such required off-street parking facilities or area any portion of said lot or of any adjacent lot under the same ownership or control if the same is necessary for and available to satisfy in whole or in part the off-street parking requirements imposed by this chapter. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1153) 17.44.060 Common parking facilities. Pursuant to a parking plan approved by the planning commission, common parking facilities may be provided to wholly or partially satisfy the off-street parking requirements of two (2) or more uses when one (1) or more of such uses will only infrequently generate use of such parking area at times when it will ordinarily be needed by the patrons or employees of the other use(s). A. The following factors shall be considered in determining the proportionate part of the required parking for such use(s): 1. Whether the affected requirements are those of permanent buildings, or those of mere occupancies; 2. The peak as well as normal days and hours of operation of such buildings and of the structures and occupancies with which it is proposed to share multiple-use parking areas; 3. Whether the proposed multiple-use parking area is normally or frequently used by the patrons, customers or employees of other buildings or occupancies which will share such parking area at the same time as the applicant’s patrons, customers and employees will normally or frequently utilize such parking area; 4. The certainty that the multiple-use parking area(s) will be available for satisfying such parking requirements to the extent approved, and the permanency of such availability; 5. The proximity and accessibility of the multiple-use parking area(s). B. A parking plan shall be so conditioned as to reasonably ensure the satisfaction of the appropriate parking requirements during the continued existence of the buildings or occupancies involved. C. If the common parking area(s) and the building sites to be served are subject to more than one ownership, permanent improvement and maintenance of such parking facilities must be provided in one of the following manners: 1. By covenant or contract among all such property owners; and duly recording an appropriate covenant running with the land; 2. By the creation of special districts and imposing of special assessments in any of the procedures prescribed by state law; 3. By utilizing the authority vested in a parking authority as provided by state law; 4. By dedicating such common parking area to the city for parking purposes subject to the acceptance of such dedication by the city council. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1154) (Ord. # 21-1436 §4, adopted 09/14/2021, effective 10/14/2021) Effective on: 10/14/2021 Page 365 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 7 17.44.070 Off-street parking–Mixed uses. Whenever there is a combination of two or more distinct uses on one lot or building site, the total number of parking spaces required to be provided for such lot or building site shall be not less than the sum total of the parking spaces required for each of the distinct uses. No off-street parking facilities provided for one use shall be deemed to provide parking facilities for any other use except as otherwise specified within this chapter or allowed pursuant to approval of a parking plan. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1155) (Ord. # 21-1436 §4, adopted 09/14/2021, effective 10/14/2021) Effective on: 10/14/2021 17.44.080 Uses not otherwise specified. The aggregate amount of off-street automobile parking spaces provided in connection with any use not otherwise provided for in this chapter shall come before the commission for parking determination. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1156) 17.44.090 Off-street parking location. All off-street automobile parking facilities shall be located as follows: A. All required parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or building site as the use for which such spaces are provided; provided however, that such parking spaces provided for commercial, business, industrial or warehouse uses may be located on a different lot or lots, all of which are less than three hundred (300) feet distance from the use for which it is provided, and such lot or lots are under common ownership with the lot or building site for which such spaces are provided. Where the buildings are situated on one lot and the parking is situated on another lot, the owner shall file with the Community Development Department an affidavit recorded by the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder that these lots are held in common ownership for the use specified. Such distance shall be measured along a straight line drawn between the nearest point on the premises devoted to the use served by such parking facilities and the nearest point on the premises providing such parking facilities. It is further provided that uses located within the boundaries of an established off-street parking district, organized pursuant to action by the City Council, shall be waived by the requirements of this subsection. B. No parking space required for any residential use shall be more than two hundred (200) feet total walking distance from the nearest entrance of the dwelling unit for which it is provided, except that residential uses located within the boundaries of an established off-street parking district, organized pursuant to action by the city council, shall be waived by the requirements of this subsection. C. In residential zones, garages or parking stalls fronting on a public street shall be set back a minimum of seventeen (17) feet from the exterior edge of the nearest public improvement (sidewalk or street improvement) if roll-up garage doors are installed, or set back twenty (20) feet if standard garage doors are installed. On streets where public improvements for sidewalks have not been completed the above setback shall be measured from the edge of the required or planned sidewalk. This measurement does not include structural supports or other parts of the structure provided parking dimension and turning radii are not obstructed. Garages or parking stalls fronting on an alley shall provide one of the following setbacks from the property line: seventeen (17) feet, nine feet or three feet, except garages or parking stalls fronting on an alley of fifteen (15) feet in width or less need only to comply with the turning radius requirements of Section 17.44.130. For purposes of this section the service road located parallel to Hermosa Avenue approximately between 27th Street and 35th Street shall be considered as an alley. Page 366 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 8 D. Residential parking within the front twenty (20) feet shall be allowed only when paved and leading to a garage. E. A garage may be located on one side lot line or on a rear property line which does not border a street or alley when said garage complies with all of the following: 1. No portion of such garage is more than thirty-five (35) feet from the rear lot line; and 2. No portion of such garage is closer than three feet to a habitable building on adjacent lot; and 3. There are no openings on the side of the garage which are on the property line; and 4. The wall on the side of the garage is constructed of one-hour fire resistant materials, and meets all building code regulations; and 5. There has been provision for all roof drainage to be taken care of on the subject lot; and 6. Such accessory structure is no more than one story in height and a distance of not less than six feet from the main building; and 7. Such accessory building is used only for storage of automobiles, and may be used in conjunction therewith for open sun deck. F. Open parking spaces for residential uses in the open space zone (OS-O) shall be located only within the rear fifty (50) percent or in the rear forty (40) feet whichever is the lesser of a residential lot. G. Required guest parking spaces for duplex, two-family or multiple-family residential uses that are shared between units shall not be located in tandem and shall be open and accessible to guests of all the units. (Ord. 00-1207, §4 (part), 10/24/00; Ord. 98-1179, §4 (1), 01-27-98; Ord. 96-1153 § 1, 1996; Ord. 94-1120 § 1, 1994; prior code Appx. A, § 1157) 17.44.100 Size of spaces. A. No parking space for residential uses within any building shall be less than an inside dimension of eight feet, six inches wide or less than twenty (20) feet long. B. Parking spaces, not within a building, shall comply with the parking lot design standards attached hereto, with the following exceptions: 1. In residential zones, guest parking spaces located in tandem behind a required parking space shall have a minimum length of seventeen (17) feet. 2. Guest parking spaces situated parallel to alleys and located behind garage doors with a nine-foot setback shall have a minimum length of twenty-two (22) feet. C. Parking lot design standards for commercial and manufacturing uses are amended to allow the inclusion of thirty (30) percent compact car spaces in lots of ten or more stalls. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1158) 17.44.110 Tandem parking and entry-way standards. A. Residential Parking. 1. No entranceway for vehicular access to any garage shall be less than eight feet wide. No such entranceway shall have less than six feet eight inches vertical clearance. 2. In all residential zones, required parking spaces including replacement of on-street parking may be tandem. In the R-1 zone only, tandem parking may be accessed directly from a public street. 3. Guest spaces in all residential zones may be located in garage setbacks of seventeen (17) feet or nine feet as required in Section 17.44.090(C); provided, they comply with the dimensional requirements specified in Section 17.44.100. However, in no case may one guest space be located behind another guest space. Page 367 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 9 4. The second floor level of a dwelling unit may project over a driveway fronting on a street or alley to within the prescribed setback required by the zone in which the development is proposed, or exists. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1159) B. Non-residential Parking. Tandem parking may be permitted to satisfy parking requirements for non-residential uses in accordance with the following. 1. No more than two vehicles shall be placed one behind the other. 2. Both spaces shall be assigned to a single non-residential establishment. (Ord. # 21-1436 §4, adopted 09/14/2021, effective 10/14/2021) Effective on: 10/14/2021 17.44.120 Driveways. Off-street automobile parking facilities shall be provided with driveways providing vehicular access to such facilities from a public street or alley as follows: A. Minimum driveway width shall be nine (9) feet, clear of all obstructions. B. Driveways and parking spaces shall be paved with not less than six (6) inches of portland cement concrete, except that when supported by a selected rock base which is acceptable to the chief building inspector for the type of soil upon which it is constructed, driveways may be paved with a minimum of three (3) inches of asphaltic concrete. Pervious concrete or similar material and drainage facilities may be alternatively installed for driveways and parking areas, or portions thereof, to specifications approved by the building official and/or city engineer as applicable. Where practicable, surface runoff shall drain into an adjacent pervious area on the property to maximize infiltration. C. Such driveways for vehicular access to parking spaces provided for any residential use shall be located wholly on the same lot as the parking spaces for which such driveway provides access, except in the-case of common driveways. In the case of common driveways, easements of five feet on adjoining properties may be combined to create a driveway ten (10) feet in width. Where access to required off-street parking spaces is via a common driveway, the owner shall file with the building department an affidavit recorded by the office of the Los Angeles County recorder that joint easements exist for the purpose of the driveway. D. No driveway providing access to any off-street parking space or garage shall have a slope greater than twenty (20) percent; provided, that any ramp slope in excess of twelve and one-half (12-1/2) percent includes transitions on each side with a minimum length of eight (8) feet and a maximum slope of one-half (1/2) the maximum ramp slope, in accordance with the driveway grade standards set forth below; further, any area used for guest parking shall have a maximum slope of twelve and one-half (12-1/2) percent. (Ord. 09-1300 § 4, May 2009; Ord. 93-1089 § 1, 1993; prior code Appx. A, § 1160) Page 368 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 10 Driveway Transitions 17.44.130 Turning radii, stall width and aisle width. For the purpose of determining access to garages or open parking spaces, the minimum dimensions for turning radii, for stall widths, and for aisle widths shall be as set forth in the "parking lot design standards," on file with the city. Where an angle of parking other than one listed in the attached standards is proposed, the chief building inspector shall determine by interpolation the dimensions required for such parking. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1161) [Repealed] 17.44.140 Requirements for new construction. (Ord. # 21-1436 §4, adopted 09/14/2021, effective 10/14/2021) Effective on: 10/14/2021 17.44.150 Underground parking facilities. Underground parking facilities shall conform to all the provisions of this chapter; provided however, that underground parking facilities may be located in the side, front and rear yards which are completely below existing ground level. However, in the side yards and rear yards not abutting a street, the grade may be raised an average of three feet with a maximum of six feet above the existing grade, provided both side yards are provided with cement stops in order not to obstruct any pedestrian way. No portion of such facility shall have less than seven feet inside vertical clearance, except doorways may be six feet eight inches. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1163) 17.44.160 Required improvement and maintenance of parking area. Every lot or area used for a public or private parking area shall be developed and maintained in the following manner: A. Surface Parking Area. Page 369 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 11 1.Off-street parking areas shall be paved with not less than three (3) inch asphaltic or six (6) inch portland cement concrete surfacing and maintained so as to eliminate dust or mud and shall be so graded and drained as to dispose of all surface water. Pervious material with drainage facilities may be alternatively installed for driveways and parking areas, or portions thereof, to specifications approved by the building official or city engineer as applicable. Where practicable, surface runoff shall drain into an adjacent pervious area on the property to maximize stormwater retention and filtration. In no case shall drainage be allowed across sidewalks or driveways, except residential use. 2. Designated parking spaces shall be indicated with paint or approved stripping material on the surface of the parking area. B. Border Barricades, Screening and Landscaping. 1. Off-street parking area that is not separated by a fence from any street, alley or property line upon which it abuts, shall be provided with a suitable concrete curb or timber barrier of dressed dimension stock not less than six inches in height, located not less than two feet from such street or alley property lines, and such curb or barrier shall be securely installed and maintained; provided no such curb or barrier shall be required across any driveway or entrance to such parking area. Modifications for stormwater and urban runoff management (e.g., curb inlets) may be allowed to specifications approved by the building official or city engineer as applicable. Where practicable, surface runoff shall drain into an adjacent pervious area on the property to maximize infiltration. 