Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/17/96
AGENDA r7 ,- 3 (,� —%NT' -4 UT� uu'y" ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 17, 1996 - Council Chambers, City Hall 7:10 p.m. Closed Session - Immediately following Regular Session MAYOR Julie Oakes MAYOR PRO TEM J. R. Reviczky COUNCIL MEMBERS Robert Benz John Bowler Sam Y. Edgerton CITY CLERK Elaine Doerfling CITY TREASURER John M. Workman CITY MANAGER Stephen R Burrell CITY ATTORNEY Michael Jenkins All council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. The Council receives a packet with detailed information and recommendations on nearly every agenda item. Complete agenda packets are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Fire Department, Public Library, the Office of the City Clerk, and the Chamber of Commerce. During the meeting, a packet is also available in the Council foyer. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARING - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. 1. APPEAL OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL. HERMOSA INN HOTEL & 480 CAR PARKING STRUCTURE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN; PARKING PLAN; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH LEASE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCE OF PARKING IN CITY OWNED PARKING STRUCTURE AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) -1300 THE STRAND. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated December 12, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the project resolutions certifying the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting the Statement of Overriding Consideration and approving the project subject to the Conditions of Approval and clarification of Condition No. 31. a PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated December 12, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Approve agreements and authorize Mayor to execute on behalf of the City at the appropriate time. d - MUNICIPAL MATTERS 2. DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN - LOWER PIER AVENUE STREETSCAPE AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Staff report to be presented at meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Award contract. 3. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 REGARDING HISTORIC BUILDING PRESERVATION. Staff report to be presented at meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Waive full reading and adopt ordinance. 4. AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY LIFEGUARD AND BEACH CLEANING SERVICES, PIER PLAZA AND PARKING STRUCTURE. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated December 12, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Approve agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute agreement. 5. CITY COUNCIL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR CITY MANAGER CONTRACT. Memorandum from Mayor Oakes dated December 12, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge Mayor Oakes and Mayor Pro Tem Reviczky as negotiating committee for City Manager contract. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. Please limit comments to three minutes. ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: 1. MINUTES: Reading of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on December 10, 1996. 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE Government Code Section 54957 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ADJOURNMENT w l ACTION SHEET ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, December 17, 1996 - Council Chambers, City Hall 7:10 p.m. Closed Session - Immediately following Regular Session CALL TO ORDER: 7:lOpm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Shirley Cassell ROLL CALL: ALL PRESENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: PUBLIC HEARING - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. 1. APPEAL OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL, HERMOSA INN HOTEL & 480 CAR PARKING STRUCTURE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: PARKING PLAN: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH LEASE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCE OF PARKING IN CITY OWNED PARKING STRUCTURE AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) -1300 THE STRAND. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated December 12, 1996. a. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND PARSING STRUCTURE AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated December 12, 1996. MUM. APPROVE AG 1�iTS � AU URM. MY'OR'T#� f.'UTE +Dl�i B DAx F OF . ... ... THS C`L"St A*' APPROPIAfiL,..:4?'1`E 5-dt ; 4 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 2. DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN - LOWER PIER AVENUE STREETSCAPE AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Staff report to be presented at meeting. 3. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 REGARDING HISTORIC BUILDING PRESERVATION. Staff report to be presented at meeting. 4. AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY LIFEGUARD AND BEACH CLEANING SERVICES, PIER PLAZA AND PARKING STRUCTURE. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated December 12, 1996. SEIRD MOTIO!R �`O APPORO AGRE.EM[EN`I` V TH iNO KAi�i E 011 ►AGE , L NF.6 :TQ1ID, �'S��iC;#S�ATF. AIDS AND SECURITY D E ")::AND ATTHIE ........ N ...........XC It E E'................;AGIt 1? N.. 4 ...:_ 5. CITY COUNCIL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR CITY MANAGER CONTRACT. Memorandum from Mayor Oakes dated December 12, 1996. .. .::.: SEl IO 'IO TOACKI�IOVYY D Y YOK OAKES AND A S ............ �1Iy T AT11ti , �Q1wIM�7�'1�� FAIR C 1VIt �T#4GER CONTRAI;'I' VO'Y'Ef 4-11(1iUFg Dt CITIZEN COMMENTS ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: 1. MINUTES: Reading of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on December 10, 1996. 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE Government Code Section 54957 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION: 11:43pm 2 • +rt `� F E -Di • MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, at the hour of 7:`Q P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: ZOR' 1 oto W4 Benz, Bowler, Edgerton, Reviczky, Mayor Oakes None Mayor _O es L4-4 kedf �i t-4 'PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Although the City Council values your comments, the Brown Act generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda. (a) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the Public wishing to address the City Council on .. any items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. (Exception: Comments on public hearing items must be • � heard during the public hearings.) Please limit comments to one minute. Citizens may also speak: (1) during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar; (2) during Public Hearings; (3) with the Mayor's consent, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters; and, (4) before the close of the meeting during "Citizen Comments". Citizens with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are requested to submit those comments to the City Manager. Members of the Public wishing to request removal of an item from the consent calendar may do so at this time. W� v 1 y Cou i M nu es 12-U7-9 Page 298 0 i Aff C Q' .'D--3 C4 • PUBLIC HEARING - TO COMMENCE AT 7:30 P.M. 1. APPEAL OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL, HERMOSA INN HOTEL h 480 CAR PARKING STRUCTURE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN; PARKING PLAN; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH LEASE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY AND CONVEYANCE OF PARKING IN CITY OWNED PARKING STRUCTURE AND CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) 1300 THE STRAND. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated December 12, 1996. Supplemental letters from Howard Longacre received December 16 and 17, 1996. Supplemental appeal from Jim Lissner received January 17, 1296. Community Develo went Direct r Blumenfeld presented the .� 870 The public hearing opened at 7: P.M. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: The public hearing closed at P.M. • RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the project resolutions certifying the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting the Statement of Overriding Consideration and approving the project subject to the Conditions of Approval and clarification of Condition No. 31: (fair t .. 01 e a. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGREEMENT. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated December 12, 1996. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: , 1) approve the Public Improvements and Reimbursement Agreement which provides for the hotel developer to build certain public street improvements for which the City will reimburse the developer in an amount 1F� not to exceed $275,000 over a specified period of years; approve the Parking Structure Agreement which sets forth the use of 100 spaces through an easement agreement and in consideration of the payment of $1,100,000 and ongoing funds for maintenance; and', 9299 \ • i ;9 0 0 3) authorize the Mayor to sign the agreements. s. LVWnWUWM LArKVVZPlZn r1j" - JUVWLx rLZX AVZMUZ UWKZrl"a 5UArn AWARD OF presented CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. Staff renort to e at meeting. 12-1 ��lb ____1 RECOMMENDATION: Awa o t�� 11, 67.A* � awl f / aee —'40jud.Fk.°' ski drAa ava • 3. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 REGARDING HISTORIC BUILDING PRESERVATION. Staff taff report to be presept4 at meeting Action: To waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 96- 1168 - U, entitled, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE,CITY OF HERMOSA S j ----- 51- 0 4. AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY LIFEGUARD AND BEACH CLEANING SERVICES, PIER PLAZA AND PARKING STRUCTURE. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated December 12, 1996. Action: To approve agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute agreement. :41,0 9300 - CIA—" S. CITY COUNCIL NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE FOR CITY MANAGER CONTRACT. Memorandum from Mayor Oakes dated December 12, 1996. Action: To approve Mayor Oakes and Mayor Pro Tem Reviczky as the negotiating committee for City Manager contract. 5.-a CITIZEN COMMENTS S l-- 1 Citizens wishing to address the Council on items within the Council's jurisdiction may do so at this time. • CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: 1) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELEASE: pursuant to Government Code 54957: ADJOURNMENT - The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, at the hour of P.M. to a closed session. The closed session convened at the hour of P.M. At the hour of P.M. the closed session adjourned to the Adjourned Regular Meeting ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS - There were no decisions made requiring a public announcement. ADJOURNMENT - The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, December 17, 1996 at the hour of P.M. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, Januaray 14, 1997 at the hour of 7:10 P.M. • Deputy City Clerk 9301 December 12, 1996 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Special Meeting of Hermosa Beach City Council December 17, 1996 SUBJECT: Appeal of Condition of Approval Hermosa Inn Hotel & 480 Car Parking Structure - Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Consistency with Lease of City Owned Property and Conveyance of Parking in City Owned Parking Structure & Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) LOCATION: Downtown District-- 1300 The Strand APPLICANT: Keenan Land Company APPELLANT: Keenan Land Company Recommendation: Approve the project resolutions certifying the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting the Statement of Overriding Consideration and approving the project subject to the Conditions of Approval and clarification of Condition No. 31. Background: On December 3, 1996 the Planning Commission approved the project subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. The Commission also adopted resolutions certifying the project Final Environmental Impact Report and adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration for certain impacts which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Proiect Description: The Hermosa Inn, is proposed as a three story 96 room hotel located on .72 acres at 1300 The Strand. The project also contains frontage along 14th Street and will be developed in two phases. Phase One will consist of a central lobby, 56 rooms, three meeting rooms with catering kitchen, on-site surface parking at 14th Street and accommodations for contract linen service. Phase Two will consist of a central lobby, 40 rooms, two meeting rooms, spa area, exercise court and workout room, laundry room and 100 parking spaces acquired through sale of easement to the hotel developer in a parking structure to be developed at City owned Parking Lot "C" based upon the appraised fair market value for the parking spaces. The hotel is proposed to be developed as a condominium with ownership of individual units and owner occupancy limited to no more than 29 consecutive days and maximum 90 days during a calendar year. The rooms will be rented through a central reservation desk on a daily basis. Meeting rooms will be marketed as convenient, local accommodations for weddings, conferences etc. to help ensure occupancy during non -peak seasons. Room rates will vary up to $200 per day and condominium units will sell in the $200,000 range. The project also includes a four -level, 480 car parking structure with 380 stalls dedicated for public use and 100 stalls dedicated for hotel use. The parking structure will have one level four feet below grade and conform to City height restrictions. Retail uses will be incorporated into the structure along Hermosa Avenue and screen the parking structure from the street. +t n�. Off site improvements include repaving and creation of a cul-de-sac and pedestrian plaza at the terminus of 14th Street, creation of an auto -court at Beach Drive, resurfacing and improvement of 14th Court as a though alley, and improvement of the 13th Street terminus as a common loading area and pedestrian plaza. Analysis: Staff recommended approval of the resolutions approving the project Statement of Overriding Consideration and EIR certification and project approval. The Planning Commission added the following: • Provide additional building facade articulation on Phase One and Phase Two hotel development to respond to changes to the original plan submittal. • Examine potential relocation of special events to areas south of the Pier during the construction period. • Provide signage program for hotel and parking structure access. • Prohibit parking passes for hotel condominium owners as the project has a full complement parking. • Involve residential property owners immediately abutting the parking structure in the design program. • Provide original wording from the DEIR relative to design mitigation measures for the parking structure. The applicant has appealed one development condition, Condition No. 31 which requires that the developer make a fair share contribution towards the construction of a 24 inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain at Thirteenth Street and Beach Drive in accordance with the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage. The applicant is requesting clarification on the amount of the contribution and the proportional share of participants in the storm drain project. This condition was established as Mitigation Measure No. 4.1-1 of the EIR in order to mitigate the impact of project storm water discharge. Staff is recommending that the contribution be 14.5% of the total pipe capacity of the storm drain. Recommendation: Approve the project resolutions certifying the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopting the Statement of Overriding Consideration and approving the project subject to the Conditions of Approval and clarification of Condition No. 31. Sol Blumenfe d, director Community velopment Department Concur: l" Stephen R.ell, City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Project Staff Report 2. Final Environmental Impact Report - Summary of Mitigation Measures 3. City Council Resolution 4. P.C.Resolutions 5. Appellant Letter 27 James Lissner 2715 E1 Oeste Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 December 3, 1996 RECEIVED DEC 12 1946 CITY MGR. OFFICE Hermosa Beach Planning Commission f Ce,4,i �p�►^-� Re: Meeting of 12-3-96, Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Final EIR Dear Commissioners The following are my comments on the final EIR for the above named project ("the project"). I will key my comments to the key numbers used in by the authors of the EIR in their reply to my earlier comments. I6-4 and I7-1: The EIR reply failed to address my concerns about traffic. The reply said: "Traffic... was assumed to be non-resident trafic which would use PCH... to reach the downtown." This reply is not in good faith as it asks us to believe, for example, that 100% of the inbound project traffic that arrives at PCH westbound on Artesia will have no "local" knowledge and no common sense about shortcuts and will therefore turn left (utilizing the single overcrowded left turn pocket) rather than going straight ahead in one of the two through lanes. There is no evidence in the record to back this reply. In fact, since the hotel units will be individually owned any may be occupied by their owners for a portion of the year, there is the possibility that many trips from out of town to the hotel will be by persons with significant "local" knowledge. In my letter of November 3 I questioned why none of the related project traffic that was found to be using Valley -Ardmore north of Pier ended up on Gould, a route that I said was, for some, preferred route. The EIR did not address this question at all. In that same letter I questioned why there was a difference between the proportions of project traffic and related project traffic turning off Pier onto Valley/Ardmore, with a much smaller proportion of project traffic making the turn. The EIR did not address this question at all. I7-2: The reply to my question about which route from downtown to Artesia/PCH would be preferred did not address why, per the EIR traffic study, no traffic would use the quicker of the two routest Gould Avenue. The reply argues that a 34 second time difference over a 3 minute drive would not be "readily discernable to the driver," but provides no evidence as to why that difference would not be discernable. If we accept, for purposes of discussion, that the reply is correct as there being no discernable difference between the SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION A times over the two route, this would suggest that the traffic volume would be evenly split between the two routes - there being no discernable difference. The reply also did not address the question I posed about the preferences of a vacationer, who might want to use a scenic route. I7-3: The reply claims that traffic resulting from the outdoor seating will not be sufficient to raise the LOS at any intersection, but the EIR does not explain why the outdoor seating impact was ignored completely and not factored into the tables referenced in the reply. Thus there is nothing in the record which backs the reply's claim of no change in LOS due to outdoor seating - The reply contains no computation or table demonstrating the LOS when outdoor seating is included. The reply suggests that encroachment permits might limit the commercial use of the sidewalk, but neither the reply nor the EIR contains any evidence that there is any limit on the issuance of encroachment permits. Nor does the reply provide any evidence that the City strictly enforces any requirement for encroachment permits. The reply does not address my question about traffic resulting from use of the Pier Plaza at all. I7-4: The reply addresses cumulative traffic impacts, but dwells upon impacts along PCH and does not address impacts to Gould Avenue or the other streets leading to PCH. Moreover, the mitigations it promises for PCH rely upon actions by other "authorities other than the City" - presumably Caltrans. One of the mitigations noted is a promised signal synchronization. It must be noted that this synchronization was also promised to the City, within 12 months, by Caltrans in 1991, when parking was forcibly removed from the soutbound curb lane, but to this date the signals have not been synchronized. Caltrans has also failed to perform on other studies promised in 1991. There is no evidence in the EIR explaining why this much delayed improvement will be performed in the near future when Caltrans, upon whom the City relies to perform the mitigations, has not managed to perform the projects and studies they promised as long ago as 1991. I7-4: Continued. The reply suggests that a long term shuttle could mitigate traffic. But the reply does not provide any evidence that a shuttle would provide such mitigation. Nor does the reply address the fact that patrons of the shuttle would need to drive their personal vehicles through the outskirts of the city, including at least two study intersections, to reach the likely location of a shuttle parking lot - which means that the shuttle would not reduce traffic at those outlying intersections. Sincerely, BECEIVED :OEC 10 IN To: Hermosa Beach City Council CITY MGR. OFFICE From: Kevin & Evelyn Briley Property owners at 60&62 17'h Street, 53 50' Street and 517 Hermosa Ave. Re: Hotel & Parking Structure Proposal We have been following the proposed hotel and parking structure projects and felt that, as home owners and members of the Hermosa Beach community for many years, we needed to respond to several issues. Certainly progress is almost inescapable, but what makes Hermosa Beach enjoyable is its sense of community. It is a place where its residents can escape the big city of Los Angeles which surrounds us. This is our piece of "small town" life - this is its charm, this make it home. We do not want to live in Hermosa Com. Let's do what we can to protect our community. Once we lose our community in favor of "progress", everyone who calls Hermosa Beach home loses. Do not disregard this fact that affects so many when the developers and shop owners support "progress" being good for Hermosa Beach. Their goals are not necessarily our goals. They think "business", we think "home". Having grown up in the Napa Valley and experiencing the boom of the tourist industry, our small town became a stressful rat -race every weekend. It was no longer the same place and it was disappointing for the residents. Let another beach community in California become the "Hot Spot" to go, we don't need the "most fabulous hotel on Santa Monica Bay", we'd rather have the most fabulous small town community on Santa Monica Bay. Of greatest importance, however, is the issue of the parking structure. This concern is multifaceted. First, the project seems too large. What is the need for 480 spaces on 4 levels? Most of our downtown core is 2 stories. A huge 4 story structure will be an eyesore even under the best of circumstances. This structure will certainly change the entire visual ambiance of our downtown community. Moreover, the council has gone forward with a terrific plan to enhance Pier Avenue, but why invest so much in one city block when the next city block is designed so undesirably. Of course, we do recognize the need for some parking issues to be addressed as a result of the loss of parking on Pier Avenue. We do not see a 4 story structure as a reasonable solution. Overkill is a better descriptor. If the reasoning is somehow related to facilitating the hotel, it is our belief that the hotel should be able to supply sufficient parking on its own property to support it's development. This seems like good planning and should have been required by the Hermosa Beach City Council from the beginning. Furthermore, please don't overlook several existing situations. On weekend evenings, the downtown core is currently packed with people visiting local restaurants and bars, and during the summer months the Strand is frequently wall to wall people. Our Strand is not divided as it is in Manhattan Beach, therefore, cyclists, rollerbladers, joggers and strollers share the same area. We do not have the room for hundreds of more bodies. Looking beyond the logistics of crowds and the appearance of our city, what also concerns us is the added potential for crime. We've heard several discussions regarding crime within the parking SUPPLEMENTAL i INFORMATION f structure itself This is very narrow minded. What seems to be the real issue is the potential for increased crime in the community as a whole. If Hermosa Beach becomes an "easy place to park" relative to the other communities, we will draw a potentially undesirable element to our community. We must not overlook the bigger city of Los Angeles in which we live. Currently we feel safe walking freely in our community and sleeping in our homes at night. Opening our city to a transient crowd would significantly change that sense of security. Compare our "Crime Watch" section of the Beach Reporter to the daily Metro Section of the Los Angeles Times and think carefully about what such "available" parking would mean to the members of this community... our community. Please let us remain a quiet resident -dominated beach community and let another beach in the Los Angeles basin cater to the tourists and transient crowds. Finally, on a more philosophical point, the Hermosa Beach City Council has for years been pushing to change zoning laws to decrease the density of Hermosa Beach. Now we read that, in direct contrast to this goal, we are creating 96 time share units which allow for extended periods of occupancy. Hermosa Beach is a delight in the summer and thus the greatest hotel occupancy can be anticipated during the summer months. Add this influx to the 480 parking places for transient visitors, and it would appear that if high density is something we're trying to avoid, the council is going about it in an odd way. The only thing we can conclude is that Hermosa Beach residents are being limited in their ability to generate revenues, through duplex housing, while non-residents create ultra-high density situations and the Hermosa Beach City Council is paving the way. This apparent disregard for the residents and home owners of Hermosa Beach is discouraging at best. One further question, why the time share approach? Is this developer unable to finance this project and is now relying on time share investors? If this is the case, please halt this project until full independent financing is secured. The last thing that Hermosa Beach needs is a partially completed project in bankruptcy defacing our beach front. Finally, please help secure Hermosa Beach's community spirit and character. And most importantly, do not invite a criminal element to our community through easy, extensive parking. Don't forget, as much as we don't feel it now, we most definitely live in Los Angeles, and we are truly vulnerable to that fact. ""0"1VCU NOV2 719% PLANNING DEPT. Requested Discussion Issues For Hearing On Tuesday, 12/3/96 Concerning The Proposed Hermosa Beach Strand Hotel & Parking Structure Between 13th & 14th Streets. Please add the following discussion issues to the agenda. 1. The impact of the Hotel WOR Parking Structure on the value of other Hermosa Beach properties. 2. The impact of the Hotel &/OR Parking Structure on traffic flow in Hermosa Beach. 3. The legality and impact of permitting exceptions to current building codes, such as extending the height limitation of certain components of the Hotel &/OR Parking Structure. 4. Expected tax implications associated with the Hotel &/OR parking structure. 5. Alternative uses for the property and their value to the community. Requestor: Date Requested: Home Address: Phone: Eric Scharff Hand delivered to Planning Commission on 12/27/96 1314 Monterey Blvd Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254 310-782-4123 RECEIVED NOV 2 71996 7 RECEIVED NOV 261996 PLA"'AUDard' Longacre, 1221 Seventh Place, Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 23 November, 1996 Mr. Sol Blumenfeld, Director 4 -*.-LVED Community Development Department NOV Z b 19% City Attorney The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission :u uEPT. Hermosa Beach City Hall Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254 This is a written submittal to be included in the planning commission agenda -packet for the following noted item. Re: Public Hearing 12/3/96, advertised in the Easyreader Newspaper legal section 11/21/96, for the proposed hotel at 1300 Strand, public parking structure, and associated public land, and other items pertaining to same. Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: POINT -OF -ORDERS: First I note to your body ap a point -of -order that this public hearing is much too all encompassing for the lay public to absorb in one sitting and to be given just three or even 20 minutes in the chamber to address. I personally believe the city can be challenged for expecting its citizens to deal so quickly with so much material at one time and in just one public hearing. Careful, considered discussion after having city planning staff answer your questions, your taking of public testimony, having more discussion and motions, followed by the chance for further testimony when the public knows what your motions entail, is an imperative in this complex matter. You must make sure that the public is able to respond to new ideas and concepts that may come up during the hearing which are not spelled out in the available information to which they give testimony. Attempting to do all of this in one night, 1 suspect would be impractical and imprudent. As a further point -of -order I note that the planning commission packet is scheduled to be completed for distribution to you on the night before Thanksgiving and that this public hearing was scheduled to be directly after the Thanksgiving weekend when most people spend time with family, friends, and brief, vacation activities. Such inappropriate scheduling of such an important matter, and further with such short time for thorough public review of all materials in the packet may be legal, but as such is highly suspect to this. city resident. Page 1 of 11 !f H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 This packet would better have been completed and made available for a minimum of two weeks for review as this matter concerns the use, dedication, and/or encumbrance of city land to a developer, and/or to the county, and furthermore will fundamentally result in a whole new direction for this city with respect to intensification of the downtown area. If this matter be driven through city processes in a hasty manner, then unquestionably aid will be given to any court challenge of decisions made by your body or those of the council. It will clearly appear that public processes may have been manipulated to a certain objective. It would be best to be sure all concerned, including the public and the press, fully understand what this public hearing entails, what the consequences are to the city's future finances, quality of life, and future direction, and that everyone is given every opportunity to participate fully in this decision making process. This concludes the point -of -orders of this submittal. INTRODUCTION: I have chosen to place my concerns regarding this smorgasbord of a public hearing, in this letter such that it may be included in your packet and so that you will have the opportunity to review it fully, and make notes prior to the meeting. You on the commission may take all reasonable time required on this matter, and if you are not fully prepared at the meeting due to the holiday, I would hope you will so note that and continue the hearing after taking testimony from those present. I believe our residents are extremely concerned as to what is taking place in our small downtown with regard to intensification, especially at night, and as such our city can ill -afford to handle the matters of this public hearing in any slam-dunk fashion. As. a graduate in civil engineering and a resident of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach for some twenty-nine years, and having come to Hermosa Beach as a teenager in the late 1950's, I have observed first-hand the transition of our city and the entire southern -California area. I have owned residential property in Newport Beach on the ocean front, and Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach just one block from the ocean front. I am familiar with all three cities and how they view the importance of residential. Our present city administration does not seem to any longer place the highest importance on the residential quality of life as does Manhattan Beach, and especially Newport Beach. And that is most unfortunate. As residential goes, so will go everything else in this beach town. That is a certainty, in my view. Today we find the city desiring to survive as a residential friendly town and a town willing to welcome those from outside the city limits. We see controversy over such things as volleyball tournaments and the commercialization of the beach which is owned by the people of Hermosa Beach. With times such as they are, while it would be good to be all things to all people, we can not be much good to anyone if our city's residential quality of life is pushed past a thin line, where that Page 2 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 which is Hermosa Beach and which attracts so many who want to either live here, visit here, or do both, is diminished and destroyed. Our town's quality of life must be placed paramount to all else, otherwise you might as well write the city off, for if that quality deteriorates to a point where families will not want to raise their children here, then overnight the town will surely slip away to something else. - Perhaps some desire this to happen. Many wonder. With this in mind, we all have observed the extraordinary, unwarranted emphasis being placed on our small downtown area which apparently is doing quite well on its own, simply because times and the economy have entered a new cycle, and there is little concern placed by our council on alcohol serving business anymore. We all know alcohol business flourishes where ever there is little control regulating it. You on the commission should be aware that our downtown does cost the city the expenditure of much more revenue than it brings in, and has for many years, and that such situation will probably continue indefinitely. It is my understanding that such is true of the Manhattan Beach downtown also. Unfortunately this phenomena is never raised by our city council. Instead we hear rantings by many downtown proponents that "we have to generate more sales tax revenue in the downtown". That is a totally empty, absurd, and meaningless statement. The downtown contributes minimal sales tax revenue, minimal property tax revenue, minimal business taxes, and some superficial transient occupancy tax and will continue on 4ke this same track, notwithstanding all that is being done to make the business operations themselves quite profitable. One single family home that sells for $500,000 will result in more total revenue to the city annually than most individual businesses in the town will. City costs for the home are practically nil. A large amount of city -revenue received from our downtown comes from parking fines. The city receives more from parking fines on customers than from sales tax on customer purchases. A person buys three drinks or something else, spends ten dollars, the city gets perhaps 5 to 10 cents. But an occasional customer gets a parking ticket and the city gets $$, well you see the difference. Each time police officers respond to an event downtown, there goes all the sales tax revenue of perhaps several days. Add up the police time for one significant incident, especially if there are reports made, and several officers required, and court actions to follow. It takes about ten -thousand dollars of taxable sales for the city to receive a mere 100 dollars. Does that cover one police -person -hour with all support costs. Not likely. Take the police costs per day for the downtown, and multiply by 100. That is the amount of taxable sales to just pay for the police requirements for the downtown. If policing costs 1000 dollars per day, that means it takes 100,000 dollars of reported -taxable sales to pay for the police for that day. I believe it can Page 3 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 be shown that our police costs easily are 1000 dollars per day more, than they would be if there were no downtown at all. 1000 dollars per day does not buy much equipment and personnel as required for modern policing of a city. 365,000 dollars a year is most likely much less than what the downtown costs for policing. Look at the total police budget and ask what percentage of that is downtown related. That our downtown will continue to drain our city of revenue and possibly at an even greater rate, means we are always going to 1lave problems paying our police and other staff the wages sufficient to insure we are able to retain the best people. The downtown is an especially negative factor for our city employees who see a budget constantly short of money. They should understand why it is short of money and will stay that way. Its the continued subsidizing of the downtown. All these factors are important regarding the matters of this public hearing. Your commission must try to understand the city's financial position as applicable in your planning decisions on the matter of this, and all of your public hearings regarding the downtown. About a year ago the city council had a public hearing with no public input given, and the 6% utility tax was massively increased for everyone under 63 years of age through adding long distance telephone to the tax. How many residents even know this happened? How many? Would it have passed with a vote of the people? Its hard to see it on your phone bill, but its there. Just think, 6% of most all long distance billings in the whole city now goes into the sewer fund, a fund that is systematically being used for many more things than it was originally intended. Our downtown is not responsible for any true revenue increases given inflation and everything else. City payrolls will go up faster than downtown revenue on a percentage basis. I remind you on the commission as I have previous commissions, that the city receives just 1 penny for each reported dollar of taxable sales. That translates to just $90.00 of revenue to the city for three -thousand drinks sold at three dollars each. I am sure you all understand what the impact that the sale of three - thousand drinks brings to a city in terms of the number of people in town to buy those drinks, the cars they come in, and the general effects of noise, crime, and requirements on the city infrastructure, and support personnel, be they fire, police, or general government staff. ' Thus while it may be nice to have a downtown, it has clearly become a place that is attractive mostly to a Wednesday through Saturday night 21 to 35 year old group. There is little left there that makes an average resident want to go there but rarely or never. In recent years virtually all of the non -alcohol daytime businesses that have left, have been replaced with alcohol serving night-time businesses. THE ISSUE OF PARKING STRUCTURE: There is really not a parking problem in the daytime with respect to the downtown. As a customer in the downtown I have never had a problem finding a Page 4 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 daytime parking space and in fact there is more parking in the downtown today than there has been in the previous forty years. When you talk about hot beach days, well you could never add enough parking. Discussing beach days is an absurdity. You could pave the entire city over with double deck parking and every space would be filled on hot beach days. For on beach days, the more parking there is the more overflow there will be. It is just that way. We all have visited Venice Beach. Have you noticed there is virtually no parking at Venice Beach? Where do those throngs of people park? Why to they go there if there is no parking? The fact is that people will walk a mile to go to the beach to be with the moving masses of activity that takes place there. The idea of building this first of a minimum of two 480 space 4 level concrete parking garage behemoths is one that sickens me to think of, for as educated in engineering and computer science I understand how the providing of more parking, and the building of more roads and freeways does not reduce traffic, or parking impact on neighborhoods, it increases it. Building a parking garage will not free up parking in the neighborhood, it will create a bigger more intensive activity to take place in our small downtown at night and that will attract an even larger mass of people to spill out into the neighborhoods. I request that your commission carefully consider what it is that the residents desire, in the way of quality -of -life for their town? Is it more cars, cabs, limos, busses? Five years ago we had daytime businesses in downtown. Now we have nighttime businesses. The city is not a penny richer as a result. But the residential streets have cars and cabs cruising around until 2:30 am. That is all new. Have you gone out and looked? It will only get worse if you make it possible to have even more people in the downtown at night. And while crime may or may not be level now, with more night time downtown intensity and activity, it will eventually escalate from where it would be, were the downtown to become less of a night-time, and more of a day -time center. Of course that can not happen when prospective day -time businesses look around and say, °I do not desire to locate where they shut off my customer access for so many events geared to get masses of people in the daytime, and where the night- time can present security problems for my investment". : Good daytime businesses don't require a lot of parking. When a car dealer on the highway sells one 35,000 dollar vehicle the city receives three -hundred -fifty dollars from the penny on the dollar of sales tax it gets. How many visitors did that take. Compare this to the impact for the city to receive the same 350 dollars of revenue by selling over eleven -thousand drinks at three dollars each (11,000 drinks x $3), or more drinks if they cost less. This massive impact with so little revenue returned, with buildings that are also on such low long-term property assessments, now maintained low by Prop -13, is why the city loses downtown at the expense of the residents and will continue to. Page 5 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 Parking garages are the road map to Hermosa's quality of life going down down down for your retirement, for your children, for your grandchildren. While at the same time raising the city's costs by encouraging more of this loose -loose situation. The only winners with parking garages, are operators of businesses that sell to the masses. And that is why their lobby in this city is so big, and so well organized. The residents have no lobby, are all but turned off, completely unorganized, often intimidated, and otherwise confused, or so propagandized on how great thy downtown will be. It won't be from a city quality of life point of view, or from the city's financial point of view. Business that is oriented only toward masses of people, bring extreme -negative impact on the residential quality of life, and high costs for the city which ultimately are born by the residents through hidden taxes, moneys diverted from residential improvement, and reduced value of their homes. Why is the same home in Hermosa on an equivalent lot and location worth 20 to 35 % less than in Manhattan Beach? Is it that the Realtors know that there is a poor anti -residential direction being taken in our city, and advise people of the differences in the current leadership Hermosa Beach has when it comes to putting the residents first? There is no logic in doing everything possible to intensify the downtown. The planning commission has not been directed by the council in any significant manner to insure that the downtown becomes a place where a non -alcohol serving business can feel 4here is a stable day -time environment. Ask yourself if you would want a Venice Beach style environment based on masses of people if you were going to open a daytime business in our downtown or have a professional office. There is a logical limit to the number of coffee shops, cafes and entertainment and alcohol venues. They are nice but they place a heavy impact on the city and produce significant revenue only to the operators. There is also a logical limit on street events that disrupt business activity. We are over that limit right now. The city residents are picking up the overwhelming cost of businesses being able to be there. The city residents right now are paying for virtually all of the downtown improvements via subtle and very creative ways of using the people's money, and even adding new taxes to existing taxes as implemented by the current city administration in such things as increasing the utility tax on our telephone bills, and the increased lighting district assessments, while the pavement in front of the resident's own home deteriorates (except perhaps where the city may finally have had to replace a badly deteriorated sewer). As evidence that there is no more parking problem in the daytime than would be expected in a beach -front town, recently a former councilman was permitted to max out his downtown property without adding anything in parking to the existing 5 or 6 spaces he has. His building is an office building and low impact. The type of business desired. It was made clear on his approval that there was no parking Page 6 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 problem for his type of improvement. What type of business does your body desire to promote? Those requiring masses of people in their cars and cabs that bring the city high impact and penny revenue, or the type that is office, and daytime retail, and helps maintain the quality of life in our city? Until there is a clear specification on the type of business or a plan, other than the current lais'sez-faire approach, which will only result in mostly alcohol and entertainment businesses, you would best not approve the building o? the very vehicle that just such businesses thrive on. Massive parking. This is very simple to understand. Those with vested interests obviously believe differently. I want to emphasize that I do not support changing parking lot A or C now or ever to increase parking in the downtown through city action. What owners do on their land is their business within the context of the established zoning code. It is not desirable for our city to do what has been done in downtown urban areas such as Santa Monica, Los Angeles, or Hollywood. That is not smart for an area so small, and which is little like the very urban downtown commercial area of Santa Monica, which is monumentally bigger than our entire city and more. The third street promenade is in the middle of a highly impacted commercial area, and not surrounded by homes. Have you all been there in the evening and seen those hoards of people? Is that what is being attempted here? That would be very sad for our small town. That would be tragic. THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE COUNTY: I further want to emphasize that I consider it extremely unwise for the city to even be involved with the county in discussions that take money that the voters placed in the trust of the Los Angeles county board of supervisors, with the clear intent that this money was for new park acquisition and associated new development, and not as a scam to launder the people's money through a parking garage for nighttime business use, and to then re -charge the taxpayers for the privilege of parking there, then with any returned revenue to be placed in the general funds of the respective agencies. This is improper in my view, pure and simple, and most likely will lead to a court challenge. Do not permit our city to get involved in such undertakings. Do not encumber city owned land to the county's or a developer's dictates. This proposed action using money that the county dept. of beaches and harbors finds so hard to use properly, and for two years now has evidently been discussed as a quid -pro -quo for the life guard payment situation, is so wrong it also sickens me to believe our government or any government would contemplate such action. If a statement of the facts of how prop -A -parks money was being used was put to the voters, they would turn it down forthwith. This is clearly not what the voters intended when they taxed themselves. Our city attorney, serving as legal counsel contractually at our city council's discretion, and pleasure, should advise you all that this could be highly improper, notwithstanding any previous such schemes gone unchallenged or even Page 7 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 successfully challenged. You must fully understand and investigate all discussions, transactions, and so forth that has led to such a plan. Our city can not afford more lawsuits over things that should be clear from the outset. THE PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMMOTEL: With respect to the hotel proposal for the strand. This hotel as presented I am totally unsatisfied with and must reject entirely. The first problem is that this hotel is being built to be sold as individual condominium units where -by all such unit owners will have a say in the on-going renting of their units via a front desk operation. I personally can not accept such a plan when our city has rightfully done, after dozens of detailed public hearings and a voter initiative, so much to reduce the number of condominium units per acre of development within the city. This would be an unbelievable gift to this developer to approve such massive density. The reasons for such reduction of units per acre in our city has been wise. Small tightly packed condominium units tend to become run-down due to the unwillingness for consensus among the parties owning same to support fees to maintain first class ownership unlike single owner apartment buildings. A first time owner pays a premium price and then after a few years the unit deteriorates and it becomes a rental. This particular operation proposal even as managed will eventually result in one orfa few owners owning most of the units. Those owning individual units will eventually sell at deflated prices as a result of perhaps a spirit that is aimed at reducing ownership to but a few. This is not a country club location where an individual owner might want to return often for a few days. These condominiums with 1 parking space per unit will be very unfriendly for visitors to same. Visitors will have to pay for parking. If they are allowed to buy cheap resident parking passes then the whole scheme collapses. Occupants will be forced to cavy everything from a separate parking structure to their unit. The whole project is ridiculous. Would you want to live in this type of situation or even visit such knowing that the nighttime activity in the area is quite noisy. A daytime office type building with good views and retail mix makes much more sense and should be encouraged instead. So, why would the city want to stretch or change the zoning options to encourage such a poorly conceived idea, notwithstanding that such project may have been successful elsewhere. One must understand this will be two very large block -house buildings built property line to property line and all the way to the height limit. Maxed out without a single parking space on site. This is greatly to a developer's agenda if he can buy cheap parking on non -property -taxed land at a fixed cost. into the future. This is a gravy train and he will build out, cash out, and be gone while our city will have the impact of all these units which may be destined to become such as many of our large apartment buildings have become. This makes little sense. Page 8 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 We have a voter mandated understanding in this town with a 30 feet height limit in the entire beach area except for a few places where projects can ask for variances near homes presently built to 35 feet. And a specific voted height of 30 feet in the downtown. The 30 feet height limit is an absolute height limit as our voters understood and voted for same. The idea that this developer on his own or through city encouragement would submit a design that clearly implies, roof top activity and structures for ten feet above the height limit, after a certificate of occupancy, leads one to wonder what kind of insult is presented to the 18,000 residents of our city by this proposal. It is insulting to our people. A forth level to a building which has no parking on site, and which clearly indicates something to be expanded with time, through roof gardens, vertical screens, permanent awnings, roofs, eventual walls, etc. is absurd. I would hope this rooftop extra stuff is not simply an item, as often included by developer's, to permit the commission to remove it and say we have done a good job in reducing the impact of this proposal. Nothing above the height limit is permitted. And nothing that would lead to visual, noise, or other blight to be viewed by the residents should be permitted. I remind the commission that about 15 years ago the city of Manhattan Beach voted a height limit in their downtown to be just 26 feet. It did not effect their development and I also note to you that their people have been very wise to reject all hotel proposals that have come before them for their downtown plus a year or so ago they soundly rejected even a very small parking structure being added to their downtown. They understand that adding parking to the type of business that presents the potential for future trouble is unwise. One continues to wonder why there is such a focus on a large hotel in our small downtown. Those days are long gone for big hotels here at the beach. A hotel brings a multitude of problems to a city. The bed taxes will be eaten up by expenses and degradation to the city. The place for this type of hotel is on the highway. A hotel in our downtown should be more along the lines of that which is the Sea Sprite. Something where families go for the beach in the daytime. Not people seeking night -life. 0 1 This developer has presented a poor design, geared to a fast profit. This design as a condominium -hotel would better have been designed with the parking on the developer's rear parcel, and, or with parking on the first level of each structure with two levels of living above the parking. The first level of both of these structures is going to be highly susceptible to any ocean flooding as are virtually all the properties west of Hermosa Avenue. West of Hermosa Avenue as we all know was originally the natural beach in Hermosa Beach. The developer should understand that our city, unlike Manhattan or Redondo Beach, was laid out originally with streets on the natural beach. We have seen the ocean water on our strand walkway, and homes behind the strand walkway are actually at a Page 9 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 slightly lower elevation than the strand itself. This project is larger and more intense than anything in the downtown and must be rejected in its entirety as presented. REGARDING STRUCTURES ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT: The previous hotel proposal which could not have been built due to its absurd design in an area of such ground water problems, (and' I hope this developer fully understands the ground water problems at this site), had in its design the inclusion of so called (but unnecessary) mechanical structures running the length of both buildings for 10 feet above the height limit. Clearly they could have been remodeled with terraces placed in front of them for additional intensification. Those structures resulted in planning commission decisions limiting room top structures to approximately 5% of the roof top area and also only to to those code required mechanical items to be kept to the absolute minimum. This was suppose to be in our code. I spoke at those hearings as did a prominent Hermosa architect. I have referred to this subject in previous memos to our city over the prior years. What happened to that decision?. If it is not being implemented, Why not? Former building director Bill Grove was quite aware of the decision. But notwithstanding even that specification, the voters have set the height to thirty feet. This project is being maxed out to sell basis every square foot that can be squeezed into the building envelope with no on-site parking and without any consideration as to the effect on the city. REGARDING EIR CERTIFICATION: Regarding certification of the Environmental Impact Report, it should not be certified until every aspect of it is fully, and clearly understood by your commission. Your commission must insure that it fully complies with the state CEQA to again avoid a lawsuit our city can not afford. CEQA must be followed to the .letter and all must recognize that what is permitted in this matter will apply to more such projects in our downtown. The level of density to be started is unquestionably incredible, and will have a most significant negative environmental impact on our city. The commission must ask, what is it that our residents want and need for their city. Is it night -life and intensity, or quality of life? Why bend all the rules to ' promote the former when there are absolutely no benefits whatever, to be gained by the city. What logic is there in that? IN CONCLUSION: Lastly again, it is most unfortunate that this hearing is right after a Thanksgiving weekend when most everyone will not have had adequate free time to review all the materials, and as mentioned previously in my point -of -order, as presented for this so all encompassing public hearing, and that any review by the council which most certainly will take place, will be just before this holiday season when the residents are extremely busy with family and friends and have little interest in things such as this, should you make your decision in one night. Again the timing Page 10 of 11 H. Longacre to Planning Commission, 23 November 1996 and combining of so much material into this one public hearing is highly suspect in my view. The planning commission is made up of residents. It must not be just a puppet body of the city council. It is our city's most important workshop commission and forum. You should review these issues and put your stamp on them. Let the council then put theirs on after you have put yours on. 'Don't just do what you believe they want you to do, and I am sure you won't. I have found our planning commissions to have done most of the good in our city by setting things in the right direction. You have the ability to change direction as you desire and believe right and that is your duty. I would hope that you carefully review your decisions and as you are covering so much ground, literally, in this one public hearing, you may find that questions you have of staff or the city attorney, will require this hearing to be continued into January. And if such hearing is continued I would hope that you request the city manager and city clerk to have any continued hearings also advertised as do other cities on such important matters. Let our residents know that they are welcome and encouraged to participate in this process. The residents will be here, most likely, long after the developer is gone. Lastly, please remember also that what you approve, you may also view 30 years from now. Ask yourself how you will remember any approval you make as you will view it from as it will be 30 years from now. Renderings and promises have a way of becoming quite shabby with the real test of time. Every project has a beautiful rendering, many promises, and accolades given before it becomes forever set in concrete. One need only look at the dinosaur -disaster Pavilion on the highway coming now on ten years of failure to even rent out its space once, and which is now a concept considered for the parking garage proposal. Thank you for your time and city service on this important commission, and for taking the time to read my submittal, which is long, and which I expended much time to prepare, but which concerns an important matter for our city. I hope it has given you some insights which you may not have considered, as that is the roll of citizen participation. To all concerned have a happy, holiday season and new year. � (J Howard Lbngacre Page 11 of 11 November 14, 1996 Mr. Sol Blumenfeld, Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach CA 9054-3885 Dear Mr. Blumenfeld, I signed a petition in response to the draft E.I.R. which is attached. After further review, I have decided to withdraw my name from that petition. I understand that the Phase I hotel of 56 rooms will have construction parking and, upon completion, -guest parking provided on the Phase II parcel. Phase II hotel construction shall commence only after construction of the city parking structure on Lot "C" or provide for off-site valet -service in the event that Lot "C" parking structure is delayed. Therefore, the hotel is parking neutral for both phases. Furthermore, I would like to enthusiastically request the planning commission to approve the hotel and parking structure as proposed and to approve and certify the E.I.R. Sincerely, 0 -la -t - Del ?? Hair Strand Enclosure: A copy of the petition which is attached to this letter is a reference. Memorandum Date: October 8, 1996 To: The Mayor and City Counsel of Hermosa Beach From: Concerned Citizens Subject: Proposed Hotel and Parking Structure We are pleased about the progress in our downtown area and want to express our support for your efforts. We also want to communicate our wishes with respect to the planned hotel and parking structure projects. We hope our comments can be used constructively as our city moves into final discussions regarding these projects. 