2. Any unenclosed off-street parking area abutting property located in one of the R zones shall be separated from such property by a solid masonry wall six (6) feet in height measured from the grade of the finished surface of such parking lot closest to the contiguous R zone property; provided, that along the required front yard, the solid masonry wall shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height. No such solid masonry wall need be provided where the elevation of that portion of the parking area immediately adjacent to an R zone is six (6) feet or more below the elevation of such R zone property along the common property line. C. Lighting. Light fixtures shall be high-efficiency, fully shielded (full cutoff) and down cast (emitting no light above the horizontal plane of the fixture), and not create glare or spill beyond the property lines. Any lights provided to illuminate any off-street parking area or used car sales area permitted by this ordinance shall be arranged so the light is reflected away from any street or premises upon which a dwelling unit is located and the lamp bulb is not directly visible from within any residential unit. D. Entrances and Exits. The location and design of all entrances and exits shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. E. Traffic Circulation. Traffic circulation within off-street parking facilities except for residential parking shall be designed to ensure that no automobile need enter a major street in order to progress from one aisle to any other aisle within the same parking lot, or enter such major street backwards in order to leave such lot. If such circulation is not otherwise possible, a turnaround area within such lot, not less than thirty (30) feet in diameter, shall be provided. Directional signs or markings shall be provided in all facilities in which one-way traffic has been established. F. Authorized Vehicles. In all residential zones, parking spaces shall be maintained free and clear and utilized solely for the parking of authorized vehicles (obstructive storage prohibited). "Authorized vehicles" shall mean automobiles, motorcycles, light trucks and vans not exceeding one and one-half ton capacity. Trailers, boats, recreational vehicles, motor homes, campers (not mounted to a motorized vehicle), tractor trucks and inoperable vehicles are prohibited. (Ord. 09-1300 §4, May 2009; Prior code Appx. A, § 1164) 17.44.170 Parking area in R-3 or R-P zones. Page 370 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 12 Every parking area located in an R-3 or R-P zone shall be governed by the following provisions in addition to those required above: A. No parking lot to be used as an accessory to a commercial or industrial establishment shall be established until it shall first have been reviewed by the planning commission and its location approved. Such approval may be conditioned upon the commission’s required lighting, planting and/or maintenance of trees, shrubs or other landscaping within and along the borders of such parking area. B. Such a parking lot to be used as an accessory to a permitted commercial or industrial establishment shall be so located that the boundary of such parking lot closest to the site of the commercial or industrial establishment to which it is accessory shall be not more than fifty (50) feet distant. C. Such parking lot shall be used solely for the parking of private passenger vehicles. D. No sign of any kind, other than one designating entrances, exits or conditions of use shall be maintained on such parking lot. Any such sign shall not exceed eight square feet in area. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1165) 17.44.180 Resulting fractions. When calculating the number of off-street automobile parking spaces required by this code for any particular use, building or structure, or integrated group of uses, buildings or structures, any resulting fraction less than one-half shall be disregarded, and any such fraction one-half or greater shall be construed as requiring one additional parking space. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1166) 17.44.190 Valet Parking. Required off-street parking spaces for non-residential uses may be provided through valet parking with review and approval of a parking plan, in accordance with Section 17.44.210 (Parking plans). (Ord. # 21-1436 §4, adopted 09/14/2021, effective 10/14/2021) Effective on: 10/14/2021 17.44.200 Assignment of off-street residential parking spaces. Required off-street parking spaces, except guest spaces, shall be permanently assigned and/or rented with each unit on the basis of the required parking per unit stated under Section 17.44.020, and the unit occupant shall be given sole use of said spaces for vehicle parking only. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1168) 17.44.210 Parking plans. A. A parking plan may be approved by the planning commission to allow for a reduction in the number of spaces required. The applicant shall provide the information necessary to show that adequate parking will be provided for customers, clients, visitors and employees or when located in a vehicle parking district, the applicant shall propose an in-lieu fee according to requirements of this chapter. B. Factors such as the following shall be taken into consideration: 1. Van pools; 2. Bicycle and foot traffic; 3. Common parking facilities; 4. Varied work shifts; 5. Valet parking; 6. Unique features of the proposed uses; Page 371 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 13 7. Peak hours of the proposed use as compared with other uses sharing the same parking facilities especially in the case of small restaurants or snack shops in the downtown area or in multitenant buildings; 8.Mechanical vehicle lifts, not subject to Section 17.44.240(A)(2) and (3); 9. Other methods of reducing parking demand. C. A covenant with the city a party thereto, may be required limiting the use of the property and/or designating the method by which the required parking will be provided at the time that the planning commission determines that inadequate parking exists. D. Fees, application and processing procedures for parking plans shall be set forth by resolution of the city council. (Ord. 20-1419 §4(2), 2020; Ord. 94-1099 § 3, 1994; prior code Appx. A, § 1169) 17.44.220 Consolidated off-street parking. Subject to approval by the planning commission as prescribed in Section 17.44.210, required parking spaces for various uses may be reduced in number and computed at one space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area when parking is consolidated in retail shopping centers over ten thousand (10,000) square feet in size, or where public parking areas are created to take the place of on-site parking within vehicle parking districts. (Prior code Appx. A, § 1170) 17.44.230 Parking for reduced parking demand housing. A. When requested by the applicant, multi-family residential developments providing housing affordable to lower- income households, senior housing, and housing for disabled persons shall provide off-street parking according to the following formula: Use Off-Street Parking Spaces Family housing (restricted to lower-income households) Studio 0.5 per unit 1-bedroom 1 per unit 2 or 3 bedrooms 2 per unit 4 or more bedrooms 3 per unit Guest spaces 1 per 5 units Staff member spaces 1 per 20 units Senior housing or housing for disabled persons Studio 0.5 per unit 1 or 2 bedrooms 1 per unit Guest spaces 1 per 5 units Staff member spaces 1 per 20 units (senior housing) 1 per 10 units (housing for disabled persons) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facility (restricted to lower-income persons) Studio 0.5 1-bedroom 1 per unit Guest spaces 1 per 5 units Staff (when applicable)1 per 20 units Page 372 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 14 B. The number of accessible parking spaces provided in accordance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (California Building Standards Code) for Housing for Senior Citizens and housing for disabled persons shall be the number of spaces required in accordance with the basic parking ratio for multiple dwelling units. C. All required parking shall be provided in non-tandem parking spaces. D.Lower income housing: All units are rental units reserved for a period of at least 55 years for rental units restricted to lower-income households where affordable monthly rents shall not exceed 30% of 60% of annual median County household income divided by 12, and adjusted for household/unit size. SRO units shall be treated as one-bedroom units for the purposes of determining affordability. These restrictions shall be set forth in a written agreement between the property owner, and the City, the Housing Authority of the City Los Angeles or another housing provider approved by the City. These agreements shall specify: a) the maximum rents based on the same formula which established initial rent levels as a condition of City approval, or other formula approved by the City; b) the term for which rental units must remain affordable; and c) terms under which affordability is maintained after sale or transfer of the property. E. Housing for seniors or disabled persons: Applies to housing specifically restricted to, designed for and occupied by seniors or by disabled persons with limitations that affect the ability to drive. 17.44.240 Mechanical vehicle lifts. A.Building Permit Required. 1. A building permit is required for the installation of a mechanical vehicle lift system. 2. Mechanical vehicle lifts may be permitted to meet off-street parking space requirements in Section 17.44.020 (Off-street parking–Residential uses) on residential lots equal to or smaller than two thousand one hundred (2,100) square feet. 3. On residential lots greater than two thousand one hundred (2,100) square feet, mechanical vehicle lifts are permitted where the parking space(s) provided by the mechanical vehicle lift(s) is/are in excess of the minimum number of required parking spaces and are subject to requirements of this section. B. Parking Plan Required. On residential lots greater than two thousand one hundred (2,100) square feet and in all other zones, mechanical vehicle lifts are allowed to meet the off-street parking space requirements in Sections 17.44.020 and 17.44.030 with review and approval of a parking plan, in accordance with Section 17.44.210 (Parking plans). C. Screening. Mechanical vehicle lift shall be located only within a fully enclosed garage. D. Vertical Clearance. A mechanical vehicle lift may only be used to store two (2) vehicles vertically where a minimum vertical height clearance from the garage floor to the garage ceiling plate or, in the case of a lift installed below the garage floor, from the below grade floor to the garage ceiling, is a minimum of twelve (12) feet clear of obstructions. E. Safety. 1. All equipment shall be listed and rated by a testing agency recognized by California (i.e., UL). 2. A mechanical vehicle lift shall be permitted only if it is operated with an automatic shutoff safety device and is installed in accordance with manufacturer specifications. 3. A mechanical vehicle lift shall be equipped with a key locking mechanism. 4. Mechanical vehicle lifts shall provide a manual override to access or remove vehicles from the mechanical vehicle lift in the event of a power outage. F. Miscellaneous. 1. Mechanical vehicle lifts shall not be utilized to meet required guest parking. Guest parking shall remain open and accessible at all times. Page 373 of 440 Hermosa Beach, CA | Municipal Code Date Printed: 7/12/2024 | pg. 15 2. In buildings that are nonconforming to parking, where fewer parking spaces are provided than required by Sections 17.44.020 and 17.44.030, the number of at-grade parking spaces shall not be reduced. 3. Standards in this chapter which are not specifically stated in and do not contradict this section still apply. (Ord. 20-1419 §4(3), 2020) Page 374 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 26 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Appendix C As-Built Parking Plans Page 375 of 440 PROGRESS SET 04/02/2024 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSTANDARD STALL WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMPACT BECAUSE OF SHAFT STRIPED TWO IN EXISTING BUT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY ONE STANDARD STALL STANDARD STALLS WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMPACT BECAUSE OF SHAFT Page 376 of 440 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPROGRESS SET 04/02/2024 STRIPED TWO IN EXISTING BUT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ONLY ONE STANDARD STALL Page 377 of 440 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPROGRESS SET 04/02/2024 STRIPED STANDARD BUT WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMPACT AND ONLY TWO STALLS EMPLOYEE PARKING ONLY INCLUDED IN COUNT Page 378 of 440 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPROGRESS SET 04/02/2024 STALL CONSIDERED COMPACT BECAUSE OF SHAFT WOULD BE CONSIDERED 3 COMPACTS BECAUSE OF SHAFT Page 379 of 440 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPROGRESS SET 04/02/2024 WOULD BE CONSIDERED 3 COMPACTS BECAUSE OF SHAFT STALL CONSIDERED COMPACT BECAUSE OF SHAFT Page 380 of 440 FINAL PARKING STUDY FEBRUARY 19, 2025 HERMOSA BEACH PAVILION AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONVERSION OF 1,203 SF OF HALLWAY SPACE USE TO OFFICE/RETAIL USE 27 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Appendix D Parking Site Occupancy Data (Metropolis) Page 381 of 440 Location Hermosa Pavilion Garage (Los Angeles, CA) Visit Time Capacity Occupancies 1/15 12AM 528.0 96.0 Peak Occupancy 1/15 1AM 528.0 95.0 433.0 1/15 2AM 528.0 95.0 1/15 3AM 528.0 95.0 1/15 4AM 528.0 107.0 1/15 5AM 528.0 163.0 1/15 6AM 528.0 215.0 1/15 7AM 528.0 217.0 1/15 8AM 528.0 272.0 1/15 9AM 528.0 332.0 1/15 10AM 528.0 329.0 1/15 11AM 528.0 332.0 1/15 12PM 528.0 333.0 1/15 1PM 528.0 340.0 1/15 2PM 528.0 352.0 1/15 3PM 528.0 399.0 1/15 4PM 528.0 416.0 1/15 5PM 528.0 418.0 1/15 6PM 528.0 406.0 1/15 7PM 528.0 330.0 1/15 8PM 528.0 269.0 1/15 9PM 528.0 203.0 1/15 10PM 528.0 116.0 1/15 11PM 528.0 94.0 1/16 12AM 528.0 94.0 1/16 1AM 528.0 93.0 1/16 2AM 528.0 93.0 1/16 3AM 528.0 93.0 1/16 4AM 528.0 107.0 1/16 5AM 528.0 170.0 1/16 6AM 528.0 221.0 1/16 7AM 528.0 229.0 Page 382 of 440 1/16 8AM 528.0 266.0 1/16 9AM 528.0 313.0 1/16 10AM 528.0 347.0 1/16 11AM 528.0 341.0 1/16 12PM 528.0 328.0 1/16 1PM 528.0 328.0 1/16 2PM 528.0 355.0 1/16 3PM 528.0 405.0 1/16 4PM 528.0 421.0 1/16 5PM 528.0 418.0 1/16 6PM 528.0 397.0 1/16 7PM 528.0 333.0 1/16 8PM 528.0 264.0 1/16 9PM 528.0 182.0 1/16 10PM 528.0 118.0 1/16 11PM 528.0 95.0 1/17 12AM 528.0 94.0 1/17 1AM 528.0 94.0 1/17 2AM 528.0 94.0 1/17 3AM 528.0 94.0 1/17 4AM 528.0 103.0 1/17 5AM 528.0 160.0 1/17 6AM 528.0 203.0 1/17 7AM 528.0 217.0 1/17 8AM 528.0 287.0 1/17 9AM 528.0 335.0 1/17 10AM 528.0 391.0 1/17 11AM 528.0 380.0 1/17 12PM 528.0 375.0 1/17 1PM 528.0 383.0 1/17 2PM 528.0 397.0 1/17 3PM 528.0 390.0 1/17 4PM 528.0 370.0 1/17 5PM 528.0 346.0 Page 383 of 440 1/17 6PM 528.0 312.0 1/17 7PM 528.0 235.0 1/17 8PM 528.0 170.0 1/17 9PM 528.0 129.0 1/17 10PM 528.0 124.0 1/17 11PM 528.0 122.0 1/18 12AM 528.0 122.0 1/18 1AM 528.0 121.0 1/18 2AM 528.0 121.0 1/18 3AM 528.0 121.0 1/18 4AM 528.0 121.0 1/18 5AM 528.0 122.0 1/18 6AM 528.0 122.0 1/18 7AM 528.0 157.0 1/18 8AM 528.0 276.0 1/18 9AM 528.0 396.0 1/18 10AM 528.0 433.0 1/18 11AM 528.0 411.0 1/18 12PM 528.0 379.0 1/18 1PM 528.0 370.0 1/18 2PM 528.0 332.0 1/18 3PM 528.0 309.0 1/18 4PM 528.0 271.0 1/18 5PM 528.0 262.0 1/18 6PM 528.0 243.0 1/18 7PM 528.0 197.0 1/18 8PM 528.0 157.0 1/18 9PM 528.0 129.0 1/18 10PM 528.0 126.0 1/18 11PM 528.0 126.0 1/19 12AM 528.0 126.0 1/19 1AM 528.0 126.0 1/19 2AM 528.0 126.0 1/19 3AM 528.0 126.0 Page 384 of 440 1/19 4AM 528.0 126.0 1/19 5AM 528.0 125.0 1/19 6AM 528.0 126.0 1/19 7AM 528.0 145.0 1/19 8AM 528.0 202.0 1/19 9AM 528.0 266.0 1/19 10AM 528.0 292.0 1/19 11AM 528.0 275.0 1/19 12PM 528.0 220.0 1/19 1PM 528.0 207.0 1/19 2PM 528.0 188.0 1/19 3PM 528.0 179.0 1/19 4PM 528.0 174.0 1/19 5PM 528.0 169.0 1/19 6PM 528.0 173.0 1/19 7PM 528.0 141.0 1/19 8PM 528.0 100.0 1/19 9PM 528.0 69.0 1/19 10PM 528.0 69.0 1/19 11PM 528.0 70.0 1/20 12AM 528.0 70.0 1/20 1AM 528.0 70.0 1/20 2AM 528.0 70.0 1/20 3AM 528.0 70.0 1/20 4AM 528.0 84.0 1/20 5AM 528.0 122.0 1/20 6AM 528.0 162.0 1/20 7AM 528.0 193.0 1/20 8AM 528.0 224.0 1/20 9AM 528.0 259.0 1/20 10AM 528.0 269.0 1/20 11AM 528.0 266.0 1/20 12PM 528.0 276.0 1/20 1PM 528.0 280.0 Page 385 of 440 1/20 2PM 528.0 295.0 1/20 3PM 528.0 296.0 1/20 4PM 528.0 325.0 1/20 5PM 528.0 303.0 1/20 6PM 528.0 278.0 1/20 7PM 528.0 224.0 1/20 8PM 528.0 196.0 1/20 9PM 528.0 141.0 1/20 10PM 528.0 96.0 1/20 11PM 528.0 75.0 1/21 12AM 528.0 74.0 1/21 1AM 528.0 74.0 1/21 2AM 528.0 74.0 1/21 3AM 528.0 75.0 1/21 4AM 528.0 89.0 1/21 5AM 528.0 152.0 1/21 6AM 528.0 220.0 1/21 7AM 528.0 216.0 1/21 8AM 528.0 250.0 1/21 9AM 528.0 318.0 1/21 10AM 528.0 319.0 1/21 11AM 528.0 338.0 1/21 12PM 528.0 336.0 1/21 1PM 528.0 350.0 1/21 2PM 528.0 371.0 1/21 3PM 528.0 394.0 1/21 4PM 528.0 407.0 1/21 5PM 528.0 393.0 1/21 6PM 528.0 382.0 1/21 7PM 528.0 323.0 1/21 8PM 528.0 281.0 1/21 9PM 528.0 213.0 1/21 10PM 528.0 132.0 1/21 11PM 528.0 104.0 Page 386 of 440 1/22 12AM 528.0 104.0 1/22 1AM 528.0 105.0 1/22 2AM 528.0 105.0 1/22 3AM 528.0 104.0 1/22 4AM 528.0 118.0 1/22 5AM 528.0 191.0 1/22 6AM 528.0 251.0 1/22 7AM 528.0 255.0 1/22 8AM 528.0 277.0 1/22 9AM 528.0 338.0 1/22 10AM 528.0 346.0 1/22 11AM 528.0 344.0 1/22 12PM 528.0 329.0 1/22 1PM 528.0 348.0 1/22 2PM 528.0 361.0 1/22 3PM 528.0 386.0 1/22 4PM 528.0 392.0 1/22 5PM 528.0 390.0 1/22 6PM 528.0 369.0 1/22 7PM 528.0 314.0 1/22 8PM 528.0 268.0 1/22 9PM 528.0 198.0 1/22 10PM 528.0 122.0 1/22 11PM 528.0 90.0 1/23 12AM 528.0 90.0 1/23 1AM 528.0 90.0 1/23 2AM 528.0 90.0 1/23 3AM 528.0 91.0 1/23 4AM 528.0 107.0 1/23 5AM 528.0 159.0 1/23 6AM 528.0 