1. The Hotel - While its architectural design appears to be quite appropriate, we feel a setback area from the Strand for the length of the hotel would be both appropriate and visually appealing. This area could contain flora that would integrate nature and beauty into the structure Whereby enhancing its ambiance.. 2. The Parking Structure - While we see the clear need for additional parking in the area, we hope this structure will also be appealing. The present design for this structure would place a large concrete box -like structure in an area which now provides airflow and open space. Wouldn't a structure that again includes setbacks and plant life be more appealing to the eye and more pedestrian friendly? We are enthusiastic about the growth of our small city. We simply want this growth to reflect our respect for nature and aesthetic values while remaining friendly to pedestrian traffic. We look forward to your consideration. Sincerely, //�I� . - �, - e. -, � - - fZ, _., - W -Iddress: &,n t; address: /72,0 ad ress: ,�v Aroly � /IV, Y B t)z5y \0,-) 4LO S r - a I � I e. i- • i4I MrI address: I A '7 k 6, � 301 November 20, 1996 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission December 3, 1996 SUBJECT: Hermosa Inn Hotel & 480 Car Parking Structure - Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, General Plan Consistency with Lease of City Owned Property and Conveyance of Parking in City Owned Parking Structure & Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) LOCATION: Downtown District-- 1300 -The Strand APPLICANT: Keenan Land Company Recommendation: 1. Receive testimony and consider the project application & Final EIR 2. Certify approval of the Final EIR subject to the attached Resolution 3. Approve the project subject to Conditions of Approval in the attached Resolution Background: The hotel project is proposed for development on a site originally containing retail uses serving the Biltmore Hotel. The Biltmore was demolished in 1969 and the remaining retail uses located along the Strand between 13th and 14th Streets were subsequently demolished. The proposed hotel site is currently vacant. Several hotel projects proposed over the last 25 years were not implemented due to political opposition, problems in financing or poor market conditions for development. The site of the proposed parking structure is City owned public parking Lot "C" adjacent the proposed hotel. PROJECT INFORMATION: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: LOT SIZE HOTEL: LOT SIZE PARKING STRUCTURE: PARKING HOTEL: PARKING STRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERNIINATION C-2, Restricted Commercial (Hotel & Parking Site) General Commercial (GC)(Hotel Site) Commercial Recreation (CR)(Parking Site) .72 Acres 1.0 Acres 92 Required / 100 Provided 480 Provided Environmental Impact Report Required Pursuant to Section 1500 of the California Environmental Quality Act Proiect Description: The Hermosa Inn, is proposed as a three story 96 room hotel located on .72 acres at 1300 The Strand. The project also contains frontage along 14th Street and will be developed in two phases. Phase One will consist of a central lobby, 56 rooms with suites of 507 square feet, 1,482 square feet of meeting rooms, 430 square feet of kitchen, on-site surface parking at 14th Street and accommodations for contract linen service. Phase Two will consist of a central lobby, 40 rooms, 1,568 square feet of meeting rooms, 1,090 square feet of spa area and exercise court, 513 square feet of workout room and 511 square feet of laundry/linen room 1 and 100 parking spaces acquired through sale of easement to the hotel developer in a parking structure to be developed at City owned Parking Lot "C" based upon the appraised fair market value for the parking spaces. The hotel is proposed to be developed as a condominium with ownership of individual units and owner occupancy limited to no more than 29 consecutive days and maximum 90 days during a calendar year. The rooms will be rented through a central reservation desk on a daily basis. Meeting rooms will be marketed as convenient, local accommodations for weddings, conferences etc. to help ensure occupancy during non -peak seasons. Room rates will vary up to $200 per day and condominium units will sell in the $200,000 range. The project also includes a four -level, 480 car parking structure with 380 stalls dedicated for public use and 100 stalls dedicated for hotel use. The parking structure will have one level four feet below grade and conform to City height restrictions. Retail uses will be incorporated into the structure along Hermosa Avenue and screen the parking structure from the street. An eleven month construction period is anticipated for the hotel and a twelve month construction period is anticipated for the parking structure. . Mti Rms .. Hntel Rms:_ _. Ground Floor Units 7,199 16 Mtg. Rms. Mtg. Rms. 474 1 Spa/Ext. Ct. Lobby/Admin. 1,105 513 Laundry Public Serv. 3,406 2,113 Decks Kitchen 430 7,959 15 Public Serv. Decks 1,020 958 Third Floor Units Landscape 755 2,069 Second Floor Units 10,244 20 Mtg. Rms. 504 1 Public Serv. 1,376 Decks 1,320 Third Floor Units 10,244 20 Meeting Rms. 504 1 Public Serv. 1,376 Decks 1.320, Subtotal 36,862* 3 56 Ground Floor Units 5,256 10 Mtg. Rms. 784 1 Mtg. Rms. 784 1 Public Serv. 2,693 Spa/Ext. Ct. 1,090 Workout/Gym 513 Laundry 511 Landscape 2,113 Decks 660 Second Floor Units 7,959 15 Public Serv. 2,069 Decks 958 Third Floor Units 7,605 15 Public Serv. 2,069 2 ............................. .............. ul"eve Parldng Structure...... Item _, . . ...... ,PkinLtGFA . Non-Pking GFA Stalls Ground Floor Parking lA/1B 34,265 100 Retail/Office 3,500 Storage 1,134 Second Floor Parking 2A/2B 41,110 135 Retail/Office 3,500 Third Floor Parking 3A/3B 41,110 136 Fourth Floor Parkins 4A/4B 33.965 109 'i'utal':............... 15,±SQ $q Ft......., ..: 8,134 sq ft ... 480 The project also includes the improvement of 14th Street with repaving and a cul-de-sac and pedestrian plaza at the terminus of 14th Street, creation of an auto -court at Beach Drive contiguous with the hotel project, resurfacing and improvement of 14th Court as a though alley, and improvement of the 13th Street terminus as a common loading area and pedestrian plaza with utility transformers serving the hotel and public uses during special events at the beach or in the downtown. 1. Analysis of the Project Conditional Use Permit/Precise Development Plan: Conformance to General Plan, Certified Land Use Plan & Downtown Revitalization Activities The General Plan indicates General Commercial and Commercial Recreation uses with a corresponding zoning classifications of C-2 for the subject properties. Hotel and parking uses are permitted per the zone and General Plan. The project is commensurate with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and which calls for: • Maximizing commercial uses on downtown commercial properties • Encouraging new businesses and more efficient commercial space utilization • Providing sufficient parking to support existing commercial uses and proposed growth • Encouraging property upgrading and new investment in downtown • Providing future coastal related development, designed with a high level of architectural design quality which reflects the City's unique coastal location The Coastal Land Use Plan calls for: • Maximizing improvements and expansions to visitor serving business activities • Developing facilities serving the needs of coastal visitors and residents • Providing parking alternatives to meet increased parking demand The hotel and parking structure uses are in conformance with these goals as they will provide for more efficient and productive development in the downtown on two underutilized parcels, stimulate downtown reinvestment and facilitate patronage of downtown businesses by visitors and residents. The hotel and parking structure sites are surrounded by the Strand to the west, 14th Street, a park and commercial and residential uses to the north, 13th Street and commercial uses to the south, and Hermosa Avenue and commercial uses to the east. The proposed projects are compatible with existing and proposed uses in the immediate vicinity and are in character with visitor serving uses of the downtown. The proposed projects are commensurate with the downtown revitalization which includes new restaurant uses, pier renovation, streetscape improvements and other visitor and pedestrian serving amenities. The proposed hotel will not contain a restaurant or bar, and hotel patrons will provide a potential source of customers for downtown restaurant and retail establishments. During summer peak seasons, attendees of special events or conferences at the proposed hotel meeting rooms will provide an additional customer base for downtown establishments and supplement occupancy of the parking structure. During non -peak seasons, hotel guests and conference attendees will augment commercial activity in the downtown and help stabilize commercial activity. A petition of downtown business and property owners in support of the project is attached. The parking structure will provide additional parking necessary to support the downtown revitalization. According to the Downtown Circulation and Parking Study prepared for the City, there is currently a need for up to 101 additional parking spaces to meet existing evening commercial parking demand and up to 493 parking spaces are required to meet projected evening commercial demand. Thus the proposed parking structure will provide parking to meet existing and future parking needs which is commensurate with the goals of the General Plan, Certified Coastal Land Use Plan and the downtown revitalization. Hotel Project Design The hotel will contain three floors. The building exterior is cedar shingle and contains balconies and awnings, wood trellis structures, chimney and chases, copper, wood and fabric awnings and wood railings. The cedar shingles are stained and sealed to match other wood finishes on the building. The chimneys and columns create a colonnade effect and provide articulation along the Strand and 14th Street frontage. Each room contains a balcony accessed by sliding glass doors. The rooms will be split level and contain a sleeping area, full bath, kitchenette (micro -wave oven, small refrigerator and bar sink), fireplace, pantry and closets. The project conforms to ADA requirements and contains six physically disabled accessible units. A ground floor patio area with spa and exercise court will be designed with stone paving, planting and trellises. A ten foot high garden wall will be located at the southerly property line to act as a privacy screen between the hotel and parking structure. Pedestrian access to the hotel is provided through a central lobby and there is no direct beach access from hotel rooms. An area for outdoor gathering will be available at the ground floor along the Strand at 14th Street where a meeting room adjoins a proposed public plaza. A loading area is located adjacent the central lobby with car valet service. The lobby and other public areas will be finished with hardwood flooring and carpeting and contain a high ceiling with clerestory windows and exposed wood beams. A second loading area has been designed at the terminus of 13th Street which will be available for hotel and other adjacent commercial uses. The perimeter of the hotel will be landscaped with palm trees, shrubs, ground covers and vine planting at trellis structures located at grade. Beach Drive frontage which serves as the hotel entry will contain large pots with shrubs and annual color along the building arcade. (See landscape plans.) Pedestrian plazas encompassing 12,800 square feet of area located at the terminus of 13th Street and 14th Street will also be improved with a combination of hardscape and landscaping. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the condominium use of the project. (Please See Section 5, Vesting Tentative Map). Parking Structure Design & Operations The parking structure will be designed to accommodate public parking and centralized parking for the hotel use. The structure will accommodate 480 cars (100 dedicated for hotel use). Preliminary design of the structure is split level with a portion of the ground floor level 4 feet below grade. The structure will conform to the City's 30 foot height limit and contain retail/office frontage at Hermosa Avenue and storage 4 areas. It is likely that the hotel will take access to the structure at 14th Court. Public access to the structure will likely be taken off 13th Street. Elevator access will be taken at the southeasterly and northwesterly corners of the structure and stair access is located at the northeasterly and southwesterly corners. The 30 foot high parking structure is surrounded by two and three story structures which screen it from view from the north, south and west. The easterly edge of the structure is largely screened by the Bijou Theater which is 45' in height and the new retail/office space proposed at Hermosa Avenue as part of the parking structure project. (See attached computer simulations Hermosa Inn & Parking Structure Project EIR) The operational aspects and parking rates for the structure have not been established, although the City is considering a gated entry and parking attendant system. The City's Downtown Circulation and Parking Study has recommended gated attendant parking and progressive parking rates for the structure to provide lower cost, long term parking relative to on -street parking rates. Thus parking rates on -street would favor short term retail customers while the rates for long term parking would be more favorable in the parking structure to accommodate the long term parking needs of beach goers and shoppers. The exterior design of the structure will be established in the design development phase of the project, following execution of a joint development agreement with the County of Los Angeles and parking agreement with the hotel developer. Public Improvements The off-site improvements associated with development of the project, include improvement of 14th Street with repaving and development of a cul-de-sac, compass rose and pedestrian plaza at the terminus of 14th Street, creation of an auto -court with special paving at Beach Drive contiguous with the hotel project, resurfacing and improvement of 14th Court as a though alley and improvement of 13th Street terminus as a common loading area and pedestrian plaza with installation of utility vaults serving the hotel and for public use during special events. Building Height The Commission must determine whether the existing project grade does not represent "unaltered natural grade" which the applicant contends and whether the proposed public improvements which will set the street elevation 6" higher than the current grade, can be used to set the corner point elevations for the project based upon the City's amended method for determining height. Affirmation of the above would enable the applicant to use a corner point datum 6" higher than the existing grade and construct the project as per the plan submittal. Staff believes that the area surrounding the hotel site is subject to flooding and poor drainage. These problems can be alleviated with redesign of adjacent streets and sidewalks. Setting the proposed hotel buildings below the street improvement elevations is poor planning and may result in project flooding. Therefore staff is recommending that Planning Commission accept the nearest public improvement as the elevation for measuring building height and grade for the project pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. The height limit established in the C-2 zone is 30 feet. The hotel plans require interpretation by the Planning Commission relative to: • Resolution of the base point (datum) for the corner point elevations based upon historical record • Confirmation of base point (datum) set at proposed street elevation improvement Under the City's height ordinance, building height is measured at the corner point elevations. The measurement for building height has recently been amended to include provision that: 5 In cases where there is significant variation in elevations between adjacent properties at corner points, the point of measurement shall be established based on the elevation at the nearest public improvement or an alternative point within 3 horizontal feet which, based on supporting evidence, represents existing unaltered grade. In the absence of supporting documentation, the corner point elevations shall be 112 the difference between the adjacent elevation and the elevation of the property in question. Disputes on the determination of grade are to be referred to the Planning Commission and in this case staff is referring the above items to Commission for review and confirmation. The hotel project shares it's corner point elevations with the Strand, Beach Drive, .14th Street and 13th Street in Phase One. In Phase Two, the hotel building is measured at corner point elevations adjacent to Beach Drive, 14th Street, 14th Court and private property immediately east of the project. Examining the proposed building height based upon the submitted plans and survey, without taking into consideration the proposed amended requirements for measuring grade and building height, the building exceeds the allowable height limit in several locations by approximately 6 inches. The applicant is seeking to set the datum for measuring the entire project at one elevation to simplify project construction, maintain a minimum room height of 8'-8", minimize stepping the building and avoid creating accessibility requirement problems. Based upon a topographic survey, the southwest corner site elevation of Phase One is 12.70'. The northwest corner is 13.30', the northeast is 12.60' and the southeast is 12.13'. The applicant is seeking to set the baseline elevation at 12.70'. Normally the lowest elevation (12.13') is used to set grade for a project and the building height is established as an envelop from the lowest corner point to the highest corner point of the site. Using the lowest corner point elevation would set the building 7" below 12.70', the applicant's proposed datum. Calculating the overall height from 12.70', the maximum elevation for the building would be 42.70' (12.70' + 30' = 42.70'). The applicant contends that there is evidence to support setting the building elevation at 12.70'. An original survey prepare for the Greenwood hotel development project shows the grade 6 inches higher than the current survey grade. The applicant maintains that demolition of the existing structures on the site resulted in removal of approximately 6 inches from the building elevation grade. (Please see applicant's letter.) According to the applicant's engineer, the project will remain 8" below the Strand elevation even with a base datum of 12.70', which may still result in drainage problems during heavy rains. It is further maintained by the applicant that the site was originally contiguous with the Strand elevation which is six inches higher than the current hotel site elevation. (Historical photographs indicating buildings fronting on the Strand are attached to the applicant's letter.) Additionally, environmental studies performed on the site (Phase One Site Assessment) indicate that in 1991, 48 drums of contaminated soil were removed from the site along with excavation of a basement and footings of the previous buildings on site. These factors indicate that significant amounts of soil were removed from the project site.' Beyond the historical reference to "natural, unaltered grade" of the site, the City is requiring that drainage design for streets and alleys surrounding the hotel and parking structure be brought into conformity with current drainage design standards. Beach Drive will be improved to permit surface drainage to a central swale conveying water to a drain at the southerly edge of the hotel site at 13th Street. 14th Street will be improved with new paving and 14th Court will be improved with central swale conveying drainage to Beach Drive. The proposed public improvements will reset the corner point elevations adjacent the hotel approximately 6" higher than the current street elevations. R Parking Requirements The hotel parking requirement is one space per the first 50 rooms and 1 space per 1 1/2 rooms for the remainder of rooms. Required parking for meeting rooms in the project is 1 space per 50 square feet of gross floor area. In addition, the downtown district parking ratio has been reduced to 65% of the standard parking requirement for the City. (See Required Parking Tabulation below) Tabulation Hotel Phase One Rooms 50 Rooms 1/50rms (1st 50) 65% 50 50(.65) 32.5 • 6 Rooms 1 / 1 1/2 per rm. 65% (2nd 50) = 6 (.66) 3.9 (.65) 2.6 Mtg.Rooms • 1,482 sq.ft. 1/50 sq. ft. 65% = 29.6 29.6(.65) 19.2 Hotel Phase Two Rooms • 40 Rooms 40(.66) 65% 26.4 26.4(.65) 17.16 Mtg. Rooms • 1,568 sq.ft. 1/50sq.ft 65% :..... K.. ......... ...:............................ *Interim and permanent off-site parking, and tandem/valet parking permitted through Paring Plan. ......: a tai►....�ww:1........ +e ......"ecu......... Parking Structure Retail 7000 Sq. Ft.* 1/250 GFA 65%(28) 18.2 18 *May partially include police substation and/or parking enforcement with no required parking Hotel Parking by Phase Parking for Phase One will be provided on an interim basis through construction of 51 parking spaces and some tandem valet parking located on the 14th Street portion of the project site east of Beach Drive. An unused portion of 14th Court would be utilized on an interim basis (through license agreement) by the applicant to provide eight parking spaces for the project. The applicant is proposing to obtain on an interim basis eight parking spaces from the City utilizing a portion of an unused alley which has been incorporated into Lot "C". A license agreement will be negotiated with the developer for use of the right-of-way for the eight parking spaces. Use of right-of-way will be terminated in Phase Two of the project. In addition, the applicant will restripe Lot "C" and a portion of 13th Street, where required, in order to fully reallocate any public parking impacted with the use of the alley (14th Court) during Phase One. (See attached 13th Street restriping plan) 7 Phase Two of the project parking will be provided in an adjacent parking structure to be constructed by the City in partnership with the County of Los Angeles. 100 parking spaces will be sold to the hotel developer at the appraised fair market value for the parking, as the full complement of required parking. This parking will be provided in a central location in the structure and secured with a card key gate. The final design of the parking structure has not been completed. With execution of the parking structure joint development agreement with the County and parking agreement with the applicant, the City will complete design of the parking structure. Phase One parking will require valet service to accommodate a three space deficiency in required parking. Phase Two parking may require valet service to a remote parking facility in the event that the City's parking structure has not been completed at commencement of construction, although this is consider unlikely. (See Parking Plan and Project Alternatives sections). Circulation Relative to Hotel & Parking Structure A traffic study has been prepared for the project. "Expected" traffic volumes were utilized in the study based upon the Downtown Circulation and Parking Study prepared for the City in April 1996. Traffic volumes were increased by 1% to the year 2000, and include the anticipated build out of the downtown during this period in order to assess the project under a "maximum impact" condition for downtown circulation and parking.2 Traffic counts were conducted for 11 major intersections According to the study, the total peak trip generation for the hotel and parking structure will be will be 149 trips. Considering the project impacts in the "worst case scenario, seven of the 11 .intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better (no discernible delay), three intersections on PCH continue to operate at LOS E and one intersection drops to LOS F. With the exception of Pier Avenue at PCH, traffic generation contributed by the project will not have a significant impact upon these intersections.' Lane reconfiguration of PCH at Pier Avenue is recommended to mitigate project impacts to a level of insignificance for the one intersection which drop in LOS and monitoring for future potential mitigation is recommended for the Pier/Monterey Avenue intersection. Impacts from access to the parking structure were also identified in the study. Traffic moving to the proposed Lot "C" parking structure will require significant left turn lane storage capacity which could ultimately impact the LOS and Volume Capacity Ratios of adjacent intersections. This additional storage capacity can be accommodated by creating a split phase traffic signal operation for the 13th Street/Hermosa Avenue intersection and the traffic lane next to the median on Hermosa Avenue could be restriped from a through lane to a left -through lane option lane for increased capacity. These improvements would mitigate the problem of queuing for access to the parking structure via 13th Street. Alternately, traffic can be routed to 14th Street by eliminating left turn (northbound) access to the parking structure, but this would negatively impact the proposed hotel development by burdening the Beach Drive intersection at 14th Street with most of the downtown trips to the parking structure. It would also significantly increase the travel time and distance to enter the parking structure. The primary entrance to the hotel project is taken off Beach Drive which is to be designed as an auto -court. 14th Street would be improved with a cul-de-sac. Two loading areas would be provided for the hotel. A 60 foot loading/drop off area would be provided at the hotel lobby and a second loading area would be located at the southern edge of the hotel at 13th Street. The drop-off is eight feet wide and will store three vehicles. The width of Beach Drive can be increased to provide a 22 foot wide roadway width or two 11 foot traveling lanes which will mitigate impacts of loading at the hotel lobby. Shuttle Service Construction of the parking structure and Phase Two hotel will temporarily displace 280 parking spaces which includes parking currently provided on City owned Lots `B" and "C" and parking located on Thirteenth and Fourteenth Streets which will also be impacted by hotel construction staging. (See attached figure - Construction Staging Areas and Shuttle Concept Plan). The temporary displacement of parking will be offset with use of shuttle service. The City is planning to operate an employee shuttle program to remote parking lots in the Downtown. The shuttle is proposed to alleviate employee parking demand which consumes 354 parking spaces during peak evening demand periods and offset the parking displaced with construction. The shuttle service is tentatively scheduled to commence in early 1997 and operate six hours daily in two hour increments in the early morning, mid-day and late evening. The owner/applicant will contribute 20% of the operational cost during the construction period ( See Shuttle Concept Plan and Schedule) The shuttle can service both private and public parking needs with access to 314 public parking spaces and up to 100 parking space on private property serving hotel guests as required. In addition, the applicant may need to provide valet service to remote parking lots on an interim basis if the construction of the parking structure is delayed. Eventually, a shuttle service to accommodate both employees and patrons may be developed following completion of the hotel and parking structure construction. Details of the shuttle service are described in the attached Shuttle Concept Plan. Hotel Operations The hotel partnership operates other hotels in the Northern California area. These hotels include the Stanford Park, Monterey Plaza Hotel, Napa Valley Lodge, Bodega Bay Lodge, Half Moon Bay Lodge and Lafayette Park Hotel. The Beach House is under construction in Half Moon Bay and is a condominium ownership hotel developed by Keenan Land Company and managed by Sea View Company. Sea View Company, the hotel operator for the Hermosa Inn will be responsible for the management of the hotel project. The Seascape Resort and Conference Center which opened in 1993 in Santa Cruz is an example of the condominium ownership proposed in the Hermosa Inn project.4 It is similar is several respects; Owner occupancy is limited to 90 days per calendar year with a 29 consecutive day maximum stay, permanent on- site staff are available who handle central reservations and housekeeping, a catering kitchen is available and it is a coastal project with seasonal peak periods and meeting room facilities which are intended to help balance peak and non -peak occupancy.' The purchase price and daily room rate for Seascape Resort is similar to purchase price and room rates for the Hermosa Inn units. The hotel is to be developed as a condominium with individual suites sold to investors who can occupy the units for up to 90 days during a calendar year (with no more than 29 consecutive day stay) and receive a portion of the income from the daily rental of their hotel room. Investors will pay for overhead and maintenance costs for the hotel facilities through fees paid to a central management company. Concerns relative to the proposed ownership and operation of the hotel include: Use of the units as permanent residence Insufficient parking if used as permanent residential use Inconsistent land use relative to General Plan requirements if used for non -transient occupancy W These concerns relative to use and operation of the hotel can be addressed with the following: • Central guest registration through a hotel management company on a 24 hour basis • Central housekeeping and other related hotel staffing on a daily basis • Minimum 9 month transient occupancy tax verified through City audit. • Prohibition of owner occupancy exceeding 90 days per calendar year, maximum 29 consecutive days • Quarterly occupancy audits provided at applicant's expense through hotel management company • Parking agreement provisions to ensure transient occupancy rather than permanent residence Thus the project Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit, quarterly audits for transient occupancy tax, project Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, and the project parking agreement will ensure that the hotel remains transient occupancy and is not a permanent residence. The hotel project is projected to be fully occupied during summer peak season. During non -peak periods the operator is proposing to attract occupants with use of meeting room space. The hotel will operate with three small meeting rooms ranging from 474 to 504 square feet per room in the first phase of the development at the Strand. The second phase of the project will provide two meeting rooms of 784 square feet which can be combined to provide 1,568 square feet of space. The meeting rooms are not designed to accommodate large events. Calculating occupant load at 15 square feet per occupant, the smaller meeting rooms will accommodate between 20 to 30 occupants and the larger combined meeting room in phase two of the project will accommodate up to 100 occupants. The smaller meeting rooms comprise 50% of the project meeting room space. In other cities with similar accommodations, the peak and off-peak periods are balanced by use of meeting rooms, with catering facilities. Weddings, business meetings, club events and small professional gatherings are likely users of the meeting room facilities and hotel during non -peak periods. Half Moon Bay Planning Department reports that a similar project, the Seascape Resort, is fully sold and that a second phase of the project has been pre -sold. Hotel room occupancy rates were running at 70% during the second year and the corresponding use of units by condominium owners dropped from 45 days to 33 days during this period and the conference room use is heavily used.6 2. Analysis of the Proiect - Financial Impacts - Hotel/Parking Structure Revenues to City The proposed hotel will provide transient occupancy tax (TOT) and property tax to the City as a condominium development. The project is to be developed as a condominium but rented on a daily basis as a hotel. Condominium owners will be limited to no more than 90 days of occupancy annually. The hotel will generate $260,000 of TOT per year and $40,000 of property tax annually. The parking structure will provide another revenue source to the City. Under a draft agreement with the County, potential annual parking revenues of up to $300,000 would accrue to the City inclusive of maintenance and operation costs. The project revenues may be more or less depending upon downtown patronage and use of the parking structure. Up to $9,000,000 would accrue calculating the above annual revenue stream over the 30 year term of the agreement with the County. The parking structure will accommodate existing parking demand and permit up to 107,694 square feet of additional development pursuant to downtown parking requirements at 1 space per 385 square feet of GFA. The downtown sales tax generated from this added development is $172,310 per year (based upon $ 160 per square foot of retail sales)' (Please see Project Revenue Summary below) 10 In addition to funding off-site improvements and revenues to the City, the hotel is expected to generate "spin-off' commercial activity in the downtown. According to industry standards, hotels on average generate approximately $51 per day on shopping and non-food items. This average suggests that a 100 room hotel will generate $1,209,975 in annual shopping/ non-food business activity.$ Restaurant uses can expect up to $788,400 in additional annual sales based upon related hotel commercial activity -9 Hotel Property Tax $ 40,000 Hotel Transient Occupancy Tax $260,000 Retail Sales Tax/Parking Structure $ 11,200 Added Development/Sales Tax Parking Structure $172,310 Parking Structure Revenue $300,000 Hotel Spin -Off Retail Sales/ Sales Tax $ 12,099 Hotel Spin -Off Restaurant Sales/ Sales Tax $ 8,541 Total Annual Revenue $804,150 279 surplus parking spaces x 386 sq. ft. = 107,694 sq. ft. $160 x 107,694 = $17,231,040 x.01 = $172,310 Spin-off annual sales/$51 p/day shopping @ 100 rms= $1,861,500 x 65% occupancy = $1,209,975 x.01 = $12,099 Spin-off annual sales/$36 p/day restaurant @ 100 rms =$1,314,000 x.65% occupancy = $854,100 x.01 =$8541 Parking Struct Retail 7000 sq.ft x $160 = $11,200,000 x.01 = $11,200, Parking Structure Revenue assumes 60% occupancy 3. Analysis of the Project - Parking Plan The applicant is requesting a Parking Plan to permit parking off-site under Phase One and Phase Two of the project. A Parking Plan is required for the following: • Phase One parking in conjunction with interim offsite parking agreement • Phase One tandem parking for three parking spaces • Phase Two permanent offsite parking in conjunction with parking structure Under Phase One of the project the applicant is proposing to obtain through license agreement, an unused portion of 14th Court adjacent the hotel site. The project will provide 8 spaces of surplus parking. (92 parking spaces are required under downtown parking requirements and 100 spaces are provide under Phase Two of the project.) Pursuant to Section 17.44.2 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission can consider various factor to reduce the applicable number of required parking spaces providing there is an adequate complement of parking to satisfy parking needs. In Phase One of the project, the applicant is providing three spaces less than required parking. (54 spaces are required and 51 are provided.) The applicant is seeking to provide tandem/valet parking for three parking spaces to satisfy off -space parking requirements during Phase One. The hotel will also maintain valet parking staff as a Condition of Approval in Phase Two of the project. Staff believes that the proposal to valet park three tandem spaces on an interim basis is reasonable and should be approved and that parking for Phase One through interim use of a portion of 14th Court (which is currently an unused public right-of-way) is reasonable given that it is contiguous with the applicant's on-site Phase One parking. The Phase Two provision of parking in the City owned parking structure is also reasonable in that it is adjacent the hotel and given that the developer is acquiring the hotel parking based upon the appraised fair market value for the parking spaces. 11 5. Analysis of the Project - Vesting Tentative Tract Map The hotel project will require an air space subdivision to create 96 hotel/condominium units and merger of 14 lots which were created under a previous division of land. The proposed subdivision conforms to the Chapter 16.16 Vesting Tentative Maps, Chapter 16.20, Section 16.20.030 - Merger of Parcels and Chapter 17.22, Sections 17.22.040 - 17.22.140 Commercial / Industrial Condominiums - of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. The project conforms to the Subdivision Ordinance as a commercial condominium under Section 17.22.120 of the Municipal Code. The hotel project provides a design with adequate open space, off-street parking, pedestrian and auto circulation, proper orientation relative to the surrounding environment and topography and establishes covenants, conditions and restrictions ensuring continuous and centralized management to minimize impact upon the public health, safety and welfare consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. The project also provides for common areas, fire protection equipment, right of public entry to common areas and establishes assessments and remedies for non-payment of assessments for common parking pursuant to the Ordinance. The hotel project will be adequately served by water, sewer and electric utilities and conforms to all parcel merger requirements relative to parcel siting, access, size, water, sewage, slope stability, health and safety standards. Further, the hotel project will not violate any provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance or Subdivision Map Act. The hotel project conforms to Article 3.5 Public Access to Public Resources (Access to Coastline), Section 6647 8. 11 which provides that no local agency shall approve either the tentative or the final map of any subdivision fronting upon the coastline or shoreline which subdivision does not provide or have available reasonable public coastal access. The project improves two pedestrian connections to the Beach and the Strand via 13th and 14th Street improvements as pedestrian plazas. 6 Analysis of the Project - General Plan Consistency with Lease of City Owned Property and Conveyance of Parking in City Owned Parking Structure Pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code, Restrictions on Acquisition and Disposal of Real Property, a local agency shall not dispose of any real property (sale, long-term lease or easement) until the location, purpose and extent of such disposition has been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction as to conformity with the adopted General Plan or part thereof. The proposed parking easement agreement for 100 spaces within the proposed parking structure and parking license agreement for a portion of 14th Court to provide interim parking for Phase One of the project is in conformance with the goals of the General Plan which calls for: • Maximizing commercial uses on downtown commercial properties • Encouraging new businesses and more efficient commercial space utilization • Providing sufficient parking supply to support existing and proposed commercial uses • Encouraging property upgrading and new investment in downtown The long-term parking easement agreement will be established based upon the appraised fair market value for the parking spaces. An appraisal of the value for 100 parking spaces is $1,100,000. The City will require that the spaces be available for hotel use permanently subject to termination for default (including termination of the CUP due to failure to comply with requirement for hotel development and operation). The parking agreement includes easements of ingress and egress from the ground floor or any other area of 12 the parking structure and payment of pro -rata share of the operation and maintenance based upon an annual operation and maintenance budget for the structure. The easement agreement contains a performance schedule for receipt of development permits, building permits, completion of the hotel project by phase and hotel occupancy. A parking license agreement to provide interim parking along 14th Court in connection with Phase One of the hotel project is also subject to approval relative to conformity with the General Plan as described in Section 3 of this report. The parking agreements are subject to City Council approval. 7. Analysis of the Project- C.M.P Pursuant to requirements of the 1993 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County, an analysis was prepared to determine the potential impacts on designated locations on the CMP highway system. The analysis indicates that relative to the one impacted designated location, Pacific Coast Highway and Gould Avenue/Artesia Boulevard, the project will not have a significant impact at the CMP monitoring station in the project vicinity. The proposed project is in conformance with the City's adopted Congestion Management Program. 8. Analysis of the Proiect - Hotel and Parking Structure Construction Phasing The hotel project is to be built in two phases. Phase One involves construction over an 11 month period of 56 units fronting the Strand. Phase Two involves development of 40 units along 14th Street east of Beach Drive and construction of the City's parking structure. The Phase Two hotel involves 11 months of construction and the parking structure involves 12 - 18 months of construction. The Phase One project will likely run concurrent with development of the parking structure resulting in an estimated construction period of up to two years. Development of the Phase Two hotel will likely overlap construction of the parking structure resulting in a total project construction period of two years under the fastest track for project construction. In order to accommodate the construction of the hotel and parking structure, portions of Thirteenth Street, Fourteenth Street and Lot `B" will likely be utilized on an interim basis for construction staging (storage of construction materials and equipment.) The use of these areas will displace parking on a temporary basis and as shown on the attached exhibit. The displaced parking will be off -set with shuttle service to parking areas on Upper Pier Avenue as described above. HOTEL & PARKING STRUCTURE TIMELINE 13 1997 1998 J F M a e a n b r A M J J A S O N D p a u u u e c o e r y n 1 g P t v c J F M a e a n b r A M J p a u r y n J A S u u e 1 g P O N D c o e t v c Hotel Construction: Phase One Hotel Construction: Phase Two Parking Structure Downtown Shuttle: Interim Plan 13 9. Analysis of Proiect Alternatives: As provided under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), potential environmental impacts of the proposed project must be considered to avoid or minimize such impacts and to consider alternatives to the project. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines which is attached to the staff report. The EIR assesses four alternative projects which based upon the environmental analysis do not meet the project objectives and/or result in appreciably less impacts to the environment. (Please see attached EIR) The impacts resulting from the project which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance are: • Loss of certain existing ocean and coastal views • Temporary exposure of sensitive land uses to high noise levels due to general construction • Temporary nuisances to residential, commercial, and recreational uses from construction • Air quality impacts above SCAQMD thresholds generated traffic and electrical and gas usage Recommendation: 1. Receive testimony and consider the project application and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 2. Certify approval of the project FEIR subject to the attached resolution 3. Approve the project subject to Conditions of Approval in the attached Resolution Sol lumenf d, irector Community velopment Department Attachments: 1. Final Environmental Impact Report 2. Resolutions 3. Hotel Project Plans 4. Hotel Operations/Staffing 5 General Plan/Zoning Maps 6. Company Background 7. Construction. Staging Diagram 8. Shuttle/Parking Concept 9. Business/Property Owner Petition 10. Hotel Revenue Projections 11. Building Height Documentation 12. Preliminary Plan Parking Structure Notes: 1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Levine Fricke, June 1996 & Accompanying EIR Memorandum 2. City of Hermosa Beach Downtown Circulation and Parking Study, April 1996 3. Ibid. & EIR Traffic Study 4. City of Half Moon Bay - Planning Department, June 1995. 5. Ibid 6. Ibid. 7. Gobar Associates, 1996 8. Los Angeles Visitor and Convention Bureau, "Visitors to L.A. County, Spending Per Group Per Day in Selected Categories by Purpose of Visit, CIC Research Inc. April 1991. 9. Ibid. ($36.00 p/day "meals out" --$36 x 365 days x 100 rooms x.60 occupancy = $788,400 added sales. 14 r USER r 121. RICHARDS, WATSON & 43ERS14ON Attorneys at Law — A Profeaalonsl CorparstiM •338 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 38TN FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 50071-1469 Switchboard (213) 626-6484 Teiecopier (213).626-0076 TELECOPY COYER SHEET INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE iS PMVILEGED p FIOEN77AL INFORMATIOk INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INr8NDE0 ENT NAMED BELOW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE Y NOTIFIED THAT ANY COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR EMINATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF IT TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INTENDED IS STIUCTLY NiPROHI6ITED. IF You HAVE RECEIVED THIS MUCATiON IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTVY us BY TELEFHQNE RETUM THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ArjoaM IIIA THE STATas POSTAL SERVICE. To: oel faf From: '�v� Fax Num r:,,, Telephone: Total Papas (including this shoot): Our File N .: Subject:Ila.r•N--sc n Date: Document B) TOlecopied: �s Remarks: Richards, W I tson & Gershon uses Xerox Modal 7032/7033 telecopianL This *Wpinrnt is ompstibia Wth most Croup 2 and 3 telacopy machines. If you have difficulty re Ak*q any pages, 0280 telephone our services canter at (213) 253-0420. rime sent Operator $31 1102 ass A410JMM �.,,..,,,�,.... .-..... ..... - ..�.._. -- ---- - 11/27/96 17:40 TX/RX N0.0904 P.001 Al IAl;ri1 EIN 1 L 40 AID RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANN �APPR�OVI SSION THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALI RNIA, ITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PARKING PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT -MAP NO. 52158; AND FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE OF PARKING SPACES IN A CITY PARKING STRUCTURE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, ALL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 96 ROOM HOTEL AT 1300 THE STRAND AND A PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE WITH UP TO 480 SPACES ON AN ADJACENT CITY OWNED PARKING LOT (LOT "C") The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby Find, Order, and Resolve as follows: Section 1. On December 11, 1995 Keenan Land Company (the "Applicant") filed an application for a conditional use permit, precise development plan, parking plan, vesting tentative tract map, and airspace encroachment permit for the development of a proposed 96 room hotel (the "Hotel Project") at 1300 The Strand (the "Hotel Site"). Section 2. The Hotel Project will be constructed in two phases. Phase One involves the construction of 56 hotel units fronting The Strand with temporary surface parking for 56 cars to be provided by the Applicant on the easterly portion of the Hotel Site. Phase Two, to be constructed later, involves the construction of 40 additional hotel units along 14th Street, replacing the surface parking provided for Phase One. Phase Two also includes construction by the City of the parking structure described in Section 3 of this Resolution, below. Section 3. The City desires to construct a 380 space public parking structure on a City owned parking lot (Lot "C", the "Parking Structure Site") located adjacent to the site of the Hotel Project. The Applicant has requested the ability to satisfy part of the parking requirement for the Hotel Project by acquiring 100 spaces in the Parking Structure. The four level Parking Structure is therefore proposed to contain 480 parking spaces, along with 7,000 square feet of retail and office uses located along Hermosa Avenue (the "Parking Structure", collectively with the Hotel Project, the "Projects"). Section 4. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 1996 to consider approval of the Hotel Project. Having heard and considered all oral and written testimony, including staff reports and the Final certified Environmental Impact Reports for the Projects and all relevant evidence and argument, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: A. The sites are zoned C-2, Restricted Commercial. The sites are physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development Projects, in that the site proposed for the Hotel Project consists of a large vacant property of approximately .72 acres which fronts on the Strand and the beach, while the site proposed for the parking structure is a one acre parcel already developed with a City -owned parking lot. B. The Projects are consistent with the General Plan designations of GC (General Commercial -- Hotel Site) and CR (Commercial Recreation -- Parking Structure Site). C. As conditioned herein, the Projects will conform to all zoning and condominium regulations and will be compatible with neighboring commercial and residential properties. D. The Projects conform to the goals and objectives of the General Plan calling for: • Maximized commercial uses on downtown commercial properties • Encouraging new businesses and more efficient commercial space utilization • Providing sufficient parking supply supporting existing commercial uses and proposed growth • Allowing off-site public parking and or private parking within a reasonable distance to satisfy parking requirements • Encouraging property upgrading and new investment in downtown. E. The subdivision and proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that no such easements currently exist across the site proposed for the Hotel project. F. The air space easement to accommodate a pedestrian bridge connecting the easterly and westerly portions of the Hotel Project will not conflict with the existing and proposed use of Beach Drive in that the pedestrian bridge will be constructed well above the clearance space necessary for pedestrian and vehicular use. G. The parking plan to accommodate Hotel project parking off- site will permit efficient development consistent with the scale and use of surrounding properties. H. The proposed parking easement to provide long term parking for the Hotel Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan, in that the parking easement will permit the Hotel project to meet the City's - 2 - parking requirements without displacing street parking and other existing parking resources. I. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and certified a project Environmental Impact Report ("the EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 96051009) and Mitigation Monitoring Program in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) through the adoption of Resolution No. 96- , which Resolution is incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Because the EIR identified significant unavoidable environmental impacts from the projects, the Planning Commission balanced the benefits of the projects against the unavoidable risks and adopted a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (a) . J. The proposed hotel and parking structure are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Local Coastal Plan relative to encouraging visitor serving uses in the downtown; K. The Hotel Project is located within the Downtown Enhancement District (DED). Pursuant to Section 17.44.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, and Amendment Number 6 of the Certified.Coastal-Land Use Plan, application of a parking requirement that is 650 of the standard parking requirement for the City is appropriate, as supported by the following findings: , 1. Fewer than 96,250 square feet of commercial development, including new buildings, expansions, and/or intensification of uses in the DED has received a Coastal Development Permit since November 1, 1994. 2. There will be adequate parking to support the development and to provide adequate beach parking, in that the Projects include construction of a 480 space parking structure on site. 3. A parking study recently completed for the downtown area shows the occupancy of the parking spaces in the. downtown is 90s or less during daylight hours on summer weekends, and no more than 24,063 square feet of commercial development has occurred since the study. L. .The development of the hotel and parking structure will promote downtown revitalization opportunities, in that the hotel will attract visitors to the downtown area. M. For the purpose of determining the measurement of grade and building height, the corner point elevations shall be established at the proposed street elevation improvements as have been approved by the .City's Department of Public Works. Supporting - 3 - evidence has been presented to the Planning Commission to indicate that the proposed street elevation improvements represent the previous unaltered grade. Therefore, the hotel project is in conformance with the height limit for C-2 zoned property. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby.approves Conditional Use Permit No. , Precise Development Plan No. , the parking plan for the Hotel Project submitted on December 11, 1995, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52158, subject to the following conditions: A. PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AND USE REQUIREMENTS 1. The construction and continuing use of the Hotel Project shall conform to the submitted plans approved by the Planning Commission. Any minor modifications shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Precise building height, as approved by the Planning Commission, shall be verified at the time of plan check, prior to the issuance of building permits, by the Community Development Director. The Hotel Project shall conform to height requirements, and building elevations shall comply with Section 17.26.50 and Section 17.42.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Design, construction, and continuing use of the Hotel Project shall comply with all requirements of the Public Works, Fire and Finance Departments. 5. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plans. 6. The applicant shall fully fund and construct, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, all off-site improvements reflected on the final plans for the Hotel Project and approved by the Planning Commission. Off-site improvements to be funded and constructed by the applicant shall include, without limitation: a. Beach Drive: repave Beach Drive contiguous with the project as an auto court; b. 14th Street: Reconstruct and repave 14th Street between Hermosa Avenue and the Strand including the cul-de-sac; - 4 - C. 14th Court: Repave 14th Court; and d. 13th Street: Repave 13th street between Hermosa Avenue and the Strand; install and permanently maintain project landscaping; install the project electrical transformer; install the City electrical transformer; construct and maintain common loading area at 13th Street pursuant to plans approved by Planning Commission. 7. All off-site improvements shown on approved plans shall be completed prior to occupancy of Phase One of the project. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One, the applicant shall obtain an airspace encroachment permit or other acceptable entitlement from the City Council for the bridge connecting the easterly and westerly project buildings. 9. Project signs shall comply with Chapter 17.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Directional signs shall be provided for remote interim parking (as required by the Community Development Director) and to permanent parking structure parking. 10. The hotel developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney, that full construction financing has been secured prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map shall be null and void eighteen months from the date of approval unless building permits have been obtained for Phase One. 12. Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty four months after the date of approval unless the final map is approved and Phase One of the Project fully constructed. The Applicant may apply in writing to the Planning Commission prior to expiration for a time extension. 13. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-4, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Department that water facilities on the Hotel Site meet the. fire flow requirement established by the Fire Department. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service Company ("CWSC") to determine whether upgrades are necessary and, if so, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with CWSC to fund and construct the necessary improvements. If improvements are determined to be necessary, improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of - 5 - building permits. Construction of all necessary upgrades shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase One. 14. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 of the EIR, in order to prevent high noise levels and nuisance noise associated with The Strand, the proposed parking structure, and special events, from affecting hotel guests, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall provide an acoustical study performed by a licensed acoustical engineer which establishes the mitigation measures necessary to limit maximum interior noise levels in the hotel units fronting on The Strand and facing the City parking structure to LDN 45dBA. Such measures shall include, without limitation, the installation of double -pained windows in all rooms. 15. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) of the EIR, construction equipment shall be equipped with all feasible noise -control devices 16. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-4(e) - (k) of the EIR the project shall be designed and operated so as to minimize emissions from energy consumption: -''Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company shall be consulted during project design, and all feasible energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into the project; and - The Applicant shall install energy efficient street and surface parking lighting, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, such as high pressure sodium, low pressure sodium, metal halide or clean lucalox; and - The Applicant shall install low polluting, energy efficient appliances for hotel uses; and - The Applicant shall incorporate passive solar designs where appropriate; and - The design of the Hotel Project shall include cascading ventilation from high-priority (occupied space) areas to low -priority space (corridors, equipment, and mechanical space) areas before the air is exhausted; and - The Hotel Project design shall facilitate the use of electric yard maintenance equipment through the placement of exterior outlets throughout the project. B. ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPING, AND SCREENING - 6 - 17. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on the approved building elevation plans. Minor modifications may be approved by the Community Development Director. 18. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(a) final plans for landscaping.the pedestrian plazas at 13th Street and 14th Street at the Strand shall specify plant species and concentrate landscaping along the edges of the street rights-of-way with the goal of framing an maintaining as much of the a view corridor to the ocean as feasible. 19. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) rooftop equipment shall be screened from all off-site vantage points, and mechanical equipment shall be contained within rooftop penthouses. Rooftop screening materials shall be complimentary in material and color to the building's exterior, and shall be submitted in advance for review and approval by the Planning Division. 20. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(c) service areas shall be screened from off-site views and trash containers shall be enclosed using materials complimentary to the buildings. C. CONSTRUCTION & PHASING 21. The project shall be constructed in two phases. Phase One construction will include the development of 56 rooms, 1,482 sq. ft. meeting room, central lobby and surface parking for 54 cars on the project site and loading areas at 13th Street and Beach Drive pursuant to City approved project plans. Phase Two of the project involves the construction of 40 rooms, 1,568 sq. ft. of meeting room space, a bridge connecting Phase One and Phase Two projects, laundry area and spa area. 22. Construction staging shall be as shown on approved project staging plans per the Project EIR. Requests for alternate construction staging shall be considered through written request to the Community Development Department. 23. Phase One of the project shall be completed within two years of the date of project approval. Phase Two of the project shall be completed within four years of the date of project approval. 24. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(e) of the EIR, the applicant and the City shall coordinate in the preparation of a Construction Operation Plan and Program. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits by the Director of Community Development. The plan shall incorporate the following: - 7 - • Specifications for fencing of the site, construction staging areas, and pedestrian canopies. • Limitations on construction activities by date and hour. • A scaled plan that depicts pedestrian circulation routes and demonstrates the maintenance of safe and open access to the beach, The Strand, and Noble Park during project construction. 25. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the EIR, as part of the City review and development of the Construction Operation Plan and Program, the height and design of fencing and pedestrian canopies shall be evaluated to ensure maximum screening of views to site and aesthetic concerns. 26. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) of the EIR, construction hours for the project shall be limited to Monday thru Friday between 8:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., on Saturday between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., with no construction allowed on Sunday. From June 15th thru September 15th (peak summer season) there shall be no construction on Saturdays and legal holidays. 27. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) of the EIR, in order to avoid conflicts with special events held in the project area, construction on the site shall be suspended on certain days as determined appropriate by the City. Prior to any demolition or.construction for the parking structure or the hotel, special event days that would require suspension of construction shall be identified by the City. The hotel proponent and the contractors for both the hotel and/or the parking structure shall be informed of these dates by the City as soon as feasible, and compliance with the schedule shall be enforced by the City. The City shall retain the right to change or extend the dates when warranted to ensure that special events are not significantly impacted by project construction. 28. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(d) of the EIR, no closure, either temporary or permanent shall be allowed on the existing public walkway known as The Strand. All construction equipment shall gain access to the site from public rights-of-way other than The Strand. To avoid hazards to Strand users during construction along The Strand, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian canopy in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. 29. Pursuant to Mitigation measure interference with special event the construction period for the - 8 - 4.7-5(f), to avoid set-up and operation during Phase I hotel, Thirteenth Street at The Strand shall be made available for special event trucks if required. 30. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(a) of the EIR, the hotel developer shall include in its construction contract a clause which stipulates, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, that the contractor will recycle materials used in construction to the extent feasible in order to divert construction waste from regional landfills. D. HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 31. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, the hotel developer shall contribute a fair share towards the construction of a 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain at the Thirteenth Street and Beach Drive sump, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage. The fair share contribution shall be calculated based upon the project's contribution to runoff which would be directed to the storm drain, as determined by the Public Works Director. Construction of the storm drain shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase One. E. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION 32. The project shall conform to requirements of Section 17.48 of the Zoning Ordinance, Trip Reduction and Travel Management standards - non-residential projects of 50,000 square feet or greater. 33. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, the City and the hotel developer shall jointly fund improvements to the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue intersection based on fair share contributions. The eastbound lanes at the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue intersection shall be changed from their existing configuration to a dual left -turn and right turn. 34. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, in order to address the vehicular circulation associated with the Parking Structure, the traffic signals and the intersections at 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue shall be modified as follows, prior to the completion of the Parking Structure: • 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue - Provide left -through option lane on northbound Hermosa Avenue, and modify existing traffic signal to produce split operation on Hermosa Avenue. • Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - Provide left -through option lane on southbound Hermosa Avenue, and modify - 9 - existing.traffic signal to produce split phase operation on Hermosa Avenue. F. PARKING; PARKING BY PHASE; CONSTRUCTION PARKING 35. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall provide parking for not less than 54 cars on the portion of the project site bounded by 14th Street, Beach Drive and 14th Court. The Applicant shall enter into a lease, encroachment permit, or other mechanism acceptable to the City for use of Fourteenth Court to provide a portion of the required parking for Phase One. The Applicant shall improve approximately 80 linear feet of right-of-way along Fourteenth Court to provide the required parking for Phase One. 36. The encroachment permit and/or lease agreement shall terminate upon commencement of construction of Phase Two of the Hotel Project, and at such time the use of Fourteenth Court shall revert to the City. 37. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall submit an interim parking plan for City approval. The parking plan shall implement the various conditions of approval and mitigation measures set forth in this Part "E". 38. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall restripe public parking Lot "C" and a portion of Thirteenth Street, in order to fully off -set the loss of public parking with the use of Fourteenth Court during Phase One. 39. The Applicant shall provide valet parking service for the Projects during Phase One and Phase Two construction. 40. The Applicant shall fund not less than 200 of maintenance and operation costs for a shuttle service to accommodate displaced parking for the duration of parking structure construction. The Applicant shall accommodate any displaced parking in Phase One on site as required by the parking mitigation measures established in the project EIR. 41. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(a) of the EIR, if the Planning Division determines during the plan check process or at any time thereafter that parking for construction workers and construction vehicles cannot be accommodated within construction staging areas, the Applicant shall provide at no cost to construction workers remote parking outside the downtown area, in areas not proposed for use by the shuttle service. The applicant shall ensure that construction contractor's require employees to use off- - 10 - street parking. Such remote parking shall remain in use until the completion of construction of Phase One. 42. The Developer shall acquire through lease or .easement agreement with the City, the right for hotel patrons to use not less than 100 parking spaces in the Parking Structure. The Parking Structure shall be constructed and fully operational prior to commencement of construction of Phase Two of the Hotel Project. 43. Upon the completion of Phase Two, all parking for the Hotel guests shall be provided in the Parking Structure or on the Hotel site. The Certificate of Occupancy for Phases One and Two shall be conditioned upon the continued provision of parking in the Parking Structure. 44. In the event that the City parking structure is not completed prior to occupancy of Phase Two, the Applicant shall secure adequate off-site parking by covenant, lease, easement or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney for the interim period. 45. The Applicant shall provide permanent, dedicated, off-street parking spaces for Hotel employees at a rate of one space per employee during all phases of Hotel operation. Employee parking space requirements shall be in addition to space requirements for Hotel guests. G. AIR QUALITY 46. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) of the EIR, all required actions necessary to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts off-site sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts -visible emissions from construction, shall be implemented as part of the proposed project. Prior to the approval of grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that such compliance will be achieved. All such approved actions shall be listed on the Grading Plan under the General Notes Section. The Applicant shall reimburse City for all costs of independent review of said compliance measures by SCAQMD or a qualified air quality consultant of the City's choice. 47. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(b) of the EIR, the project shall minimize fugitive dust emissions, through the application of the following and other measures as necessary: - Spread soil blinders on the Project site, on unpaved roads and in parking areas; and - Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; and - Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public roadways or occurs as a result of hauling; and - Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements; and - Wash trucks leaving the Project site; and - Suspend all grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. 48. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(c) of the EIR, the project shall minimize fugitive dust emissions by maintaining water trucks on-site at all times during construction to keep soil moist and prevent fugitive dust from escaping the project site. 49. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 of the EIR, to the extent feasible, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures dictated by the SCAQMD including, without limitation, the following measures: - Low emission on-site mobile construction equipment shall be employed; and - All construction shall be maintained in tune per manufacturer's specifications; and - Electric, gasoline -powered and methanol -powered equipment shall be substituted for diesel -powered construction equipment where feasible; and - The construction contractor shall not permit equipment to be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than two minutes); and - All construction activities shall cease during Stage 2 smog alerts; and - Existing power sources shall be used at the Project site where feasible.. The Applicant shall avoid using temporary power generators; and - Construction activities shall be planned and undertaken to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. H. SECTION IV - HOTEL OPERATION' - 12 - 50. The project shall be operated as a hotel with daily linen service, central lobby, front desk check in, valet parking service and central guest registration with management available on a 24 hour basis pursuant Chapter 17.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 51. The hotel shall be staffed with full time staff consisting of the following; General Manager, Assistant Manager, Front Desk supervisor, front desk clerks, building engineer, housekeeping supervisor, housekeeping staff, account staff clerk, night auditor, valet attendants, sales manager, catering manager, reservation clerks. 52. Daily linen services shall be provided during Phase One development with contract linen/laundry services provide from an off-site vendor. Linen/laundry services will be provided on-site in Phase Two of project development. 53. Hotel occupancy shall managed and controlled through a central reservation system and central management company for the life of the project. 54. All units are subject to City of Hermosa Beach Transient Occupancy Tax for a minimum of nine months per calendar year. 55. Units shall not be occupied by owners for more than 29 consecutive days nor more than 90 total days in any calendar year. 56. The project shall be audited by the City for conformance to room occupancy requirements on a quarterly basis. The audit shall be prepared by a financial auditor selected by the City utilizing room occupancy records provided by the applicant. 57. The applicant/owner shall furnish 1000 of funds to cover the costs of quarterly audits for the purpose of establishing project Transient Occupancy Taxes as required by the Director of Finance. 58. The project shall not be altered or reconstructed to preclude its use for transient occupancy as a hotel. 59. Collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes shall be provided by centralized management operations of the hotel. 60. Trash service and storage shall be provide in an enclosed structure pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Code. 61. Pursuant Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) of the EIR, to prevent impacts on the use of the Strand, the hotel management shall - 13 - inform owners and guests and provide visible signage that access to the beach and The Strand is only permitted from 13th Street and 14th Street vie the hotel lobby. For the safety of their visitors and the general public the hotel management shall be.responsible for enforcing this policy. 62. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(b) of the EIR, the hotel shall incorporate facilities for collection, compaction, and pick-up of recyclable materials including the following: • Receptacles in the common areas of the hotel for the collection of aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles and paper; • A central refuse disposal and storage area designed to accommodate separate receptacles for recyclable materials to allow for participation in the City's residential recycling program. 63. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(c) of the EIR, information regarding recycling opportunities provided by the hotel shall be posted in common rooms of the hotel in order to encourage guests and hotel employees to recycle. 64. Adequate storage space and truck access loading/unloading for recycling bins shall be provided for use by the hotel occupants. 65. An annual report of the amount and type of solid waste disposed and diverted by the construction and operation activities of the proposed project shall be provide to the Community Development Department. The report will also require the identification of the final disposal and recycling facilities used. 66. Hotel management and contractors must use the services of the City's exclusive franchise waste hauler, Browning-Ferris Industries .(BFI), for disposal of all non -hazardous wastes. Hotel management and contractors shall work with BFI to obtain tonnage and volume date for the annual waste reports. 67. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-4 (b) & (c) of the EIR, bicycle storage facilities shall be incorporated into the design of the hotel or adjacent pedestrian plazas to provide complimentary bikes or bike rental. I. CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE - COMMERCIAL 68. The project shall meet all requirements of the Commercial Condominium provisions of the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 17.22.90 -17.22. 140 of the Municipal Code. - 14 - 69. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) in compliance with Section 17.22.90 Commercial/Industrial Condominiums shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 70. Proof of recordation of approved CC & R's shall be submitted to the Community Development Director six (6) months after recordation's of the Final Map. J. CERTIFICATIONS 71. An acceptance of conditions form shall be executed by the Applicant and any other current property owners and submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 72. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the Applicant and any other 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. 73. The Conditional Use Permit and this Resolution shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 74. 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 an enforceable. 75. The Applicant shall defend with Counsel of the City's choosing, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval or any other proceeding or action taken pursuant to this permit. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. 76. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. 77. 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 Applicant to cease any development - 15 - or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. SECTION 6. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and the facts and findings set forth herein, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed conveyance of parking spaces in the Parking Structure will be consistent with the General Plan if conditioned as follows: 78. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c) plans for the parking structure shall employ design techniques to minimize noise, lighting, and visual impacts to the degree feasible. Special attention should be paid to that section of the structure abutting residential uses. Design techniques shall consider limiting openings on the wall of the structure, modifying setbacks, and the use of property walls, vines and landscaping. 79. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), the Hermosa Avenue street frontage of the parking structure (which incorporates retail and office uses), and to a lesser extent the other facades of the parking structure, shall include articulation of the building mass to reduce the visual obtrusiveness of the structure as seen from surrounding areas. 80. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) prior to final approval of plans for the parking structure, a landscape plan for the site shall be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following: • A fully automated irrigation system. • Vines, trees and other landscaped materials shall be used to the maximum extent feasible along the wall and perimeter of the structure to soften it's visual impact on pedestrian walkways and adjacent land uses. New tree plantings shall occur along the retail edge of the parking structure at 13th Street, and along the stairwells and elevators located at the corners of the parking structure. • Textured or colored paving materials shall be used for the pedestrian walkway along 13th Street, Beach Drive, and 14th Street consistent with the downtown improvement plan. 81. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-2, the City shall install an oil/grease separator to treat runoff generated in the parking structure, in accordance with the recommendations - 16 - set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management Program. 82. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c), the parking structure and associated common and landscaped areas shall be maintained by the City in excellent condition throughout the life of the project. Section 7. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1996. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution No. is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of December 3, 1996. Pete Tucker, Chairman Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary - 17 - 16/U6/JO UJ.-iU *************************** ***** ACTIVITY REPORT ***** *************************** TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 0913 CONNECTION TEL 14153260639 CONNECTION ID START TIME 12/02 09:36 USAGE TIME 09'47 PAGES 18 RESULT OK ATTACHMENTS 1 7% to h. f. I..d f. 6 vLf I— f.�•I�.f�.rN.wl T�� 1Nrll� I�i.r •r r•s N..I....N. f«. fr•AfaU someta [me r.r..•. M«•. CYlb..l• • VICINITY MAP • ••.•w�•o fa•s■ •-u oar. •-u f•. rir.a 'Al d..� ••u r,r..r. e. i .0 .rtifr -u nyi. rr .r •-u tirr •-u vw. •-u rrr.w�>- ••u fir. •I.. Tw i:u r.�ir wra A0.1 y ,t4 _ IM.fa T.0 tUILDINO ►UELIC /.NK ,,AcM OWN 7z;, w LOADDM NER.IE1AMI TMt fTMND b�tM fIN4.MCDCE� OI,D.d��l ►NAf! OME .UIIDIND � HOTEL AND PARKING STRUCTURE SITE PLAN .EAC" DRIVE f tr ti r::ifil IN.f�.. fM..1.I..N. 1... II..N�G The Homes* l.. -A0. 2,' I /+Agk ms..ds� cwh-l.� w"bm 303" 7M r -3»3/7M w•r.L ryl/.f.'OY■ 2 _ _. - ;g'` � .. _. .._ - � • ,�� :^A} - ...tea ..A �c. w ` ^ ''` _ _ 4.- � _. . STRAND r tTHE- f , IL i y - i• ti'"r 2'.!` ate .► 4�� _ 1 -_. � - � _ i -.• a '> ���'��� 1 _� r��� 1!.t ?4�_..`�Y Ct f s i .-T- ' °• t ,,, :� �. rt �i ��Si l+�P '� ��... Z'•iIr ' '� •� v j, v. r+ •f.1Y - �--'� 'i: ! - � c. 't` _ • joyy�a t g._ -'+ 'v .` --+� .- .., zlp' �-�!P!<S -' - _ � _._ � _ _ :ill � •? CD CIO PSCHWAS Lo �-i 1 �' 1 IF t�. • � Z I 1 .. I I — ._..T iFl1 lr•a. s.��1 . .ir! _ s :.a. -L�% — > i a. - .... ..: s — ...,._,. �4 ..F.::►o'wAi73.-Jtr.'!t - ..:x •c: id L'swAL �';f.`JG.-:n�.�i2 M, a. O /lASA.AV1ti-{Rff PAV36NRDMfMCOV®iSSAND ��^" mai MRfGmaT mAx Simi PAVDC - WNWAL OMM QONCIffi. MIITIUM fSANVSIASTFDM OONIOSSI TO V=nM ASPHALT DAVM MOOD SNSVOII FD= as M AND GNOUNDOOVM RMfIVC �f TVAFAMMM- KM MVATS ANO MUC IVRlf SSV10 TQLa MIDI VNm a SOOI®CONQ. DAVM NA. GM MRN CONCSSIS SANGt: RMSSAOI ACTe mNalcn SANG. TYfICAI Vmrn+c PATIO cram LAMN OOOOSIIRPCAn \ �Q NonN e ra r.■ o.e. scan ue n: e.•1 e.a o.•e, e..�f Onk= �i���I• � ��� %�;��,.%i6►_ Lei%! ,�:,��. _ - »moo ,ri vvv ♦, rgTc a. O /lASA.AV1ti-{Rff PAV36NRDMfMCOV®iSSAND ��^" mai MRfGmaT mAx Simi PAVDC - WNWAL OMM QONCIffi. MIITIUM fSANVSIASTFDM OONIOSSI TO V=nM ASPHALT DAVM MOOD SNSVOII FD= as M AND GNOUNDOOVM RMfIVC �f TVAFAMMM- KM MVATS ANO MUC IVRlf SSV10 TQLa MIDI VNm a SOOI®CONQ. DAVM NA. GM MRN CONCSSIS SANGt: RMSSAOI ACTe mNalcn SANG. TYfICAI Vmrn+c PATIO cram LAMN OOOOSIIRPCAn \ �Q NonN e ra r.■ o.e. scan ue n: e.•1 e.a o.•e, e..�f r, .�.JWAUM M" . tWM 30 IMif 10 IMO i m ero � .erc ns wwo GROLWD FLOOR RAN - PHASE I GROUND FLOOR PLAN I I v— ........................ ......................... rr ............................. J Nr. r �J. r. .. .........................:::��: J. r. J. r. r. r. r' ............................':::.:p J: Tb&.r.wrrmftbL rw.ssmm Irsssm Amir r cook cbm"s •M w rw M Al -1 g, L -EZ. t m sum JWAUM rnn•,«r...•ars awew i •m..w i I I 1 I. I I I .IN I ���n••. l� yr'M �P KM . um um AK nT SECOND FLOW PLAN nx.r.err.+ytm —bm".. sfto_P.38316M ImIr" r "2 =mm Iasi r um wosl • um ■um ro w I I i s I I I i rr M 7 O nr � 80011 A um A Irrn nr.nw taws,ra+�w 1 I rY �O I nAf THIRD FLOOR PUN TbLmdwrwumobz r,ar 0g a.�orrrrs wass/s nm.'r� - " "i"' = •«1 s.« cr.« �� Al -3 ruill rolkUll-11--1 Oil II -Jim- ligi FM -m- W -A! �_ ='III= �-==II'==_,�II===11==='ll- -MES"= ME To■ 0 i W 11 II Hill lill ro I 111111111 I .l k, I T -A (� NOHTM ELEVAT1011 LANDAU 1►. L—"F tW lw,b . 1ro�.N307N7M M IM7N 7M ti ~ IX7ERlOR ELEV OON -Ntt.N -- A2-2 I MmAN— Rm MIN t LANDAU '7ut.A.lYeft.d*k Mr FlWii•Ams km...0.4hk. lws..ds� S�m.h�cdw�� IYa)M7ft7M HERMOSA WN 4"m am FFljl,- Elm=' 'moo-IIIL��'©1■�■�■�-,-VIII■ MI MmAN— Rm MIN t LANDAU '7ut.A.lYeft.d*k Mr FlWii•Ams km...0.4hk. lws..ds� S�m.h�cdw�� IYa)M7ft7M HERMOSA WN 4"m am Was cis I W �wm M Mil a Burr a. Ia1M IMCAZ bar .ct I Wr AWXr^* Alw. Y W4 ..wr r r4 e. ew r YL = LONOITUDMAL SECTNHi u maac uv,d I � i 7CZ]/ .-sm.s. i �cT_ __� CROSS SECTION AN w.a LANDAU Tom [AM" N.rAl& r.. N.rr R..ft-AMMu yq.."I M4 N. P -3»3"7M HBMM m Two BULLING SECTIONS .: "'A3-2 i �L-d.l IMlMI� )MINI■• rrir�• errs• rlrNru. Iw. IrA�G 'be Qermeee'I■N .r•rr� Mr\. "Irr . A4.1 PTA =all mi! Al IAl,ri1V1E1V 1 4 i August 8, 1996 ""--------- -__. _._ -- Community Development City Of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254-3885 Dear Sol Blumenfeld: am writing you at the request of Craig French, our project manager on the Hermosa Beach hotel project. I wanted to provide you with an assurance that the project is in fact a hotel. The condominium aspects will remain transparent to the hotels, guests, visitors, and anyone else making use of the facility for business or leisure. My background is extensive in hotel and resort management. I cut my teeth with Hyatt hotels in the early eighties. After years in the field, a series of promotions, and the right job offer, I accepted the position of Chief Operating Officer for Pacific Beach House Inc. We are the management company responsible for the smooth running of the hotel business. The time spent leading up to my current position allowed me to work with hotel companies such as Pebble Beach Resorts and Ritz-Carlton Hotels. Most recently I was the General Manager of Beverly Prescott Hotel in Beverly Hills. I am excited about the Hermosa Inn. It will offer our guest the feeling of a resort with all the convinces that the greater metropolitan Los Angeles area has to offer. Living in Los Angeles for two years allowed me to visit Hermosa Beach several times and I know our guest will enjoy the atmosphere that your friendly coast side community provides. During my most recent business trip we were very well received by the Travel Industry. We have already received our first leads on groups wishing to use the hotel and its conference facilities. From all of our initial interactions it appears as though people are waiting for our hotel to open. W r a. Listed below are some of the aspects that we are working on in order to ensure that we are received and peroeived as a hotel by the outside public. Once the Units are sold my jobis to make sure that the facility looks, feels and operates as a hotel. The individual owners sign a management agreement that allows me the flexibly I need to sell the facility as a hotel; not 97 separate units for rent. My interest in these projects is from a hotel perspective. It is what 1 know and understand. I have not run across any factors that would limit our ability to create a true hotel experience. 1. Central Reservations: Anasazi is our Central reservation system that will allow any travel agent in the United States to book a reservation as well as provide their client with a conformation withmin 7 seconds. Anasazi is a hotel booking system and is used extensively throughout the United Stated in the hotel business. ATTACHMENT 4 2. Hotel Design: From the arrival lobby, down to the layout of the each room, the Hermosa Inn was designed after our best hotel projects to ensure a consistent and smooth flow of service. As guests arrive at the hotel they will be greeted by the valet parking staff, then escorted to the front desk for check-in. Upon completion of registration and check-in the guest will receive a key and be escorted to the room by the staff. 3. Staffing: The hotel is staffed with a full time staff. The following is a list of positions at the Hermosa Inn; General Manager, Assistant Manager, Front Desk supervisor, Front Desk Clerks, Engineers, Housekeeping supervisor, Housekeeping staff, Accounting, Accounting Cleric, Night Auditor, Valet attendants (Valet Paris Inc.). Sales Manager, Catering Manager, and Reservation Clerics. 4. Catering: We have designed our facility with a full catering kitchen that will allow us to provide a genuine hotel catering experience, for business meetings, weddings, holiday parties and all special events. We expect heavy usage by the community. This will allow us to create a positive community image enjoyed and shared by many hotels in the Los Angeles Area. (A boutique hotel experience with the beach and Pacific Ocean as a focus.) 5. Rates: Although it is difficult to establish our tariff schedule this early we expect our rates to start in the $175 range and increase according to view and location in the facility. I have just briefly touched on some of the issues that we are concerning ourselves with to ensure a true hotel experience. I would be more than willing to meet with you at your convince and share with you more specific information on the Hermosa Inn or Pacific Beach House Inc. look forward to meeting you in person. Sincerely, David C. Smith Chief Operating Officer 0 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 4 INTEROFFICE MI MORANDUUM TO: C�G MUNCH FROM: DAVM ShnTli RMJEDM. STAFONO HERMOSA BEACH r DATIL- S£VrENSER 17,1996 CO Craig please except my apologies for the &SC=lnncy inn the sWTmg numbers I gave you on Fxiday Sgm=mber 13d- . To make it easier I will give you the total number of employee's and the maximum dotal possible at any one timc- Total # Employee'a Maximum pet shift General Manager 1 General Manager 1 Front office Managex 1 Front office Manager 1 Housekeeping Manager I Housekeeping Manager 1 Controller 1 Controller 1 Accounting Clerk 1 Accounting Clerk 0 f3ousckeeper* 8 Housekeepets 5 Front Desk gedu 5 Front desk Clerks I Sales Manager 1 sales Manager 1 Rgsctvations Agent 1 Reservations Agent 1 Toeal O of Empipyecs 20 Total Maximum Per Shift 12 Please heels an mind dat we do not expect any more than 8 to 10 employee's on property at a the numbers will be tinge evar dX ugh the possible nwjd== is 12. In the evening and wCckends less. 09/17/96 16:04 TX/RX N0.0657 P.002 t Zoninq Map c --- Hermosa Ave. L The strand Legend Restricted Commercial EM Multiple -Family Residential Open Space �- • Project Boundary I y 0 50 100 200 Scale Feet 7� A H I General Plan Map Hermosa Ave. Legend General Commercial High Density Residential ecreation :Iry 0 so 100 200 �4 Scale I ------ Feet ATTACHMENT 6 "OCEAN LOFTS" THE MANY PLEASURES OF HALF MOON BAY ARE AT YOUR DOOR. • Play golf on the Bay Area's #1 ranked Half Moon Bay Golf Links, designed by Arnold Palmer, and enjoy the great views of the Pacific Ocean. • Pillar Point Harbor has a lively fishing community. Watch the sea lions play, chat with the fishermen, enjoy the scenery and refreshing salt air. • Seven miles of open beaches are just outside. Look for seashells, take a jog along the surf, or just relax and unwind. • Hiking/bicycling trails along the bluffs extend from Pillar Point Harbor to Half Moon Bay Golf Links. The views are spectacular. • Horseback riding along the beach or bluff trails is available at Sea Horse Ranch. • Historic downtown Half Moon Bay is a diverse collection of galleries, restaurants, cafes, bakeries, antique shops and more—a browser's delight! • The nearby Fitzgerald Marine Reserve in Moss Beach offers some of the best tide pooling on the coast. 