203.0 1/23 7AM 528.0 210.0 1/23 8AM 528.0 257.0 1/23 9AM 528.0 317.0 Page 387 of 440 1/23 10AM 528.0 332.0 1/23 11AM 528.0 350.0 1/23 12PM 528.0 338.0 1/23 1PM 528.0 320.0 1/23 2PM 528.0 352.0 1/23 3PM 528.0 364.0 1/23 4PM 528.0 375.0 1/23 5PM 528.0 389.0 1/23 6PM 528.0 371.0 1/23 7PM 528.0 323.0 1/23 8PM 528.0 268.0 1/23 9PM 528.0 188.0 1/23 10PM 528.0 123.0 1/23 11PM 528.0 88.0 1/24 12AM 528.0 88.0 1/24 1AM 528.0 86.0 1/24 2AM 528.0 86.0 1/24 3AM 528.0 86.0 1/24 4AM 528.0 101.0 1/24 5AM 528.0 153.0 1/24 6AM 528.0 199.0 1/24 7AM 528.0 219.0 1/24 8AM 528.0 281.0 1/24 9AM 528.0 375.0 1/24 10AM 528.0 396.0 1/24 11AM 528.0 394.0 1/24 12PM 528.0 373.0 1/24 1PM 528.0 380.0 1/24 2PM 528.0 360.0 1/24 3PM 528.0 356.0 1/24 4PM 528.0 329.0 1/24 5PM 528.0 327.0 1/24 6PM 528.0 314.0 1/24 7PM 528.0 246.0 Page 388 of 440 1/24 8PM 528.0 175.0 1/24 9PM 528.0 131.0 1/24 10PM 528.0 122.0 1/24 11PM 528.0 122.0 1/25 12AM 528.0 116.0 1/25 1AM 528.0 116.0 1/25 2AM 528.0 116.0 1/25 3AM 528.0 116.0 1/25 4AM 528.0 117.0 1/25 5AM 528.0 120.0 1/25 6AM 528.0 119.0 1/25 7AM 528.0 144.0 1/25 8AM 528.0 254.0 1/25 9AM 528.0 364.0 1/25 10AM 528.0 409.0 1/25 11AM 528.0 400.0 1/25 12PM 528.0 385.0 1/25 1PM 528.0 348.0 1/25 2PM 528.0 328.0 1/25 3PM 528.0 299.0 1/25 4PM 528.0 272.0 1/25 5PM 528.0 246.0 1/25 6PM 528.0 228.0 1/25 7PM 528.0 178.0 1/25 8PM 528.0 128.0 1/25 9PM 528.0 102.0 1/25 10PM 528.0 100.0 1/25 11PM 528.0 99.0 1/26 12AM 528.0 99.0 1/26 1AM 528.0 99.0 1/26 2AM 528.0 99.0 1/26 3AM 528.0 99.0 1/26 4AM 528.0 99.0 1/26 5AM 528.0 98.0 Page 389 of 440 1/26 6AM 528.0 98.0 1/26 7AM 528.0 113.0 1/26 8AM 528.0 187.0 1/26 9AM 528.0 292.0 1/26 10AM 528.0 316.0 1/26 11AM 528.0 300.0 1/26 12PM 528.0 236.0 1/26 1PM 528.0 199.0 1/26 2PM 528.0 198.0 1/26 3PM 528.0 195.0 1/26 4PM 528.0 181.0 1/26 5PM 528.0 162.0 1/26 6PM 528.0 151.0 1/26 7PM 528.0 125.0 1/26 8PM 528.0 78.0 1/26 9PM 528.0 46.0 1/26 10PM 528.0 48.0 1/26 11PM 528.0 49.0 1/27 12AM 528.0 49.0 1/27 1AM 528.0 49.0 1/27 2AM 528.0 49.0 1/27 3AM 528.0 50.0 1/27 4AM 528.0 63.0 1/27 5AM 528.0 122.0 1/27 6AM 528.0 168.0 1/27 7AM 528.0 191.0 1/27 8AM 528.0 218.0 1/27 9AM 528.0 246.0 1/27 10AM 528.0 257.0 1/27 11AM 528.0 272.0 1/27 12PM 528.0 284.0 1/27 1PM 528.0 292.0 1/27 2PM 528.0 318.0 1/27 3PM 528.0 347.0 Page 390 of 440 1/27 4PM 528.0 358.0 1/27 5PM 528.0 380.0 1/27 6PM 528.0 378.0 1/27 7PM 528.0 314.0 1/27 8PM 528.0 234.0 1/27 9PM 528.0 176.0 1/27 10PM 528.0 98.0 1/27 11PM 528.0 68.0 1/28 12AM 528.0 68.0 1/28 1AM 528.0 67.0 1/28 2AM 528.0 68.0 1/28 3AM 528.0 69.0 1/28 4AM 528.0 84.0 1/28 5AM 528.0 165.0 1/28 6AM 528.0 220.0 1/28 7AM 528.0 222.0 1/28 8AM 528.0 284.0 1/28 9AM 528.0 347.0 1/28 10AM 528.0 334.0 1/28 11AM 528.0 338.0 1/28 12PM 528.0 322.0 1/28 1PM 528.0 341.0 1/28 2PM 528.0 349.0 1/28 3PM 528.0 355.0 1/28 4PM 528.0 364.0 1/28 5PM 528.0 374.0 1/28 6PM 528.0 354.0 1/28 7PM 528.0 290.0 1/28 8PM 528.0 221.0 1/28 9PM 528.0 162.0 1/28 10PM 528.0 111.0 1/28 11PM 528.0 81.0 1/29 12AM 528.0 81.0 1/29 1AM 528.0 80.0 Page 391 of 440 1/29 2AM 528.0 81.0 1/29 3AM 528.0 82.0 1/29 4AM 528.0 98.0 1/29 5AM 528.0 166.0 1/29 6AM 528.0 234.0 1/29 7AM 528.0 253.0 1/29 8AM 528.0 270.0 1/29 9AM 528.0 291.0 1/29 10AM 528.0 299.0 1/29 11AM 528.0 320.0 1/29 12PM 528.0 321.0 1/29 1PM 528.0 335.0 1/29 2PM 528.0 348.0 1/29 3PM 528.0 355.0 1/29 4PM 528.0 356.0 1/29 5PM 528.0 377.0 1/29 6PM 528.0 344.0 1/29 7PM 528.0 308.0 1/29 8PM 528.0 268.0 1/29 9PM 528.0 196.0 1/29 10PM 528.0 127.0 1/29 11PM 528.0 82.0 1/30 12AM 528.0 81.0 1/30 1AM 528.0 82.0 1/30 2AM 528.0 86.0 1/30 3AM 528.0 85.0 1/30 4AM 528.0 96.0 1/30 5AM 528.0 144.0 1/30 6AM 528.0 196.0 1/30 7AM 528.0 212.0 1/30 8AM 528.0 266.0 1/30 9AM 528.0 296.0 1/30 10AM 528.0 300.0 1/30 11AM 528.0 311.0 Page 392 of 440 1/30 12PM 528.0 323.0 1/30 1PM 528.0 326.0 1/30 2PM 528.0 346.0 1/30 3PM 528.0 369.0 1/30 4PM 528.0 363.0 1/30 5PM 528.0 360.0 1/30 6PM 528.0 334.0 1/30 7PM 528.0 296.0 1/30 8PM 528.0 230.0 1/30 9PM 528.0 160.0 1/30 10PM 528.0 103.0 1/30 11PM 528.0 76.0 1/31 12AM 528.0 75.0 1/31 1AM 528.0 75.0 1/31 2AM 528.0 75.0 1/31 3AM 528.0 75.0 1/31 4AM 528.0 90.0 1/31 5AM 528.0 145.0 1/31 6AM 528.0 191.0 1/31 7AM 528.0 202.0 1/31 8AM 528.0 262.0 1/31 9AM 528.0 338.0 1/31 10AM 528.0 384.0 1/31 11AM 528.0 372.0 1/31 12PM 528.0 370.0 1/31 1PM 528.0 367.0 1/31 2PM 528.0 355.0 1/31 3PM 528.0 339.0 1/31 4PM 528.0 345.0 1/31 5PM 528.0 342.0 1/31 6PM 528.0 318.0 1/31 7PM 528.0 239.0 1/31 8PM 528.0 157.0 1/31 9PM 528.0 114.0 Page 393 of 440 1/31 10PM 528.0 107.0 1/31 11PM 528.0 105.0 2/1 12AM 528.0 95.0 2/1 1AM 528.0 95.0 2/1 2AM 528.0 94.0 2/1 3AM 528.0 89.0 2/1 4AM 528.0 90.0 2/1 5AM 528.0 93.0 2/1 6AM 528.0 92.0 2/1 7AM 528.0 114.0 2/1 8AM 528.0 233.0 2/1 9AM 528.0 342.0 2/1 10AM 528.0 378.0 2/1 11AM 528.0 374.0 2/1 12PM 528.0 345.0 2/1 1PM 528.0 345.0 2/1 2PM 528.0 334.0 2/1 3PM 528.0 309.0 2/1 4PM 528.0 280.0 2/1 5PM 528.0 245.0 2/1 6PM 528.0 228.0 2/1 7PM 528.0 179.0 2/1 8PM 528.0 136.0 2/1 9PM 528.0 112.0 2/1 10PM 528.0 107.0 2/1 11PM 528.0 107.0 2/2 12AM 528.0 106.0 2/2 1AM 528.0 106.0 2/2 2AM 528.0 106.0 2/2 3AM 528.0 106.0 2/2 4AM 528.0 106.0 2/2 5AM 528.0 108.0 2/2 6AM 528.0 107.0 2/2 7AM 528.0 124.0 Page 394 of 440 2/2 8AM 528.0 182.0 2/2 9AM 528.0 260.0 2/2 10AM 528.0 270.0 2/2 11AM 528.0 265.0 2/2 12PM 528.0 257.0 2/2 1PM 528.0 256.0 2/2 2PM 528.0 235.0 2/2 3PM 528.0 212.0 2/2 4PM 528.0 201.0 2/2 5PM 528.0 195.0 2/2 6PM 528.0 175.0 2/2 7PM 528.0 152.0 2/2 8PM 528.0 100.0 2/2 9PM 528.0 76.0 2/2 10PM 528.0 73.0 2/2 11PM 528.0 72.0 2/3 12AM 528.0 72.0 2/3 1AM 528.0 72.0 2/3 2AM 528.0 72.0 2/3 3AM 528.0 73.0 2/3 4AM 528.0 90.0 2/3 5AM 528.0 153.0 2/3 6AM 528.0 199.0 2/3 7AM 528.0 208.0 2/3 8AM 528.0 241.0 2/3 9AM 528.0 282.0 2/3 10AM 528.0 275.0 2/3 11AM 528.0 272.0 2/3 12PM 528.0 275.0 2/3 1PM 528.0 291.0 2/3 2PM 528.0 281.0 2/3 3PM 528.0 300.0 2/3 4PM 528.0 348.0 2/3 5PM 528.0 373.0 Page 395 of 440 2/3 6PM 528.0 339.0 2/3 7PM 528.0 265.0 2/3 8PM 528.0 218.0 2/3 9PM 528.0 140.0 2/3 10PM 528.0 65.0 2/3 11PM 528.0 43.0 2/4 12AM 528.0 43.0 2/4 1AM 528.0 43.0 2/4 2AM 528.0 43.0 2/4 3AM 528.0 43.0 2/4 4AM 528.0 62.0 2/4 5AM 528.0 133.0 2/4 6AM 528.0 188.0 2/4 7AM 528.0 190.0 2/4 8AM 528.0 238.0 2/4 9AM 528.0 284.0 2/4 10AM 528.0 289.0 2/4 11AM 528.0 287.0 2/4 12PM 528.0 302.0 2/4 1PM 528.0 319.0 2/4 2PM 528.0 332.0 2/4 3PM 528.0 359.0 2/4 4PM 528.0 372.0 2/4 5PM 528.0 372.0 2/4 6PM 528.0 328.0 2/4 7PM 528.0 277.0 2/4 8PM 528.0 221.0 2/4 9PM 528.0 167.0 2/4 10PM 528.0 106.0 2/4 11PM 528.0 74.0 2/5 12AM 528.0 74.0 2/5 1AM 528.0 74.0 2/5 2AM 528.0 75.0 2/5 3AM 528.0 76.0 Page 396 of 440 2/5 4AM 528.0 93.0 2/5 5AM 528.0 159.0 2/5 6AM 528.0 221.0 2/5 7AM 528.0 244.0 2/5 8AM 528.0 267.0 2/5 9AM 528.0 316.0 2/5 10AM 528.0 314.0 2/5 11AM 528.0 330.0 2/5 12PM 528.0 342.0 2/5 1PM 528.0 296.0 2/5 2PM 528.0 237.0 2/5 3PM 528.0 233.0 Page 397 of 440 MINAGAR & ASSOCIATES, INC. 23282 Mill Creek Drive, East Tower, Suite 120 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Tel: (949)707-1199 Web: www.minagarinc.com 2019 Winner of the Orange County Engineering Council’s Outstanding Service Award 2016 Winner of the ASCE’s Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award in the State of California 2016 Winner of the ASCE Los Angeles Section’s Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award 2016 Winner of the ASCE Orange County Chapter’s Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Private Sector Award 2016 Certificate of Recognition for Dedication to Support the ELTP Program by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro 2016 Winner of the Orange County Engineering Council’s Outstanding Engineering Service Award 2015 Orange County Business Journal’s 2015 Excellence in Entrepreneurship Award Nominee 2014 Orange County Business Journal’s 2014 Excellence in Entrepreneurship Award Nominee 2012 Winner of Cal-EPA/California Air Resources Board’s Cool California Climate Leader 2011 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles 2011 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles 2010 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles 2009 Winner of the ASCE’s Outstanding Private Sector Civil Engineering Project in Metropolitan Los Angeles 2009 Winner of the Caltrans’ 2009 Excellence in Transportation Award in the State of California 2007 Winner of the ASCE’s Outstanding Public/Private Sector Civil Engineering Project in Metropolitan Los Angeles 2005 Winner of the APWA’s Best Traffic Congestion Mitigation Project of the Year in Southern California 2004 Top Nominee of Transportation Foundation’s Highway Management Program in the State of California 2003 Winner of the PTI’s Best Transportation Technology Solutions Award in the United States 2002 Winner of the ITS-CA’s Best Return on Investment Project Award in the State of California 2000 Award of Excellence in Service by Los Angeles County MTA/Metro in the County of Los Angeles Celebrating 30 Years of Planning & Engineering Excellence • Traffic Engineering • Transportation Planning • ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) • Civil/Electrical Engineering • Homeland Security • Construction Engineering Management Page 398 of 440 Project Zoning Map Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Description APN: 4184-025-21 l 1601 Pacific Coast Highway Zone: SPA-8 Specific Plan Area 8 � R-l Single Family Residential � R-l A Limited Single-Family Residential � R-2 Two Family Residential 1111 R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential 1111 R-3 Multiple Family Residential � R-P Residential-Professional � RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development � C-l Limited Business and Residential � C-2 General Commercial 1111 C-3 General and Highway Commercial 1111 M-1 Light Manufacturing � OS Open Space � OS-1 Restricted Open Space 1111 OS-2 Restricted Open Space � OS-O Open Space Overlay � MHP Mobile Home Park !22] SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) 1111 SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) � 500' Notification Radius Page 399 of 440 Page 400 of 440 Page 401 of 440 Page 402 of 440 Page 403 of 440 Page 404 of 440 Page 405 of 440 Page 406 of 440 Page 407 of 440 Page 408 of 440 Page 409 of 440 Page 410 of 440 Page 411 of 440 Page 412 of 440 Page 413 of 440 Page 414 of 440 Page 415 of 440 Page 416 of 440 Page 417 of 440 Page 418 of 440 Page 419 of 440 Page 420 of 440 Page 421 of 440 Page 422 of 440 Public Notification Package – 1610 Pacific Coast Highway Page 423 of 440 Page 424 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the following: 1.PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 24-08) TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FOUR UNITAPARTMENT BUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 50-FOOT 6-INCH TALL, FIVE UNIT, APARTMENT BUILDING WITH SEVEN PARKING SPACES AT 3415 PALM DRIVE IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE PURSUANT TO CA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15303(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES.2.PARKING PLAN (PARK 25-01) AMENDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SHARED PARKINGPLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONVERSION OF 1,200 SQUARE FEET OF PREVIOUSLYNON-LEASED SPACE TO OFFICE OR RETAIL USE(S) AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY(HERMOSA PAVILLION) IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 8 (SPA-8) ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15301(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES.3.TRI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR ON -SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2024, TO DECEMBER 31, 2024. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION15301OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GUIDELINES.4.REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) 23-10 TO ALLOW THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR REMODEL OF AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING INCLUDING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF FOUR UNITS AND ADDITION OF A NEW TWO CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT 830 THE STRAND IN THE TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. FOR PURPOSES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA AND IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS HEARING. PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66317 AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REQUIRES A MINISTERIAL REVIEW. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. See the meeting agenda for all public comment details and opportunities. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. Information regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, please visit the meeting agenda or contact the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov. VIEWING OPTIONS are available on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that are raised at or before the public hearing. Page 425 of 440 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 or planning@hermosabeach.gov. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be viewable on the City’s website 72 hours before the meeting at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. As a courtesy, the hearing can be viewed on Spectrum Channel 8, Frontier Channel 31, YouTube, Zoom, and/or the City’s website. Alexis Oropeza Planning Manager Page 426 of 440 Page 427 of 440 Page 428 of 440 Community Development Department – Planning Division City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE 1601 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Assessor Parcel Number 4184-025-211 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. to consider the request described below. PARKING PLAN (PARK 25-01) AMENDING A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SHARED PARKING PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONVERSION OF 1,200 SQUARE FEET OF PREVIOUSLY NON-LEASED SPACE TO OFFICE OR RETAIL USE(S) AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (HERMOSA PAVILLION) IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 8 (SPA-8) ZONE. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE PROJECT QUALIFIES FOR A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15301(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. PARTICIPATION AND VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: Zoom - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=ountrdnvd2l6tzbptdljc2x6bgfwdz09 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860 Phone - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 eComment - Submit an eComment by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Supplemental Email - Supplemental emails are available for agenda items only and must be sent to Community Development at communitydevelopment@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item plus meeting date in the subject line and must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received after the deadline but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda the next business day. Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and not guaranteed to be technically feasible. In order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. Cable TV - Spectrum (channel 8) and Frontier (channel 31) in Hermosa Beach YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofhermosabeach90254 Live Stream - www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov/agenda. Alexis Oropeza Planning Manager Page 429 of 440 Project Zoning Map Planning Commission March 18, 2025 Description APN: 4184-025-21 l 1601 Pacific Coast Highway Zone: SPA-8 Specific Plan Area 8 � R-l Single Family Residential � R-l A Limited Single-Family Residential � R-2 Two Family Residential 1111 R-2B Limited Multiple Family Residential 1111 R-3 Multiple Family Residential � R-P Residential-Professional � RPD Residential Planned Development R-3PD Multiple Family Planned Development � C-l Limited Business and Residential � C-2 General Commercial 1111 C-3 General and Highway Commercial 1111 M-1 Light Manufacturing � OS Open Space � OS-1 Restricted Open Space 1111 OS-2 Restricted Open Space � OS-O Open Space Overlay � MHP Mobile Home Park !22] SPA Specific Plan Area (Residential) 1111 SPA Specific Plan Area (Commercial) � 500' Notification Radius Page 430 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 5 Meeting Date: March 18, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-048 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission UPDATE PROCESS AND PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. (Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza) Recommended Action: Staff recommend that the Planning Commission consider and adopt revisions to the procedures by minute order to the on-sale alcoholic beverage Conditional Use Permit review process. Executive Summary: The review process for on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments CUP review has been updated and clarified since its initial establishment in 2011. These changes have been made in response to the changing needs and priorities of the community. At