0 The scenic tranquility of Purisima Redwoods Open Space Preserve is a 15 minute drive away. A t 1 ACt1MENT 6 10/8/96 OCEAN LOFT VIEW PRICE 101 Mountain View 130,000 102 Mountain View 140,000 103 Harbor View 145,000 104 Harbor View 156,000 105 Harbor View 160,000 106 SOLD Ocean View 223,500 107 Ocean View 219,000 108 Ocean View 215,000 109 Ocean View 215,000 110 Ocean View 219,000 111 Ocean View 215,000 112 Ocean View 215,000 113 Ocean View 215,000 114 Ocean View 215,000 115 Ocean View 215,000 116 Ocean View 215,000 117 Ocean View 215,000 201 Mountain View 145,000 202 Mountain View 155,000 203 Harbor View 170,000 204 Harbor View 180,000 205 Harbor View 180,000 206 SOLD Ocean View 238,500 207 SOLD Ocean View 229,000 208 Ocean View 225,000 209 Ocean View 225,000 210 Ocean View 229,000 211 SOLD Ocean View 225,000 212 Ocean View 225,000 213 Ocean View 225,000 214 Ocean View 225,000 215 Ocean View 225,000 216 Ocean View 225,000 217 SOLD Half Moon Suite 265,000 218 SOLD Ocean View 220,000 301 Penthouse Mountain View 155,000 302 Penthouse Mountain View 170,000 303 Penthouse Harbor View 185,000 304 Penthouse Harbor View 195,000 305 SOLD Penthouse Harbor View 195,000 306 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 273,60U- 307 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 269,000 308 Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 309 Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 310 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 269,000 311 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 312 Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 ` 313 Penthouse Ocean View 266,000 314 Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 315 SOLD Pentfwuss Ocean View 265,000 316 Pend=" Ocean View 265,000 317 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 266,000 318 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 250,000 319 Penthouse Mountain View 147,000 11,631,500 PRICES SUBJECTTO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE ATTACHMENT 6 10/8/98 OCEAN LOFT VIEW PRICE 101 Mountain View 130,000 102 Mountain View 140,000 103 Harbor View 145,000 104 Harbor View 156,000 105 Harbor View 160,000 106 SOLD Ocean View 223,500 107 Ocean View 219,000 108 Ocean View 215,000 109 Ocean View 215,000 110 Ocean View 219,000 111 Ocean View 215,000 112 Ocean View 215,000 113 Ocean View 215,000 114 Ocean View 215,000 115 Ocean View 215,000 116 Ocean View 215,000 117 Ocean View 215,000 201 Mountain View 145,000 202 Mountain View 155,000 203 Harbor View 170,000 204 Harbor View 180,000 206 Harbor View 180,000 206 SOLD Ocean View 238,500 207 SOLD Ocean View 229,000 208 Ocean View 225,000 209 Ocean View 225,000 210 Ocean View 229,000 211 SOLD Ocean View 225,000 212 Ocean View 225,000 213 Ocean View 225,000 214 Ocean View 225,000 215 Ocean View 225,000 216 Ocean View 225,000 217 SOLD Hain Moon Suite 265,000 218 SOLD Ocean View 220,000 301 Penthouse Mountain View 155,000 302 Penthouse Mountain View 170,000 303 Penthouse Harbor View 185,000 304 Penthouse Harbor View 195,000 305 www SOLD Penthouse Harbor View N m e__.i,_..__ e%-- %n-- 195,000 A79 GwA 308 Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 309 Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 310 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 269,000 311 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 312 Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 313 Penthouse Ocean View 266,000 314 Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 315 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 265,000 316 Penthouse Ocaan View 265,000 317 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 266,000 318 SOLD Penthouse Ocean View 250,000 319 Penthouse Mountain View 147,000 11,631,500 PRICES SUmu'rO CHANGE WnHOUT NQTICE ATTACHMENT 6 This cash flow forecast is based the Beach House 3rd year operating forecast. Owner cost include: Mortgage (30 year fixed) at 10°x, Association fees. Replacement Reserve and Property, Tax. (9-17-96) Beach House Year 3 Year 3 Year 1 Year 2 I Year 3 Year 3 Price Ust Monthly Annual Income Income Income Cash Loft View Typo Price Payment Payment Forecast Forecast I Forecast Flow 101 Mountain View S 145.000 S 1,482 f 17,781 f 11,120 $ 15,608 S 17,674 S (107) 102 Mountain View S 145,000 f 1,482 f 17,781 S 11,120 S 15,608 $ 17.674 S (107) 103 Harbor View f 150,000 f 1,525 f 18,299 S 12,572 S 17,303 $ 19,560 f 1,261 104 Harbor View $ 160,000 S 1.596 f 19,148 $ 12,572 f 17,303 f 19,560 S 412 105 Harbor View $ 165,000 $ 1,631 f 19,572 $ 12,572 f 17,303 $ 19.560 $ (12) 106 Ocean view f 223,500 f 2,055 f 24,663 f 14,383 f 19,721 S 22,123 S (2,540) 107 Ocean View S 219,000 S 2,023 S 24,281 f 14,383 S 19,721 f 22,123 S (2,158) 108 Ocean View S 215,000 f 1,995 f 23,942 f 14,383 f 19,721 f 22,123 f (1,819) 109 Ocean View f 215,000 f 1,995 f 23,942 $ 14,383 S 19,721 f 22,123 f (1,819) 110 Ocean View $ 219,000 S 2,023 $ 24,281 f 14,383 f 19,721 S 22,123 f (2,158) 111 Ocean View f 215,000 S 1,995 $ 23,942 f 14,383 f 19,721 S 22,123 f (1,819) 112 Ocean View S 215,000 $ 1,995 $ 23,942 $ 14,383 $ 19,721 S 22,123 f (1,819) 113 Ocean View $ 215,000 f 1,995 $ 23,942 $ 14,383 $ 19,721 f 22,123 $ . (1,819) i 114 Ocean View $ 215,000 $ 1,995 $ 23,942 f 14,383 S 19,721 $ 22,123 $ (1,819) 11S Ocean View $ 215,000 $ 1.995 $ 23,942 $ 14,383 $ 19,721 $ 22,123 S (1,819) i 116 Ocean View $ 215,000 $ 1,995 $ 23,942 3 14,383 S 19,721 f 22,123 f (1,819) 117 Ocean View $ 215.000 S 1.995 $ 23,942 f 14,383 f 19,721 S 22,123 $ (1,819) 201 Mountain View $ 145,000 $ 1,482 f 17,781 f 11,120 f 15,608 S 17,674 f (107) 202 Mountain View $ 150,000 $ 1,517 $ 18,205 f 11,120 f 15,608 f 17,674 $ (531) 1 203 Harbor View $ 170,000 $ 1,666 $ 19,996 $ 12,572 S 17,303 f 19,560 $ (436) 204 Harbor View f 180,000 $ 1,737 $ 20,844 f 12,572 f 17,303 f 19,560 $ (1,284) 205 Harbor View f 180,000 $ 1,737 $ 20.841 $ 12,572 S 17,303 $ 19,560 f (1,284) 206 Ocean View f 233,500 f 2,126 $ 25,511 f 14,383 $ 19,721 S 22,123 $ (3,388) 207 Ocean View f 229,000 $ 2,094 $ 25,130 $ 14,383 $ 19,721 f 22,123 f (3,007) 208 Ocean View f 225,000 S 2,066 $ 24,790 f 14,383 f 19,721 $ 22,123 S (2,667) 209 Ocean View S 225,000 S 2,066 $ 24,790 f 14,383 f 19,721 f 22,123 f (2,667) 210 Ocean View $ 229,000 $ 2,094 S 25,130 S 14,383 f 19,721 f 22,123 f (3,007) 211 Ocean View $ 225,000 $ 2,066 f 24,790 $ 14,383 f 19,721 $ 22,123 $ (2,667) 212 Ocean View $ 225,000 $ 2,066 f 24,790 f 14,383 $ 19,721 f 22,123 f (2,667) 213 Ocean View f 225,000 $ 2,066 f 24,790 $ 14,383 $ 19,721 S 22,123 f (2,667) 214 Ocean View f 225,000 $ 2,066 $ 24,790 $ 14,383 f 19,721 f 22,123 $ (2,667) 215 Ocean View f 225,000 $ 2,066 f 24,790 S 14,383 f 19,721 $ 22,123 $ (2.667) 216 Ocean View $ 225,000 $ 2,066 $ 24,790 S 14,383 f 19,721 $ 22,123 f (2,667) 217 Half Moon Suite $ 265,000 f 2,354 f 28,247 $ 15,289 f 20,925 f 23,396 f (4,851) i 218 Ocean View $ 220,000 f 2,031 $ 24,366 $ 14,381 $ 19,721 $ 22,123 $ (2,243) j 301 Mountain View $ 155,000 $ 1,552 f 18,629 f 11,120 $ 15,608 f 17,674 f (955) j 302 Mountain View S 160,000 S 1.588 S 19,053 f 11,120 $ 15,608 $ 17,674 f (1,379) 303 Harbor View $ .185,000 S 1.772 $ 21,269 $ 12,572 f 17,303 f 19,560 $ (1,709) 304 Harbor View $ 195,000 f 1.843 f 22,117 f 12,572 f 17,303 f 19,560 f (2,557) 305 Harbor View $ 195,000 $ 1,843 f 22,117 f 12,572 f 17,303 f 19,560 f (2,557) 306 Penthouse Ocean S 273,500 $ 2,414 f 28,968 $ 15,289 $ 20,925 f 23,396 $ (5,572) 307 Penthouse Ocean $ 269,000 f 2,382 $ 28,587 f 15,289 f 20,925 $ 23,396 $ (5,191) 308 Penthouse Ooean f 26S,000 $ 2,354 $ 28,247 $ 15,289 f 20,925 f 23,396 $ (4,851) 309 Penthouse Ocean $ 265.000 $ 2,354 $ 28,247 $ 15,289 f 20,925 f 23,396 $ (4,851) . 310 Penthouse Ocean $ 269,000 $ 2,382 S 28,587 $ 15,289 f 20,925 S 23,396 $ (5,191) 311 Penthouse Ocean $ 265,000 S 2,354 $ 28,247 f 15,289 f 20,925 f 23,396 S (4,851) 312 Penthouse Ocean S 265,000 S 2,354 f 28,247 f 15,289 S 20,925 f 23,396 S (4,851) 313 Penthouse Ocean $ 265,000 S 2.354 f 28,247 $ 15,289 $ 20,925 S 23,396 f (4,851) 314 Penthouse Ocean S 265,000 S 2,354 $ 28.247 $ 15,289 f 20,925 $ 23,396 f (4,851) 315 Penthouse Ocew S 265,000 $ 2,354 $ 28,247 f 15,289 $ 20,925 f 23,396 S (4,851) 316 Penthouse Ocean f 265,000 $ 2,354 f 28,247 f 15,289 S 20,925 i 23,396 $ (4,851) th 317 Penthouse Ocean f 265,000 $ 2,354 f 28,247 $ 15,289 $ 20,925 f 23,396 f (4,851) 318 Penthouse Ocean f 250,000 f 2,248 f 26,975 f 15.289 $ 20,925 S 23.396 $ (3.579) 319 Mountain View f 147,000 $ 1.496 $ 17,951 $ 11,120 $ 15,608 S 17,674 f (277) ' F th S'IV a sample revenue forecast comparison prepared by Pacific Beach House Inc. This property is an investment property t 1 -2nd there are no guarantees on return. Please consult your tax account or tax lawyer regarding IRS regulations. JIER»OEA AVENUE ,HERMOSA AVENUE RETAIL COMTRUCTION PHASING DIAGRAM: PHASE ONE .1fe Earair7.e�.T _ ■.. rte... A.rl..r...;- • r+„raorrrr A—I... 0.... a. Rr. A1..Ab%CAG..,. r«. The Hermosa low a.r-0 cmr... r. A0.2.1 7 la L . U. • NNs-ws— .�. Wraor.�ww PHASE.TWO STAGING AREA PARKING STRUCTURE STAGING AREA I16TEL ACCESS CIRCULATION PATTERN CONSTRUCTION PHASING DIAGRAM: PHASE.TWO A—l... arm KNKG The Hermosa Iaa IMr�rrr arww Ctlll�rdr AO.2.1 A 1 1 AL, LIMEN T 8 � rra� Illllllla= 00 � �� iio .s>s sires a8i� � �i �ia SPACES 1. MANI 11 WOMEN 0X rry a�� 4 MM 0010 MIR Maximum Displaced Parking: 289 • Lower Pier, DIP construction phase: �1 • 14th Street (Hotel Phase I) 12 • Parking Structure 1. MANI 11 WOMEN 0X rry a�� 4 MM 0010 MIR Maximum Displaced Parking: 289 • Lower Pier, DIP construction phase: 52 • 14th Street (Hotel Phase I) 12 • Parking Structure 226 Parking Lot C 135 Parking Lot B 44 13th Street 47 Potential Shuttle parking sites: Location Total Parkin Available Public: City Hall 28 Community Center 25 '• Greenbelt 93 Vons lower level 168 Total 314 Private: Hermosa Pavilion 230 Christian Science 23 • Assume 28 Spaces Avialable •• Assume 25 Spaces Available ,I SHUTTLE CONCEPT PLAN j� PRIVATE PARKING PUBLIC PARKING ■ �, SHUTTLE ROUTE O SHUTTLE STOP CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MENE ire �e mo��e Service Days/Hours Total City Developer Parking No. Headway Start Operator Cost* Cost** Cost** Impact Buses Date 1. Patron & 7 mays/18 Hrs. $173,251 $138,601 $ 34,650 380 Stalls 1 12 Min. Jan. 97 WAVE Employee 7:00 AM - 1:00 AM 2. Patron & 7 Days/14 Hrs. $134,751 $107,801 $ 26,950 380 Stalls 1 12 Min. Jan. 97 WAVE Employee 12:00 Noon - 2:00 AM 3. Patron & 3 Days/9 Hrs. $ 36,383 $ 29,106 $ 7,277 380 Stalls 1 12 Min. Jan. 97 WAVE Employee 5:00 PM - 2:00 AM 4. Patron 7 Days/14 Hrs. $346,502 $277,202 $ 69,300 380 Stalls 2 6 Min. June Bid Req'd. 12:00 Noon - 2:00 AM 97 5. Employee 7 Days/6 Hrs. $ 57,750 $ 46,200 $ 11,550 354 Stalls 1 12 Min. Jan. 97 WAVE 7-9:00AM,4-6:00 PM, 12:00 - 2:00 AM 6. Employee 7 Days/4 Hrs. $ 38,500 $ 30,800 $ 7,700 238 Stalls 1 12 Min. Jan. 97 WAVE 4-6:00 PM, 12-2:00 AM 7. Patron & 7 Days/12 Hrs. $115,501 $ 92,401 $ 23,100 380 Stalls 1 12 Min. Jan. 97 WAVE Employee 7 - 9:00 AM, 4:00 PM - 2:00 AM * Cost calculations based upon an estimated variable cost of $26.37 per revenue hour (hourly estimate provided by Laidlaw Transit Services). * * The City would be responsible for eighty percent (80%) of the total cost, with the remaining twenty percent (20%) of the cost being paid by the Developer. ATTACHMENT 9 STATEMENT OF SUPPORT The undersigned business and property owners located in downtown Hermosa Beach wish to indicate their support for the proposed hotel development on the Strand and 14th Street, and the proposed parking structure to be built on Lot C. A new, first-class hotel and the addition of several hundred new parking spaces will enhance the business climate and assist in the revitalization of Hermosa Beach. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS IPW � r I VIM - 1 f .& / WA .' Id lip l .AJ/ 1/ Y ATTACHMENT 9 STATEMENT OF SUPPORT The undersigned business and property owners located in downtown Hermosa Beach wish to indicate their support for the proposed hotel development on the Strand and 14th Street, and the proposed parking structure to be built on Lot C. A new, first-class hotel and the addition of several hundred new parking spaces will enhance the business climate and assist in the revitalization of Hermosa Beach. NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS iMIN /�• MOMM"U 0- MAIM r' i i ��m OW ■ ` / Vim �, _ woo �i ATTACHMENT 9 , STATEMENT OF SUPPORT The undersigned business and property owners located in downtown Hermosa Beach wish to indicate their support for the proposed hotel development on the Strand and 14th Street, and the proposed parking structure to be built on Lot C. A new, first-class hotel and the addition of several hundred new parking spaces will enhance the business climate and assist in the revitalization of Hermosa Beach. BUSINESS,,ADDRESS .'1 ATTACHMENT 9 STATEMENT OF SUPPORT The undersigned business and property owners located in downtown Hermosa Beach wish to indicate their support for the proposed hotel development on the Strand and 14th Street, and the proposed parking structure to be built on Lot C. A new, first-class hotel and the addition of several hundred new parking spaces will enhance the business climate and assist in the revitalization of Hermosa Beach. ,,-"AME, BUSINESS ADDRESS Ww" W-OZAR I M ATTACHMENT 9 F $ "- arty owners located in downtown indersigned business and p ro p ort for the proposed hotel ,sa gea�ch wish to indicate their Supp Sed parking etit on the Strand and 14th reet#fi last hoo ;tura to new,tel and the 'off be built on Lot C. Gion o! several 2�undred new parking will enhance e the revitalization of Hermosa Seach• teas climate and assist in ' 2-1936 15:09 '31W» ` ." j 'd'�O0 S,A3SS3NN3H ZT:9T 966T-2T-nON At 1AUH1V ENT 10 Please note the three different occupancy rates. We project a stabilized occupancy rate of 65% the third year. The purpose of this information supplied to you with this letter is to demonstrate the financial viability of the Hermosa Beach Inn for the investor. Even though there is a minimal negative cash flow in the early years, we expect that to change as the years progress. Our sales experience in Half Moon Bay has born out the increased cash flow, and we expect the same to be true with Hermosa Beach Inn. Please see the attached enclosures. Sincerely, William W. Crowell enclosure 530 OAK GROVE AVENUE SUITE 201 MENLO PARK CALIFORNIA 94025 .PHONE_ 415.326.1094 _FAX 415*326.-,0639 Oct. 18, 1996 Mr. Sol Blumenfeld, Director Community Development Dept. City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Dr. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Dear Sol: AT 1'AC:HAMNT 10 RECEIVED OCT 2 A 1996 ,J, HNN1r,-G DEPT. Enclosed are three sample revenue statements on three of the Phase I, Hermosa Beach Inn units. These samples have the following assumptions; Sample I Penthouse -Ocean View Sales Price $300,000 Interest Rate 10% Down Payment 30% Rental Rate $240/night Sample II Second Floor Ocean View Sales Price $260,000 Interest Rate 10% Down Payment 30% Rental Rate $225/night Sample III First Floor Ocean View Sales Price $230,000 Interest Rate 10% Down Payment 30% ` Rental Rate $210/night 530 OAK (TROVE AVENUE SUITE 201 MENLO PARK CALIFORNIA 94025 PHONE 415.326.1094 FAx 415.326.0639 ATTACHMENT 10 SAMPLE CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Hermosa F 65% 75% Beach Ocean View 1 st i Ocean Lok PRICE ; 230,000 i 30% down ► ; 69,000 Monthly Year Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly Estimated Mortgage at 10% Interest ► ; 1,415 i 16,982 ; 1,415 S 16,982 ; 1,415 ; 16,982 I Property Tax —, ; 192 i 2,300 S 192 ; 2,300 ; 192 ; 2,300 i Association Dues —, S 382 S 4,584 i 382 ; 4,584 ; 382 I 5% Replacement Reserve —1110. ; 88 ; 1,054 ; 104 ; 1,246 ; 120 S 1,437 AVERAGE DAILY RATE Income Total Income Total Income Total $ 210.00 —♦ ; 210.00 Annual ; 210.00 annual i 210.00 Annual X 55X Payment X 65X Payment X 75X Payment 21,079 ; 24,920 S 24,911 ; 25,112 ; 28,744 $ 25,303 i i Cash Flow --� Analysis RECEIVED OCT 211996 PLANNING DEPT This is a sample program prepared by Pacific Beach House Inc. This property is an investment property and there are no guarantees of return an Investment. Please consult your tax accountant or tax lawyer regarding IRS regulations. Prepared 9-18-96 Hermosa Beach Ocean View 2nd Ocean Loft SAMPLE CASH FLOW ANALYSIS 55% ATTACHMENT 10 65% 75% PRICE ; 260,000 30% down ; 78,000 Monthly I F—Y—ea-r—fy Monthly I F-7Yearly Monthly Yearly Estimated Mortgage at 10% Interest ► ; 1,600 ; 19,197 Property Tax —11111- Association ►Association Dues —► S 382 S 4,584 5% Replacement Reserve —jo. Fs 94 ; 1,129 i ; 1,600 ; 19,197 ; 1,600 S 19,197 217 S 2,600 S 217 $ 2,600 382 ; 4,584 ; 382 111 I Fs1,335 ; 128 1; 1,540 iAVERAGE DAILY RATE Income Total Income Total Income Total $ 225.00 —i ; 225.00 Annual ; 225.00 Annual s 22s.00 Annual X 55% Payment X 65% Payment X TSX Payment $ 22,584 ; 27,511 ; 26,691 ; 27,716 ; 30,797 ; 27,921 Cash Flow (4,926) S (1,025) 3 2,876 Analysis RECEIVED OCT? 1 1996 :_..:,..(; i.FPT. This is a sample program prepared by Pacific Beach House Inc. This property is an investment property and there are no guarantees of return on investment. Please consult your tax accountant or tax lawyer regarding IRS regulations. Prepared 9-18-96 SAMPLE CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Hermosa 55% Beach Penthouse Ocean Ocean Loft PRICE No ; 300,000 I 30% down , S 90,000 65% A r l ACHMENT 10 75% Monthly I F—Yearly Monthly Yearly Monthly Yearly Estimated Mortgage at 10% Interest S 1,846 ; 22,151 Property Tax ► i 250 ; 3,000 Association Dues 5% Replacement Reserve —♦ ; 100 ; 1,205 ; 1,846 ; 22,151 ; 250 ; 3,000 1,846 ; 22,151 ; 250 ; 3,000 ; 382 ; 4,584 L 382 ; 4,584 i 119 1 Fs --l—,4241 1 ; 137 1 $ 1,643 AVERAGE DAILY RATE Income Total Income Total Income Total $ 240.00 —� i 240.00 Annual ; 240.00 Annual ; 240.00 Annual X 5576 Payment X 65% Payment X75% Payment ; 24,090 ; 30,939 ; 28,470 ; 31,158 ; 32,850 ; 31,377 ►�� Cash Flow S (6,849) S (2,688) S 1,473 Analysis RECEIVED OCT 2 1 1996 PLANNING DEPT. This is a sample program prepared by Pacific Beach House Inc. This property is an investment property and there are no guarantees of return on investment. Please consult your tax accountant or tax lawyer regarding IRS regulations. Prepared 9-18-96 ATTACHMENT 10 SEAVIEW "OCEAN LOFTS" THE CONCEPT and commonly asked questions SeaView, comprised of 54 "ocean lofts", was designed and is being built as a AAA four diamond "Nantucket Style" Inn. These "ocean lofts" are individual visitor serving commercial condominiums. On site management makes ownership of this investment property easy. When your "loft" is not being rented as an over night accommodation, you may use it for personal use up to 90 days cumulatively every year and up to 29 days consecutively. The remainder of the time, the "loft" must be made available to the public for overnight accommodations at prevailing rental rates. What is truly unique about Seaview is it's proximity to the Pacific Ocean, approximately 200 feet away, and its convenience to a wonderful array of coastside activities. SeaView is only an hour from the hustle and bustle of everyday life in the Bay Area yet the change in environment is like being hours away. The timeless healing characteristic of the salt air and expanses of open beaches make this "Nantucket" Inn a unique investment and well suited to attract midweek conference business from Silicon Valley, East Bay, and San Francisco. Proximity is also an important factor for the individual traveler who wants a convenient "getaway" or a mini vacation. All these unique characteristics translate to revenue potential for the individual investor. The on site management company is available to manage each "ocean loft" with 24 hour staffing. An individual account is kept for each owner and there is no pooling of revenue. Most commonly asked questions: Question: Is an "ocean loft" a second home, or a time share? Answer: It is neither. An "ocean loft" is a real estate investment which provides overnight accommodations for visitors. Under Coastal Commission regulations, an owner may occupy his/her "loft" for up to 90 days cumulative every year and 29 days consecutively. The remainder of the time,, the loft must be made available to the public as a short-term rental. At SeaView, each owner takes title to his/her "ocean loft" condominium like any other commercial condominium property. ATTACHMENT 10 The major difference between timeshare and condominiums is that timeshare is only a reservation of a specific time to be used each year. Fee simple title to the real estate is not conveyed to the purchaser. Question: Is there a condominium owner's association? Answer: Yes. The owner's association is similar to any other commercial condominium owner's association. Each owner is responsible financially for the maintenance costs of the interior of their loft. The rest of the building is maintained from the association dues by the on-site management company. Question: How is title to my "ocean loft" conveyed? Answer: Fee simple title (individual ownership of the "loft" you chose) will be conveyed to you, subject to the Declaration of Covenants Restrictions and Easements, the recorded condominium map and the Articles of Incorporation of the Conservatory Owners Association, a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation which will operate all the common areas of the resort. Question: How do I go about reselling my condominium? Answer: The on site management company Beach House, Inc., will maintain resale information and will have available a current list of local real estate agents who are active and knowledgeable about the "ocean loft" properties. Question: Three names are used with reference to this hotel property, the Conservatory, SeaView, and Beach House Inn. Why? Answer: The "Conservatory" is the name on the approved tentative map and the project's original name. SeaView is the project name given to the project by the developers who purchased the property after its approval by the City of Half Moon Bay and the California Coastal Commission. Beach House Inn is the on-site hotel marketing name which will be used to market overnight accommodations for the condominium "loft" owners. Question: What are the income tax ramifications of ownership? V Answer: Please consult your tax attorney or tax accountant for the proper reporting of income and expenses. Each person's situation is an individual matter. ATTACHMENT 10 Questions regarding the Owners Association, the Common Area and the On -Site Management Company: Upon close of escrow, all owners automatically become members of The Conservatory Owners Association, ("the Association"), a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation. The Association is responsible for the management, administration, maintenance, preservation and the architectural control of the "lofts" and Common Area. The Association is operated under a Managing Agent -Board of Directors system. The Board of Directors contracts with a qualified management company, (The "Managing Agent"), to perform the day-to-day financial and administrative duties of the Association. The Association owns all of the Common Area of the Conservatory. The on-site management company, Beach House, Inc., will own the front desk area, administrative offices, conference rooms, kitchen, commercial laundry, exercise room, etc. found on the condominium plan designated with the letters "C.U." proceeding the room numbers. Question: What are my Owner's Association dues and what expenses do they cover? Answer: "Loft" owner association dues projected to be approximately $381 each month. The assessments are used to pay all the expenses outlined in your association agreement. The following expenses are covered. Gas Electricity Insurance Common area replacement reserves Miscellaneous administrative expenses Security Water Management Landscaping and common are custodial services Telephone Voice Mail Cable TV Refuse disposal Elevator and parking maintenance Patio and spa maintenance The management company will deduct your monthly homeowners dues from your monthly income. Question: How will I be billed for association dues? Answer: The management company will deduct your monthly owners fees from your monthly income if Beach House, Inc., manages your "loft". Alternatively, you will be responsible for remitting your dues monthly to the Managing Agent. Lit 1A'V%-U1VMjN 1 lU Question: How often will I receive correspondence from the Association? Answer: The California Civil Code regulates condominium associations. You will receive an annual Budget for the Association each year. If your "loft" has contracted with Beach House Inc., to participate in the on site marketing program, you will receive a separate monthly accounting statement. Question: Can I bring my dog or cat while visiting? Answer: In the common interest of the Members of the Association and -in consideration of maintaining a AAA four diamond hotel rating it has been established that no pets will be allowed. Question: Who is responsible for any damage to the interior of the "loft"? Answer: Damage to the "loft" is generally the owners responsibility, unless the damage involves the failure of a common area element, e.g. the roof. However if Beach House, Inc., is managing your "loft", the management will inspect the "loft" after each guestdeparture to check for damage or theft and will inform and assist Owners in the recovery of missing items. The guest credit card information is on file and Agent will attempt to secure compensation for damages from guest wherever possible but does not guarantee same. Question: Does the Owners Association have earthquake insurance? Answer: Yes, the Owners Association does have earthquake insurance and it is included in the association dues. y � i� t1 F.Nrav rte• / ever. vNr+s. �nr"vr�nfai r+r ATTACHMENT 11 13.17 I M A •Offl r M4 /a�oCATlD ,ING auve ne+a rota oMA 'if :10 •� 12.0 ..�� 13 t" Geu aT I to to a• �Fw •w e 4TT_JGTHPE U u� a PHASE ONE DEVELOPMENT 12.13 Lowest Corner Point Elevation (Southeast) 30.00 Maximum Building Height 42.13 Maximum Allowable Building Height @ Corner Point 13 SURVEY GRADES 13.30 + 30.00 = 42.13 Maximum Building Height (d (Northwest) Comer Point 12.70 + 30.00 - 42.70 Maximum Building Height @ (Southwest) Corner Point 12.13 12.60 + 30.00 - 42.60 Maximum Building Height @ (Northeast) Corner Point 12.13 + 30.00 = 42.13 Maximum Building Height @ (Southeast) Corner Point ' I NEAREST PUBLIC EVIPROVEMENT j 12.70 + 30.00 - 42.70 Maximum Building Height based on Nearest Proposed Pgbhc Improvement ICLE ATION DI]WRENCE BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADE 13.30 - 12.70 - 0.60 Elevation Difference @ (Northwest) Coma Point 12.70 -12.70 -0.00 Elevation Difference @ (Southwest) Corner Point 12.70 -12.60-0.10 Elevation Differenoe @ (Northeast) Corner Point 12.70 - 12.13 = 0.57 Elevation Difference @ (Southeast) Corner Point HEIRMOSA INN HEIGHT EXHIBIT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT 11 '!J SEAVIEW July 15, 1996 Mr. Sol Blumenfeld, Director Community Development Department City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Hermosa Beach Inn Establishment of Grade for Purpose of Measuring Building Height Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: Submitted to you under this cover is a set of drawings prepared by our architect that provide information on the `building height' of the proposed project as well as the "grade" from which this height is measured. As the building height is permitted to be 30 vertical feet from grade, it is important that we are in concurrence on the grade elevation. Based upon the field survey work that has been prepared by our civil engineer, together with city public works records and historical data, we have determined that the "grade" of our site for purposes of measuring building height is 12.70 feet. From this point, our project will measure vertically 30 feet to the uppermost point of the roof to a top elevation of 42.70 feet. It should be noted that this 12.70 foot grade that we have established at the south end of the project is the lowest point of the four comer point elevations and that the building will actually be up to 8 inches less than the 30 foot height limit at the north end of the project. City Code Section 208, Building Height, with the city proposed ordinance revisions says "grade is determined based upon existing comer points elevations taking into consideration significant variations relative to adjacent properties". Comer point elevations at our site do vary significantly between the comer as measured at the pubic improvement (Strand) and the corner on-site point immediately adjacent to the public improvement. Our site is about 6 inches lower than the Strand. Due to this variation in elevations between adjacent properties, the ordinance directs that "the point of measurement shall be established based upon the elevation at the nearest public improvement". This nearest public improvement is the 12.70 foot elevation at the Strand and this elevation is also at the Beach Drive and IP Street comer. The ordinance also provides, as an alternative to the nearest public improvement that "an alternative point within 3 horizontal feet which based on supporting evidence represents existing unaltered grade". The previous grade of this site was even with the Strand. (See enclosed photo that shows Strand sidewalk adjacent and at grade with the earlier commercial uses at this site) Our contention is that demolition of the previous buildings and foundations in 1991 resulted in the site being lowered by about 6 inches leaving the current lot in an "altered" condition. As further documentation that the lot was at a higher elevation in the past, particularly relative to adjacent Beach Drive improvements, I enclosed a city plan dated October 16, 1957 that provides evidence that our site was .44 feet or 5 '/4 inches higher than the adjacent Beach Drive and within 3 feet of Beach Drive. 530 OAK GROVE AVENUE SUITE 201 MENLO PARK CALIFORNIA 94025 PHONE 415.326.1094 _FAX 415.326.0639_ ATTACHMENT 11 These two pieces of evidence supporting the previous higher on-site grade conditions can be further supplemented by personal declarations from local individuals should you so require. Based upon my investigation of historical conditions and with the ordinance provision to allow for measurement to the nearest public improvement, we find that the 12.70 is established grade. With your review of the plans and documentation I would request your concurrence on determination of grade. Sincerely, Z� 5��4 Craig French SeaView Development enclosures cc: Bill Crowell Todd Pilgreen , gA^� jo. tC�AfLRRILL MNkv /IL r J cq M� 1�• -Cl nq! MKE -Z 4. -1: im �j. N rY, ,lift � s r � Y; x �•k .� '•�'. '. � � fy� Myr ti r •..•�L r LJji •'-'�.'i- • ! 4 L n , ' + .,�, t xY,r:�..•'`K'�'- may. Vt -Olt �ya"Es•'�� I ,'S' ii''"f r• 1 + l.�,.� r. ' V•. t. � .. 'k , f't.�,6�t i�1 1 �'t, a rt � •4A„{ ii`'�ly�'��.igV •k' �, ,. � v f � �' ; •` -.., •:.'� .,. x.w .t a:v � ;x; N .Y;►t ays�.^}'�'Y•'.f, ��y,S`� � ��:i�G�t�9�i�,SY'�� S. L .li t DNA* N aLYr►�ti� A ZY r ew � 'S 1w`Z•� ,. . •�-�.M.Ky �`�,r4t-� • �"',v'f�r�� �'j[��" ;�t' , �' Rl " y t 7.•i ,.cis,. i.`, t ;� ,t Nq -• '," �� 1lIII STREET e _ ' VICINITY MAP rwrn[ LrGAL OFSCRIOTION liR l: r'• i> �r aiaY.w lai�ai iiL weaO�\iis r.w K vnr�ormr. r.or wwl.I.. rma ' r t. Ya worm w.rmrrr.ra.\. rwrr r\a .ltrar.nwl.rme.r Lriir it w. mi.r osr.+rwi.aa r.r r.sN r wrwr..a\a �r rt Y.lw l�mrYrtrM.m4 �rw. ai nr�w Iras�imw ®�A.: � •w.'•�.»o m• w .. aw..s r l..m+s s a r rirw. Y\rm . rif IY r wor.....r. Y .l.•. !O r r w �. P. YI^R _vM Is slit �OVRIr OOH � s� Ow 1l .r. 1118 a ir\•.m ulrrlrla .l. a.I.�.iI.4. \.arli. .irihcoMmi imo rRM� Lwow it w• .d �6 fYR O G1O.i� 4 Rl�w.i dim OIL O ✓• r>: I R� K sIo a •[ .r. imo s w mr.. 1�w�`.°L•Y s.�irn Y+.i ou Kswr u�wim.R r� .lCil wc.o oRo 1 wn Y r.•s � t1a I.I.. 1w.:oairiry e:wwmi �.. ��mo • moi. wo s r s r w i i NI rl4 r .a mw.lmo Y w tel. ®.Mrwwr.r. Iwa • /Y.YI�.f Ar \ilOwtY{ rQA[riW�tIOV® LRr it it w.\\ws.r.a .r.aorrrr.. RIR R ri\Mir N.Yi Kl rr rq.\\..I Yr1.i\.K m.rl..on rrwl.w�wrrmr.r Lweiri s.n.\. a.a r.. ar.movwrn. Mr �rtOrra�w4f i�K�!~ of Nf/6� rR r1161IO.•r[Rw1w• i6rY�Ir ..rrrw Va• �l.R L r R r 11rm Vl w1oOt.. 4.r1 . rr4 r R w :.or. w. l.uw ww rr.v. i ■ ru a a �i.iinlililra•rtrrr w.ir w.a Rwlea aar T. TIttE REPORT: EFFECT OF: ywa rmiwlr ma wmo•m w.L ..w rrmB O.R 1•enir a w Oro• . r ruo a wmi a. r. i 100'a.p � O�RCrltM Miw.I fW0 OrtKi YM.N . R. i.....11a..1. r AMER 1 CAN DREAM DEVELOPMENT a 1a. \.or .is •nl 1�•. :',�.:::::� ::: ,.... .._.. HERMOSA BEACH ATTACHMENT 11 • City of Bermosa Teach....) Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 July 23, 1996 Mr. Craig French P Sea View Development 530 Oak Grove Ave. Suite 201 jolt, E: 6 Menlo Park, CA 94025 n Re: Beach Drive preliminary design Dear Mr. French: The preliminary design submittal of the Beach Drive improvements from 13th Street to 14th Street is acceptable. The new grades and the proposed- new storm drain construction will eliminate drainage problems and improve the flow of the street. If you have any questions, please call me at (310) 318-0211. Sincerely, Amy Amirani Director of Pulbic Works cc: Steve Burrell Sol Blumenfeld Roy Higa 14TH STREET III I --. lnI aja —u m i l \, v u I\ l L 35 —0 • -1 1A-38 t 17 STO + ° 1-1 1-14 2A-68 RETAIL. 1 14 j i 1 14 1 10 1B-62 �t 1 13TH STREET -V Q cn O w GROUND LEVEL PLAN .� SME:1' =50' SPLIT LEVEL SCHEME 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HERMOSA BEACH coal PARKING STRUCTURE Parking Cnsultpnts A Ruin ao o.rz: 2 -n -n l l z H N w IW N c Z Q 1— V 14TH STREET . . . ..... . . . ........ . 13TH STREET -o' Q L 35 —0 8 1 — "' 2A-68 h �� c, ct 3A-69 S 1 15 1 1-1 RETAIL 1 15 1 10 2B-67 «c 1 3 13TH STREET -o' Q O W S SECOND LEVEL PLAN tiScxe:1' _50. SPLIT LEVEL SCHEME 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HERMOSA BEACH CALIFORNIA PARKING STRUCTURE Parking ConsAlants ,w,e.eWFi�r�+• y y t7 z .y N 14TH STREET 14TH COURT 335 —V I L M'—U J 1 _ RETAIL � 3A-69 1+ 1� c1 i1 4A-69 1 15 1 1-10 1 15 1 10 38-67 1' 1+ c+ 16 1 3 13TH STREET w a —T < cn O IY w 2 THIRD LEVEL PLAN .� SCAM -1'=5W SPLIT LEVEL SCHEME 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HERMOSA BEACH , CAUMM A PARKING STRUCTURE perking Consultants aR.amm wrt: a-xt-w w 14TH STREET (r 14TH COURT r .0 13TH STREET OPEN TO PARKING RAMP BELOW 35'-0' L 8L -Cr Q Ln 0 0f w FOURTH LEVEL PLAN .� SCALE:I'=s0• SPLIT LEVEL SCHEME 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HERMOSA BEACH CAUFORNIA PARKING STRUCTURE Porkinq Consvltonts J0� I• U1/lW dIL• 2 -r -M CROSS SECTION SCALE:I'=50' I? LONGITUDINAL SECTION SC&E:I' =50' SECTIONS SCALE:I'-50' SPLIT LEVEL SCHEME 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HERMOSA BEACH wo CALIFORNIA PARKING STRUCTURE Pwkkiq Consultants Jas R utnm GR 2-21-M ROOF LEVEL I 'I RAMP THIRD LEVEL 1. RAMP M SECOND LEVEL'o WpRALIP GR. LEVEL STORAGE CROSS SECTION SCALE:I'=50' I? LONGITUDINAL SECTION SC&E:I' =50' SECTIONS SCALE:I'-50' SPLIT LEVEL SCHEME 3 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HERMOSA BEACH wo CALIFORNIA PARKING STRUCTURE Pwkkiq Consultants Jas R utnm GR 2-21-M 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EffACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.1 Hvdrologv and Drainage 4.1-1 Development of the proposed project would result in higher surface water runoff than currently leaves the project site, exacerbating existing deficiencies in the stormdrain system serving the project site. This is a significant impact. 4.1-2 • Development of the proposed project could result in degradation of the quality of stormwater runoff. This is a potentially significant impact. S 4.1-1 The hotel proponent shall contribute a fair share towards the construction of a 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe stormdrain at the Thirteenth Street and Beach Drive sump, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage. The fair share contribution shall be calculated based upon the project's contribution to runoff which would be directed to the stormdrain, as determined by the Public Works Director. Construction of the stormdrain shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase One. PS 4.1-2(a) The City shall install an oil/grease separator to treat runoff generated in the parking structure, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Stormwater Management Program. 4.1-2(b) The City shall require compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) set forth in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program, during both S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant LS LS The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-5 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation construction and operation of the proposed project, including the following: Construction • Runoff containing sediment, construction waste, and other pollutants from construction sites and parking areas shall be retained or controlled on site to the maximum extent practicable. No washing of construction or other industrial vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to the construction site. No water from washing vehicles on a construction site is allowed to run off into the City's stormdrain system. Contain waste - dispose of all construction waste in designated areas and keep storm water from flowing onto or off of these areas. Operation • Practice good housekeeping - promote efficient and safe housekeeping practices (storage use and cleanup) when handling potentially harmful S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-6, 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IWACTS AND MMGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.1-3 Construction of the proposed project could result in the degradation of groundwater resources. This is a less -than -significant impact. 4.2 Land Use 4.2-1 Construction activities for the hotel and parking structure would result in periodic short-term effects including noise, dust, and traffic that would present a nuisance to nearby residential, commercial, and recreational uses. This is a short-term significant unavoidable impact. materials such as fertilizers, pesticides, paint products and cleaning solutions. LS None required. SU 4.2-1(a) Construction hours for the project shall be limited to Monday thru Friday between 8: 00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., on Saturday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., with no construction allowed on Sunday. From June 15th through September 15th (peak summer season), there shall be no construction on Saturdays and legal holidays. 4.2-1(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7-5(a) through 4.7-5(e). These measures address potential project conflicts with special events and recreational activities. 4.2-1(c) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through 4.6-1(c), which address temporary construction noise impacts. NA SU S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS — Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-7 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.2-2 Operation of the hotel and parking structure may result in conflicts with nearby residential, recreational and commercial land uses. This is a significant impact. 4.2-1(d) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through 4.5-1(c), which address temporary air quality impacts. S 4.2-2(a) To prevent impacts on from and to the use of The Strand, the hotel management shall inform owners and guests and provide visible signage that access to the beach and The Strand is only permitted from Thirteenth Street and Fourteenth Street via the hotel lobby. For the safety of their visitors and the general public, the hotel management shall be responsible for enforcing this policy. ,, W114 we 1 -101#111 IfIff MW Y I MW l -Fill I / • I I 4.2-2(c) wes associated with the sitftT mid use of the parkingstivcture, Plans for the parking S = Significant SU — Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR LS N 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.2-3 The height of the proposed hotel, firer, may exceed the basic height limit for the C-2 zone and may not be in compliance with the zoning code. This is a significant impact. structure shall employ design techniques to minimize noise, lighting, and visual impacts to the degree feasible. Special attention should be paid to that section of the structure abutting residential uses. Design techniques shall consider limiting openings on the wall of the structure, modifying setbacks, and the use of property walls, vines, and landscaping. 4.2-2(d) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-4. S 4.2-3 Prior to making a recommendation on project approval, the Planning Commission shall evaluate the height LVC 1-00ft"'p) strttctttr¢srrnd the measurement of grade and shall determine whether or not the hotel conforms to the 30 foot height limit for the C-2 zone. The evaluation of-ooft+nn U: S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant should LS The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-9 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.2-4 The project may be inconsistent with relevant plans and policies, including the City General Plan, The Coastal Land Use Plan, and more recent plans for the downtown area. This is a less -than - significant impact. 4.3 Aesthetics and Views 4.3-1 Existing ocean and coastal views from residential and commercial properties, Noble Park, and other areas in the project vicinity, would be obstructed with development of the proposed hotel and parking structure. This is a significant unavoidable impact. focus on establishing the appropriate base point (datum) for calculating the height of the hotel, If the hotel is determined not to meet the height limitations set forth in the code, the hotel plans shall be revised accordingly. LS None required. SU 4.3-1(a) Final Plans for landscaping the pedestrian plazas at Fourteenth Street and Thirteenth Street and The Strand, shall specify plant species and concentrate landscaping along the edges of the street rights-of-way with the goal offraming and maintaining as much of a view corridor to the ocean as feasible. 4.3-1(b) Rooftop equipment shall be screened from all off-site vantage points, and mechanical equipment shall be contained within rooftop S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant W. SU The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-10, 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation penthouses. Rooftop screening materials shall be complementary in material and color to the building's exterior, and shall be submitted in advance for review and approval by the Planning Division. 4.3-1(c) Service areas shall be screened from off-site view and trash containers shall be enclosed using materials complementary to the buildings. 4.3-2 Construction of the hotel and parking S 4.3-2 As part of City review and development of LS structure could temporarily have adverse the Construction Operation Plan and effects on views from the beach and The Program Strand. This is considered a temporary 4:76-:5", significant impact the height and design of lemn ii u ctian fencing and pedestrian canopies shall be evaluated to ensure maximum screening of views to the site and aesthetic concerns. from vantage poinis on the beach cmdalong Re Simnid the fencing afmT The Strwid to mduce 4.3-3 The proposed parking structure, if not S 4.3-3(a) The Hermosa Avenue street frontage of the LS sensitively designed, could have a negative parking structure (which incorporates retail S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-11 Z 0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation aesthetic impact on the downtown area. This is a significant impact S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant and office uses), and to lesser extent the other facades of the parking structure, shall include articulation of the building mass with off --sets, stepped tenaces, ch p1mie, wd other such devices hi oy�*r to reduce the visual obtrusiveness of the structure as seen from surrounding areas. • Y / • IFri vlfrI I'ONS'F'ONS'l I 7,fAff Mw IIdIII. 4.3-3(b) Prior to final approval of plans for the parking structure, a landscape plan for the site shall be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following • A fully automated irrigation system shall be included in the Imidscape p1mis. Vines, trees and other landscape materials shall be used to the maximum extent feasible along the walls and The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-12 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation perimeter of the structure to soften its visual impact on pedestrian walkways and adjacent land uses. New tree plantings shall occur along the retail edge of the parking structure at Thirteenth Street, and along the stairwells and elevators located at the corners of the parking structure. Textured or colored paving materials shall be used for the pedestrian walkway along Thirteenth Street, Beach Drive, and Fourteenth Street, consistent with the downtown improvement plan. 4.3-3(c) The parking structure and associated common and landscaped areas shall be maintained by the City in excellent condition throughout the life of the project. 4.3-3(d) The Fan Palms located on Parking Lot "C" shall be relocated for landscape use associated with the parking structure of other public improvements planned in the area. Where trees cannot be relocated, they shall be replaced on a one-to-one basis with trees of a minimum 36" box size. S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-13 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.34 The proposed hotel could have a negative aesthetic effect on views from The Strand, the beach and surrounding public areas, and the height, scale, mass, and design of the proposed hotel could be out of character with surrounding development. This is considered a less -than -significant impact 4.3-5 Construction of the hotel and parking structure would increase shade and shadow effects in the project vicinity. This is a less - than -significant impact Transportation, Circulation and Parkin 4.4-1 Increases in traffic associated with the proposed project could adversely affect the capacity of intersections in the study area. This is a significant impact. LS None required. LS None required. S 4.4-1(a) The City and the hotel proponent developer shall jointly fund improvements to the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue-- 14th venue=14th Street intersection based on fair share contributions. The eastbound lanes at the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue - 14th Street intersection shall be changed from their existing configuration to a dual left -turn and right -turn. S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant NA NA LS The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-14 . Z 0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL II"ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.4-1(b) Prior to termination of the interim shuttle program proposed to address displaced parking in the downtown area, the City shall investigate the feasibility of implementing a long term shuttle service for downtown patrons with the objective of discouraging automobile use and encouraging pedestrian circulation in the downtown area If adopted, said program shall be periodically evaluated and adjusted to maximize ridership and reduce congestion in the downtown area 4.4-1(c) The Monterep/Pier Avenue intersection shall be monitored by the City on an annual basis beginning six months following issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed hoteb At such point that the intersection reaches LOS E, a study shall be prepared specifying mitigation measures to address the deficiency in a manner that will achieve LOS D. Such mitigation might include but should not necessarily be limited to, instituting a downtown visitor shuttle, closing one of the intersecting legs of Monterey Boulevard, or providing additional lanes on Upper Pier Avenue. S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-15 Z 0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.4-2 Access to the proposed parking structure and hotel would increase traffic operations in the project area which could adversely affect vehicular circulation. This is a significant impact. S 4.4-2 In order to address vehicular circulation associated with the proposed Parking Structure, the traffic signals and the intersections at 13' Street and Hermosa Avenue and at Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue shall be modified as follows, prior to the completion of the Parking Structure. • 13°i Street and Hermosa Avenue - Provide left -through option lane on northbound Hermosa Avenue, and mods existing traffic signal to produce split operation on Hermosa Avenue. Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - Provide left -through option lane on southbound Hermosa Avenue, and modify existing traffic signal to produce split phase operation on Hermosa Avenue. S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant LS The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-16 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.4-3 The proposed hotel would increase the demand for parking in the downtown area. This is considered to be a less -than - significant impact. 4.44 Construction of the hotel and parking structure would result in the temporary displacement of 254 parking spaces. This is considered a temporary significant impact LS None required. S 4.4-4(a) If the Community Development Department determines during the plan check process or at any time thereafter that parking for construction workers and construction vehicles cannot be handled accommodated within pnopmed construction staging areas, the applicant shall provide, at no cost to construction workers, remote parking outside of Me do mitom, a, va, in areas not proposed for use by the shuttle service. shall be secured mid used Said Yvinate pw*ing shaH be provided in areas not proposedfor use by the shuttle seivive7- The applicant shall ensure that construction contractors require employees to use off-street parking. Such remote parking shall remain in use until project completion. 4.4-4(b) In developing the shuttle service/remote parking program the City shall set a goal to minimize the number of remote parking sites and shuttle stops in IMM LS S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-17 Z 0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation order to maximize the efficiency of the system. Once operational, the shuttle program and schedule shall be periodically evaluated and adjusted to maximize ridership and reduce impacts on parking and congestion in the downtown area. 4.4-5 Construction of the project would result in LS None required. NA temporary roadway closures which could adversely affect circulation in the downtown. This is a less -than -significant impact. 4.4-6 Traffic generated by the proposed project LS None required. NA could adversely affect one Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) monitoring location at Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia/Gould Avenue. This is considered a less -than -significant impact. Air Ouali 4.5-1 Clearing, excavation and grading PS 4.5-1(a) All required actions necessary to comply LS operations, construction vehicle traffic on with SCAQA M Rule 402, which requires that unpaved ground, and wind blowing over there be no dust impacts off-site sufficient to exposed earth surfaces would generate dust cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, S = Significant SU — Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-18, 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL UWPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance I Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation at and near the project site during the construction period. This is a potentially significant impact. S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant which restricts visible emissions from construction, shall be implemented as part of the proposed project. Prior to the approval of grading permits, the pyvftcf proponent Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that such compliance will be achieved. All such approved actions shall be listed on the Gra"ding Plan under the General Notes Section. The Applicant Pro' shall reimburse Cityfor all costs of independent review of said compliance measures by SCAQMD or a qualified air quality consultant of the City's choice. 4.5-1(b) The project shall minimize fugitive dust emissions, through the application of the following and other measures as necessary conshuction Operations. Re Ciop veiTfy that these ineasums have been inspeedois: The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-19 Z 0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.5-2 Combustion emissions will be released from on-site construction vehicles and on -road vehicles of construction workers during the construction period. This is a potentially significant impact. • Spread soil binders on the project site, on unpaved roads, and in parking areas; and • Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; and • Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public roadways or occurs as a result of hauling; and • Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements; and • Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. 4.5-1(c) The project shall minimize fugitive dust emissions by maintaining In =Vitrbn-to +(b), water trucks shufl be on-site at all times during construction to keep soil moist and prevent fugitive dust from escaping the project site. PS 4.5-2 LS , To the extent feasible by the p?rftct pivponenffs contrVetor, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner that is consistent with standard S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final FIR 2-20 , 17 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation mitigation measures dictated by the SCAQW, including, without limitation, the following measures:. that these measures ham been implemented-fti • Rse low emission on-site mobile construction equipment shall be employed, and • Maintain All equipment shall be maintained in tune per manufacturer's specifications; and • Sabstltute Electric, wtd gasoline powered and methanol - powered equipment shall be substituted for diesel powered construction equipment where feasible; and • The construction contractor shall not permit Kerr -applicable; equipment shall not to be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than two minutes); and • C-ense All construction activities shall cease during periods of Stage 2 Smog Alerts; and • Vse Existing power sources shall be used at the project site where feasible. TheApplicant shall avoid using temporary power generators; and S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-21 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ridership Construction activities shall be planned and undertaken to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. 4.5-3 Although the proposed project would LS None required. NA contribute to traffic congestion in the vicinity of the proposed project, the project would not cause violations of the State CO standard. This is a less -than -significant impact. 4.5-4 Operational emissions caused by electricity SU 4.5-4(a) The project shall be designed and SU and natural gas usage and vehicular operated so as to minimize vehicular emissions from project -generated traffic will emissions, including the following increase regional and local air pollutant measures: levels. This is a significant unavoidable 0 The project shall be designed so as impact, to provide convenient access to transit stops; and • The Applicant shall provide complimentary bikes or bike rentals for hotel visitors and encourage use of The Strand, and S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-22. 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Bicycle storage facilities shall be incorporated into the design of the hotel or adjacent pedestrian plazas; and The Applicant shall encourage use of shuttle and/or bus service. 4.5-4(b) The project shall be designed and operated so as to minimize emissions from energy consumption: • Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company shall be consulted during project design and, when all feasible, energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into the project; and • The Applicant shall install energy efficient street and surface parking lighting to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, such as fe:g. high pressure sodium, low pressure sodium, metal halide, or clean lucalox, and • The Applicant shall install low - polluting, energy-efficient appliances for hotel uses; and Install solar water heaters where feasible. S — Significant SU — Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-23 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EffACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation feasible. The Applicant shall incorporate appropriate passive solar design where appropriate; and The design of the hotel shall include cascadeing ventilation air from high-priority (occupied space) areas to low priority (corridors, equipment, and mechanical space) areas before tieing the air is exhausted, and The hotel design shall facilitate the use of electric yard maintenance equipment through the placement of exterior outlets both fi-ont z"id teat throughout the project. Noise 4.6-1 The proposed project would result in PS 4.6-1(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a). SU temporary increases in noise levels due to general construction activities. This is a 4.6-1(b) Construction equipment shall be potentially significant impact. equipped with all feasible noise -control devices. S = Significant . , SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-24 . .. z o Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL E"ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.6-2 The proposed project would contribute to traffic noise level increases along roadways in the project area. This is a less -than - significant impact. 4.6-3 The proposed project would result in nuisance noises from delivery staging areas, parking structure activities and other miscellaneous hotel operations. This is a less -than -significant significant impact. 4.6-4 Hotel guests would be subject to nuisance noises associated with the proposed parking structure, use of The Strand, occasional volleyball tournaments and associated activities. This is a potentially significant impact. 4.6-1(c) Construction on the Phase 1 Hotel site shall be limited from June 15th to September 15th to exclude weekends and legal holidays. LS None required. LS 4.6-3 - None required. PS 4.64 In order to prevent high noise levels and nuisance noise associated with The Strand, the proposed parking structure, and special events, from affecting hotel guests, prior to the issuance of building permits, the -hotel d¢reloper Applicant shall install doubk- AS On 011CY YWHVC, the hotel developer shall prepare provide an acoustical study S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS — Less Than Significant PS - Potentially Significant NA L -S NA LS The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-25 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Public Services 4.7-1 The proposed hotel and parking structure would increase the demand for fire and paramedic services, and proposed circulation changes could hamper emergency access in the downtown area. This is a less -than -significant impact 4.7-2 The proposed hotel, and the associated increase in population and traffic in the downtown area, would incrementally increase the demand for police services in the City. This is a less -than -significant impact performed by a licensed acoustical engineer which establishes the mitigation measures necessary to limit maximum interior noise levels in the hotel units facing The Strand and facing the City parking structure to below City interior noise standards to denionstit7te that such attennafton is not required to mittate high noise levels mi Such measures shall include, without limitation, the installation of double paned windows in all room LS None required. NA LS None required. NA S = Significant SU =. Significant Unavoidable NA — Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-26 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.7-3 The proposed parking structure, if not well designed and illuminated, could become a focal point for crime and place an extra burden on the police department. This is a significant impact. S 4.7-3(a) Prior to submittal of detailed construction plans for the parking structure, the project architect shall meet with the Hermosa Beach Police Department to evaluate a set of preliminary plans relative to lighting placement, proposed security systems, and ease ofpolicing. The objective of the Police Department's review shall be to ensure that the design for the .parking structure incorporates all feasible measures to reduce the potential for crime and ensure adequate policing of the area. The Police Department shall conduct a subsequent review of the plans prior to their final approval to ensure their recommendations have been incorporated. 