this time staff recommend modifications to the process to reduce redundancy and reporting data that has limited usefulness. Specifically, staff recommend amending the mandatory public hearing requirement when no establishments exceed the specified review threshold, the frequency of Planning Commission reviews, and the criteria for mandatory reporting. Background: In January 2011, the City Council established a regular review of on-sale alcoholic beverage establishment CUPs by the Planning Commission. Over the years the review process and criteria has been amended. The following table provides a summary of the actions related to the policy and procedures. Past Board, Commission, and Council Actions Meeting Date Description January 25, 2011 The City Council approved a new procedure for conducting reviews on-sale alcoholic beverage establishment CUPs on a semi-annual basis with direction for the Planning Commission to review the process in 12 months. Page 431 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 2 of 5 Meeting Date Description October 16, 2012 Planning Commission reviewed procedures and process for conducting reviews on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments without recommendation for changes. August 26, 2014 City Council updated CUP review process related to food to alcohol sales ratio and directed Planning Commission to review and revise process. October 21, 2014 Planning Commission reviewed and discussed semi- annual on-sale alcohol beverage CUP review process. November 17, 2014 Planning Commission reviewed and discussed semi- annual on-sale alcohol beverage CUP review process. December 3, 2014 Planning Commission approved revisions to semi-annual on-sale alcohol beverage CUP review process. August 21, 2018 Planning Commission clarified process procedures and adopted tri-annual CUP review process. March 26, 2019 City Council affirmed the modifications to establish the triannual review process and clarification that a CUP may be called up for Planning Commission’s review at any time by the Chief of Police. Currently, the alcohol establishment CUP review is presented to the Planning Commission over the course of two meetings; the first meeting presents the report as an informational item, while the second meeting is conducted as a public hearing. If an establishment violates any criterion within the set of standards identified, by exceeding the defined number of incidents in any six-month period, it would be referred to the Planning Commission for a review of the CUP. The review may lead to a modification or revocation hearing based on the frequency of incidents or type of violations. The tri-annual report provides data related to each criterion from City departments and outside agencies involved in the review, including Code Enforcement, Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD), LA County Fire Prevention, and California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The data provided in the report does not change between the two meetings presenting the data as an informational item, and a public hearing. The two-step review process was established in 2017. In March 2019, the City Council approved Planning Commission recommended changes to the process, which included that the review be conducted three times per year and clarified that a CUP may be called up for review at any time. A recent example of a CUP being called up outside of the regular triannual review process occurred on January 21, 2025 when the Planning Page 432 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 3 of 5 Commission considered a modification/revocation at a hearing for AKA Sushi at the request of the Chief of Police. This CUP review was promptly reviewed outside of the triannual review process. Discussion The on-sale alcohol establishment review process was established to provide a transparent, objective and consistent approach to reviewing CUPs for alcohol sales. The policy clarifies for staff, the public, and on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments that the review of a CUP may be triggered by incidents related to serious crimes, less serious crimes, and other incidents (i.e. ABC violations, zoning code violations) or any combination thereof, that may be indicators of establishment’s poor management practices that should warrant a review. Both the Community Development Department and the Police Department agree that the purpose of the procedures should be upheld as it provides clear guidance. However, staff recommend updating the process to eliminate unnecessary procedures that are not the best use of staff time. Suggested changes include adjustments to the frequency of reviews, the criteria for reporting incidents, and the mandatory two-step procedure. Frequency The review process of alcoholic beverage establishments for CUPs occurs three times a year and has overlapping review periods. The Police Department finds the triannual data requirements for these reviews to be time-intensive without providing substantial benefit. Staff believes with changes in processes and procedures over time the necessity for such frequent reviews is no longer merited, as a CUP may be called up at any time as exemplified by the CUP review in January of this year. Staff recommend revising the review frequency at the Planning Commission to once a year in the fall following the peak summer season for visitors. The reporting period would run from October 1st to September 30th for these reviews. In the interim period the Police Department and Community Development Department staff would continue to monitor the CUPs administratively. This recommendation does not prevent the Chief of Police from initiating a review of an establishment outside of the proposed annual schedule if there is an establishment that is being poorly managed and raises concern for its impact on the community. Under the staff proposal, the review process for all on-sale alcoholic beverage establishment CUPs would be conducted on an annual basis going forward. Two-Step Review The current process requires a mandatory two-meeting review for Conditional Use Permits. The first meeting presents the report as an informational item, while the second meeting is conducted as a public hearing. Currently, the second hearing must always be held regardless of whether there are any CUPs that triggered the review threshold. This mandatory review requires the publication of a legal ad and additional staff time preparing and presenting an updated report. Staff recommend modifying this procedure so that a second public hearing is only held if the Planning Commission determines, through action Page 433 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 4 of 5 minutes, that there is a need based on the established review criteria. This recommended change only requiring a second hearing when needed is believed to be a more efficient use of City resources. Reporting Data As part of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for on-sale alcohol establishments, a data report from the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) is currently required. However, due to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rules, LACFD is unable to identify reported incidents with specific business addresses. As a result, the data provided does not offer meaningful insights into the alcohol-serving practices of individual establishments. Given these limitations, staff recommend eliminating this reporting requirement in the future. This change would enable LACFD staff to focus on work that is more impactful for the community. The proposed changes would streamline the review process eliminate redundancy in work without compromising the timely review of alcoholic beverage establishment CUPs would continue to be reviewed in a timely manner to address operations that are a concern to the community’s well-being. General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: General Plan Consistency Public Safety Element Findings Goal 5. High quality police and fire protection services provided to residents and visitors. The report supports accountability with respect to alcohol serving establishments and ensures police resources are being best utilized. The regular review also provides an opportunity to the City to impose additional CUP conditions to operators that incur repeated violations such as enhancing on- site security guards or increasing security camera footage to prevent future crimes and/or violations. Through these efforts the City seeks to minimize nuisances and Policy 5.1 Crime deterrence. Regularly evaluate the incidence of crime and identify and implement measures to deter crime. Policy 5.2 High Level of response. Achieve optimal utilization of allocated public safety resources and provide desired levels of response, staffing, and protection within the community. Policy 5.3 Use of technology. Provide and use smart surveillance technology and communication systems to improve crime Page 434 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 5 of 5 General Plan Consistency prevention and inform the community regarding actions to take in case of emergency. Policy 5.8 Nuisance abatement. Encourage Police Department review of uses that may be characterized historically by high levels of nuisance (noise, nighttime patronage, and/or rates of criminal activity) providing for conditions of control of use to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residences, schools, religious facilities, and similar “sensitive” uses. improve upon the quality of life for local residents and visitors. Governance Element Findings Goal 2. The community is active and engaged in decision-making processes. The CUP review process provides an opportunity for residents, business owners, and the public at large to engage in the decision- making process for CUP modifications. Policy 2.6 Responsive to community needs. Continue to be responsive to community inquiries, providing public information and recording feedback from community interactions. Attachments: 1. Current Process and Procedures for Alcoholic Beverage Establishment CUP Review 2. Redlined Process and Procedures for Alcoholic Beverage Establishment CUP Review Respectfully Submitted by: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney Approved: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Page 435 of 440 Process and Standards for Review of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permits 1) The CUP review process will consist of an administrative review process in which the on-sale establishments’ activities would be reviewed against an established set of criteria three times per year. 2) On-sale establishments with a CUP would 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. 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 three times per year with an evaluation of the on-sale establishments’ activities for the prior 6-month period. 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. 7) Information from Police and Fire Department related to patterns of patronage of on-sale establishments (as indicated by investigations of intoxicated persons after incidents) and consistency with “Model House Policies” may be generally considered by the Planning Commission as factors in whether the business is being operated responsibly and engaging in the responsible service of alcohol. This information may be considered by the planning commission, as additional justification for holding a CUP review hearing after referral based on the criteria above has been determined and as evidence in any CUP modification/revocation hearing. Table 1. CUP Review Standards Standard Initiating P.C. Review(a) 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 Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security 2 (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 NOTE: (a) – Recommended threshold number; Chief of Police may recommend CUP review to Commission at his/her discretion—at any time regardless of number of incidents in any period of time, to determine whether revocation/medication is appropriate under HBMC 17.70.010—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. Page 436 of 440 Last Update March 2025 REDLINED Process and Standards for Review of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permits NEW TEXT is shown as underline. DELETED TEXT is shown in strikethrough font. 1) The CUP review process consists of an administrative review process of the activities of the on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments’ activities throughout the city. The establishments operations would be reviewed against an established set of criteria three times per year.by the Planning Commission annually. The annual city-wide review, does not preclude the scheduling of a public hearing for the individual review and consideration of a revocation/modification hearing of an on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments’ CUP that meets the established review criteria at any time (HBMC 17.70.010). 2) All on-sale establishments with a CUP would be referred to the Planning Commission for a CUP review annually. A subsequent public hearing for modification or revocation would only be scheduled at the direction of the Planning Commission by minute order. and subsequently for A modification/revocation hearing will also be scheduled if the Commission so decided upon its review, when theya given on-sale alcohol serving establishment holding a CUP exceeds established standards for each criteriaset by the Planning Commission 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. 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 not less than one time annually with an evaluation of on-sale alcoholic beverage establishment activities for the preceding 12-month period three times per year with an evaluation of the on-sale establishments’ activities for the prior 6-month period. The 12 month review would cover the period from October 1st through September 30th of the following year. 6) For transparency, Tthe standards or and criteria of the CUP review process system will be made easily accessible readily available to all on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments with CUPs and the public through 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 to consider the potential modification/revocation hearing. 7) Information from the Police and Fire Department related to patterns of patronage of on-sale establishments (as indicated by investigations of intoxicated persons after incidents), calls for service, and consistency with “Model House Policies” may be generally considered by the Planning Commission as factors in whether the business is being operated responsibly and engaging in the responsible service of alcohol. This information may be considered by the pPlanning cCommission, as additional justification for holding a CUP modification or revocation review hearing, as well as be used as evidence during such hearing. after referral based on the criteria above has been determined and as evidence in any CUP modification/revocation hearing. Table 1. CUP Review Standards Standard Initiating a P.C. ReviewModification/Revocation Hearing(a) 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 Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security 2 (Combination of any 3 or more) Violation of any CUP Condition (b) ABC Violations (underage service, violation of hours, etc.) Page 437 of 440 Last Update March 2025 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 NOTE: (a) – Recommended threshold number; Chief of Police may recommend CUP review to Commission at his/her discretion—at any time regardless of number of incidents in any period of time, to determine whether revocation/modification edication is appropriate under HBMC 17.70.010— 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. Page 438 of 440 City of Hermosa Beach | Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: March 18, 2025 Staff Report No. 25-CDD-051 Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the April 15, 2025 Planning Commission tentative future agenda. Attachment: Planning Commission April 15, 2025 Tentative Future Agenda Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant Approved: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Page 439 of 440 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\1546013746\1546013746,,,Planning Commission Tentative Agenda for April 15, 2025.docx Revised 03/06/2025 3:46 PM Tentative Future Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach Tuesday, April 15, 2025 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date 819 - 825 Bard Street 5-Unit Condominium Project, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (Public Hearing) 4/5/25 4/15/25 830 The Strand Precise Development Plan 4/5/25 4/15/25 325 Hopkins Avenue Convex Slope Determination 4/5/25 4/15/25 Zoning Code Study Session (Staff Item) n/a 4/15/25 Upcoming and Pending Projects Zoning Code More Study Sessions to come 901 Hermosa Avenue Precise Development Plan (Public Hearing) Page 440 of 440