4.7-3(b) The City and the Police Department should evaluate the necessity and feasibility of establishing a police sub- station within a portion of the parking structure area set aside for retail/office space. S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant LS The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-27 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.7-4 Occupancy of the hotel would increase the demand placed on recreational resources. This is a less -than -significant impact 4.7-5 Construction activities for the proposed hotel and parking structure have the potential to interfere with special events and recreational activities on the beach, The Strand, at Noble Park, and in the downtown area. This is a temporary significant impact LS None required. S 4.7-5(a) In order to avoid conflicts with special events held in the project area, construction on the site shall be suspended on certain days as determined appropriate by the City. Prior to any demolition or construction for the parking structure or the hotel, special event days that would require suspension of construction shall be identified by the City. The hotel proponent and the contractors for both the hotel and/or the parking structure shall be informed of these dates by the City as soon as feasible, and compliance with the schedule shall be enforced by the City. The City shall retain the right to change or extend the dates when warranted to ensure that special events are not significantly impacted by project construction. 4.7-5(b) In order to prevent nuisances associated with construction noise, dust, and other activities from adversely affecting beach, S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant NA LS The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-28 Z 0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL E"ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation park, and Strand users during high use summer months, construction on the Phase 1 Hotel site shall be limited from June 15th to September 15th to exclude weekends and legal holidays. 4.7-5(c) Implement Noise Mitigation Measure 4.2- 1(a) which limits hours of construction. 4.7-5(d) No closure, either temporary or permanent shall be allowed on the existing public walkway known as The Strand. All construction equipment shall gain access to the site from public rights- of-way other than The Strand. To avoid hazards to Strand users during construction along The Strand, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian canopy in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. 4.7-5(e) S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR pirftet site,- The applicant and the City shall coordinate in the preparation of a Construction Operation Plan and Program. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits by the Director of 2-29 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Community Development. The plan shall incorporate the following: • specications for fencing of the site, construction staging areas, and pedestrian canopies. • limitations on construction activities by date and hour. • a scaled plan that depicts pedestrian circulation routes and demonstrates the maintenance of safe and open access to the beach, The Strand, and Noble Park during project construction. • designated construction haul routes. Use of said routes shall be enforced by the construction foreman and the City and said routes shall be periodically evaluated by the City to ensure that nuisances and conflicts associated ivith construction traffic are being avoided to the degree feasible. 4.7-5(o To avoid interference with special event set-up and operation during the construction period for the Phase I hotel, Thirteenth Street at The Strand shall be made available for special event trucks if required. S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-30 , 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL E"ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation 4.8 Utilities 4.8-1 The proposed project would result in the generation of 13,575 gallons of wastewater per day which could be accommodated by the City's sewer system. This is a less -than - significant impact. 4.8-2 The proposed project would result in the generation of 13,575 gallons of wastewater per day which would require treatment at the LACSD's wastewater treatment plant. This is a less -than -significant impact. 4.8-3 The proposed project would result in a demand for 17,590 gallons of water per day. This is a less -than -significant impact. 4.8-4 The proposed project would result in a demand for water which could exceed the capacity of existing water supply facilities. This is a potentially -significant impact. LS None required. LS None required. LS None required. PS 4.8-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Department that water facilities on the hotel site meet the fire flow requirements established by the Fire Department. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service Company (CWSQ to determine whether or S = Significant SU — Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant NA NA NA LS The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-31 2.0 Summary TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation not exi�ting facififfes would need to be upgradeds are necessary to in cc t the fim-flaw and, if so, the Applicant If it is detminhied that proponent shall enter into an agreement with CWSC to fund and construct the necessary improvements. If improvements are determined to be necessary, improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of building permits. Construction of all necessary upgrades shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase I. 4.8-5 The proposed project would result in the S 4.8-5(a) The hotel developer shall include in its LS generation of approximately 1,000 pounds of construction contract a clause which solid waste per day. This is a significant stipulates, to the satisfaction of the City impact. Attorney, that the contractor will recycle materials used in construction to the extent feasible in order to divert construction waste from regional landfills. 4.8-5(b) The hotel shall incorporate facilities for collection, compaction, and pick-up of S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-32 2.0 Summary ' TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Level of Significance Impact Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation recyclable materials including the following: • receptacles in the common areas of the hotel for the collection of aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles and paper; • a central refuse disposal and storage area designed to accommodate separate receptacles for recyclable materials to allow for participation in the City's residential recycling program. 4.8-5(c) Information regarding recycling opportunities provided by the hotel shall be posted in common rooms of the hotel in order to encourage guests and hotel employees to recycle. S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable NA = Not Applicable LS = Less Than Significant PS = Potentially Significant The Hermosa Inn and Parking Structure Project Final EIR 2-33 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HERMOSA INN HOTEL PROJECT AND CITY PARKING STRUCTURE; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HEREBY FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Keenan Land Company (the "Applicant") has filed an application for a conditional use permit, precise development plan, parking plan, parking agreement, vesting tentative tract map, and airspace encroachment permit for the development of a proposed 96 room hotel (the "Hotel Project") at 1300 The Strand (the "Hotel Site"). Section 2. The City of Hermosa Beach (the "City"), has proposed to construct a four -level public parking structure on a City owned parking lot (Lot "C", the "Parking Structure Site") located adjacent to the Hotel Site. The Applicant has requested the ability to satisfy part of the parking requirement for the Hotel Project by acquiring 100 spaces in the Parking Structure. The four level Parking Structure is therefore proposed to contain 480 parking spaces, along with 7,000 square feet of retail and office uses located along Hermosa Avenue (the "Parking Structure", collectively with the Hotel Project, the "Projects"). Section 3. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the Projects pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and governmental services. The Initial Study was distributed for public review on May 2, 1996 for a thirty (30) day public review period that ended on June 3, 1996. Section 4. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Projects. A Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was prepared for the Projects and sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons. The City contracted with an independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR. Section 5. On May 16, 1996 a public scoping meeting was held before the City's Environmental Review Committee. The 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 public scoping meeting was noticed by publication in the local press, by posting on the Hotel and Parking Structure sites, in the vicinity of the Project Sites, at ,City Hall, and through an announcement on cable television. The meeting provided an introduction to the project and the CEQA process, and provided an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR. Section 6. On September 19, 1996, the DEIR was completed. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, the City prepared a Notice of Completion of the DEIR which was filed by mail with the State Office of Planning and Research on , 1996. A copy of the Notice of Completion and of the mailing list to agencies and interested individuals, is included in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"). The DEIR was circulated to interested persons and agencies between September 19, 1996 and November 3, 1996 for a 45 -day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(c). A duly noticed public meeting was held before the City Council on September 25, 1996 for the purpose of taking public comments regarding the DEIR. In response to the circulation of the DEIR, the City received written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The City prepared written responses to all comments which raised significant environmental issues. The City incorporated the comments and the City's responses into the FEIR and returned responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. Section 7. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR circulated September 19, 1996, including any revisions thereto; the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the DEIR; the comments which were received by the City regarding the DEIR; and the City's written responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 8. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the FEIR and the Projects on December 3, 1996 at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing was provided in accordance with applicable law. Based upon the record of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to certify the FEIR and to approve the Projects. The Planning Commission's decision was timely appealed by the Applicant. Section 9. In response to the Applicant's appeal, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 1996. Section 10. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the EIR and 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 2 - upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based and the EIR for the Project are on file and available for public examination during normal business hours in the Office of the Community Development Director of the City of Hermosa Beach, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. The custodian of said records is the Community Development Director of the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 11. The City Council finds that the public and government agencies have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and FEIR. Section 12. The City Council finds, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently analyzed by the City and its Staff, and that the EIR represents the independent judgment of the City as lead agency with respect to the Project. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports accompanying the Projects' descriptions and EIR, the corrections and modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new information so as to require recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1. Section 13. The City Council finds that the comments regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been received by the City; that the City Council has received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that the City Council, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council therefore certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Section 14. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR, the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Population, Employment and Housing, Biology, Geology, Energy, Cultural and Historical Resources, and Hazards. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR, and also at pages 1-3 through 1-4, inclusive, of the DEIR Section 15. The Initial Study identified some of the Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, and upon public and agency comments and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the following areas identified as "potentially significant" in the Initial Study: 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 3 - a. Hydrology and Drainage: The proposed project will not degrade groundwater resources in the Project area, as the groundwater level below the Project site has been estimated at ten feet below ground. Only a portion of the Parking Structure will require excavation, and only to roughly four feet below ground. Therefore, grading, excavation and construction activities for the Projects will not impact groundwater resources. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.1 of the EIR. b. Land Use. The proposed project will not be inconsistent with relevant plans and policies, including the City General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, and more recent plans for the downtown area. With the implementation of mitigation measures contained in the EIR and the Applicant's decision to delete the roof deck and other roof top elements from the Hotel Project, the Projects are viewed as being consistent with applicable Plans. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.2 of the EIR. C. Aesthetics. The proposed project will not have a negative aesthetic effect on views from the Strand, the beach and surrounding public areas. The height, scale, mass, and design of the proposed hotel is not out of character with surrounding development. The potentially significant impact identified in the Initial Study largely was a result of proposed roof top elements of the Hotel Project which might have exceeded the City's building height limit. Roof top structures which may have exceeded the height limit have been deleted from the Hotel Project. Residential and commercial buildings in close proximity to the Hotel Site range in height from 30-45 feet. In addition, construction of the Projects will not increase shade and shadow effects in the vicinity of the Projects. While increased shade and shadow effects are inevitable with any development on the project site, existing streets and setbacks preclude any impact on sensitive uses. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 4.3 of the EIR. d. Parking. The proposed project will not increase the demand for parking in the downtown area. The Projects will ultimately 480 new spaces of parking. Code compliant parking is provided throughout the construction process through a variety of enforceable measures. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. e. Circulation. Temporary road closures as a result of construction of the Projects will not significantly affect circulation in the downtown area, as traffic will be able to flow between Beach Drive and 13th Street, maintaining circulation to City parking lots. Other impacts will be short-term and occasional. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 4 - f. Traffic. Traffic generated by the Hotel Project will not adversely affect the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan ("CMP") intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia/Gould Avenue, based upon CMP evaluation criteria. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. g. Air Quality. The Projects will not cause violations of the State CO standard. Pursuant to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, CO concentrations at the intersections measured will decrease by the year 2000. Further, compliance with the Building Code will ensure that the Parking Structure Project will incorporate adequate ventilation to meet relevant standards. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.5 of the EIR. h. Noise. The Projects will not significantly contribute to traffic noise level increases along roadways in the project area. Traffic -generated noise level increases would result in noise levels within City standards. The Projects will not create significant nuisance noises from delivery staging areas, parking structure activities and other miscellaneous hotel operations. The Applicant has eliminated plans for a roof top deck which would have created some level of nuisance noises. Other potential operational nuisance noise sources will be located away from sensitive receptors. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 4.6 of the EIR. i. Public Services. The Projects will not significantly increase demand for fire, paramedic and police services. The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that staffing levels and response times are adequate to provide services for the Projects. Occupancy of the Hotel Project will not significantly increase the demand placed on recreational resources. The Applicant will pay a Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and the Hotel Project guests are expected to utilize the beach rather than public park areas. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 4.7 of the EIR. j. Utilities. The Projects will not significantly the City's sewer system, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's ("LACSD") wastewater treatment plant, and the water supply. Projected wastewater generation from the Hotel Project is below the thresholds of significance established by the City, LACSD, and the local water purveyor. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.7 of the EIR. Section 16. Based upon the initial study, the EIR, public comments and the record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the Projects may create significant impacts in the areas of hydrology and drainage, transportation, circulation 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 5 and parking, air quality, noise, aesthetics and views, land use, public services, and utilities. The Projects may create significant cumulative impacts in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, aesthetics, hydrology and drainage, and public services and utilities. With the exceptions of construction impacts, operational air quality impacts, construction -related noise impacts, view impacts, and cumulative air quality impacts from increased vehicular emissions, the EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. With regard to construction, operational air quality, construction noise, view impacts, and cumulative air quality impacts from vehicular emissions, the EIR identifies mitigation measures that will substantially lessen each impact. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Sections 2.0, 4.0 through 4.7, inclusive, and 5.0 of the EIR. Section 17. In response to each significant impact identified in the EIR, and listed in Section 16 of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into, the Projects which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. Each such change or alteration shall be a condition of approval of the Projects. The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 18. The FEIR describes, and the City Council has fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the "No Project" alternative; Alternative One, which incorporated long-term off-site parking; Alternative Two, which considered a 96 -room hotel with a smaller parking structure; Alternative Three, construction of the Phase One Hotel only with on-site surface parking; and Alternative Four, construction of a 7,500 square foot restaurant and a 380 space parking structure. The alternatives identified in the EIR either would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.. Accordingly, and for any one of the reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A," the City Council finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the Project alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative, identified in the EIR and each is hereby rejected. The City Council further finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the EIR, and that all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Projects. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 6 Section 19. The City Council hereby makes the findings contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with respect to each of the significant impacts defined in the FEIR and the alternatives analysis. Further, the City Council hereby finds that each fact in support of finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Section 20. Upon approval of this Resolution, the Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's Office, County of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1996. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 7 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. a. Hvdroloqv and Drainaqe. i. Quantity of Runoff. Development of the project will result in higher surface water runoff than currently leaves the project site, exacerbating existing deficiencies in the storm drain system serving the site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: Mitigation Measure No. 4.1-1 requires the Applicant to contribute a fair share towards the construction of a 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain at the Thirteenth Avenue and Beach Drive sump in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage. The fair share contribution shall be based on the project's contribution to run-off which would be directed to the storm drain. Construction of the storm drain shall be completed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permits. The storm drain at Thirteenth Avenue and Beach Drive would drain the sump at that intersection when its tributary lateral storm drain flapgates are closed and would also provide a backup outlet for the Lower Pier Avenue area. ii. Ouality of Runoff. Approval and development of the project could result in degradation of the quality of storm drain runoff. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: Construction and operational activities could create sediments and pollutants to enter into the storm drain system, such as concrete wash water, fuels, oil, antifreeze, trash and debris. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(a) and 4.2-1(b), measures to reduce the impact of pollutants to runoff shall be in compliance with Hermosa Beach's existing ordinances and guidelines concerning best management practices for stormwater runoff. The City shall also install an oil/grease separator to treat runoff generated in the parking structure, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Stormwater Management Program. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 8 - b. Land Use Conflicts. i. operational Conflicts. operational aspects of the hotel, including the meeting rooms, outdoor spa area, drop-off area, service deliveries and rooftop deck could result in land use conflicts with nearby nonconforming residential uses, The Strand and local businesses. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: To prevent impacts on the use of The Strand, Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a) requires the hotel management to inform owners and guests that access to the beach and The Strand is permitted only from Thirteenth Street and Fourteenth Street via the hotel lobby. For the safety of the visitors and the general public, the hotel management will be responsible for enforcing this policy. The rooftop deck and trellises have been eliminated as features of the proposed project. This will eliminate possible noise conflicts with surrounding residences. To reduce impacts on adjacent residential uses associated with the siting and use of the parking structure, Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c) requires that plans for the structure employ design techniques to minimize noise, lighting and visual impacts to the degree feasible. Special attention must be paid to those sections of the structure abutting residential uses. In these areas, designers should consider limited openings on the wall of the structure, modifying setbacks and the use of property walls, vines and landscaping. Finally, in order to prevent high noise levels associated with use of The Strand, the proposed parking structure and special events from affecting hotel guests, Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(d) and 4.6-4 require that the Applicant complete an acoustical study and shall install noise control measures such as double -paned windows in all rooms fronting on The Strand, and facing the parking structure. ii. Height Impacts. The height of the hotel as originally proposed, specifically the trellis and other rooftop structures, exceed the basic height limit for the C-2 zone and may not be in compliance with the zoning code. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant has submitted revised plans to the City to eliminate the rooftop deck, chimneys and trellis structures from the project design. Prior to approving the project, the City Council must establish 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 9 the relevant grade and will require that the Hotel structure comply with the height limit as measured from grade. iii. Temporary View Impacts. Construction of the hotel and parking structure could have temporary adverse effects on views from the beach and The Strand. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 requires that the City evaluate the height and design of construction fencing and pedestrian canopies prior to erection to ensure maximum screening of views to the construction site during construction from the beach and The Strand. iv. Aesthetic Impacts of the Parking Structure. The design of the parking structure could have a negative aesthetic impact on downtown. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), design features shall be incorporated into the parking structure to reduce visual impacts, including articulation of the building mass through the use of off -sets, stepped terraces, changes in plane, and other such devices, to reduce the visual obtrusiveness of the structure. Mitigation Measure 4.4-3(b) requires that appropriate landscaping be installed including a fully automated sprinkler system, maximal (to the extent feasible) tree and vine planting, and textured or colored paving materials. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c) requires that the structure be maintained in excellent condition throughout its lifetime. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3- 3(d), the fan palms located on Lot C shall be relocated or replaced with trees of a -minimum 36" box size. C. Transportation, Parking and Circulation. i. Cumulative Traffic Impacts. Increases in traffic associated with the project will adversely affect the capacity of intersections in the study area. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Additional changes or alterations are within the jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City Council. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 10 - Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.4- 1(a) through (c), inclusive, require that the City and the Applicant will jointly fund improvements to the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue -14th Street intersection based on fair share contributions. The eastbound lanes at the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue -14th Street intersection shall be changed from their existing configuration to a dual left -turn and right -turn. In addition, prior to terminating the interim shuttle program to address short-term displaced parking the downtown areas (discussed below), the City shall determine the feasibility of implementing a long-term shuttle service for downtown visitors with the objective of discouraging automobile use and encouraging pedestrian circulation in the downtown area. This program shall be periodically evaluated and adjusted to maximize ridership and reduce congestion in the downtown area. The City also will implement a monitoring program at the Monterey/Pier Avenue Intersection to determine the timing for implementation of mitigation measures once the Level of Service at that intersection falls below LOS E. The City shall also continue to implement its Transportation Demand Management Plan on a project -by -project basis including various requirements for reducing vehicle trips. In addition to these measures, current plans by CalTrans and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan will provide additional mitigation for cumulative impacts along PCH. However, the EIR indicates that the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may be the adoption of a Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, rather than the imposition of conditions on a project -by -project basis. ii. Vehicular Circulation. Access to the parking structure and hotel will increase traffic operations in the project area, adversely affecting vehicular circulation. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, traffic signals at the 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue and at the Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue intersections shall be modified in the following ways to improve circulation in the vicinity of the hotel and parking structure: • Thirteenth Street and Hermosa Avenue: Provide left -through option lane on northbound Hermosa Avenue and modify existing traffic signal to produce split operation on Hermosa Avenue. • Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue: Provide left -through option lane on southbound Hermosa Avenue and modify existing traffic signal to produce split phase operation on Hermosa Avenue. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 11 iii. Temporary Parking. Displacement. Construction of the hotel and parking structure will temporarily displace 254 parking spaces. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.4(a) and (b) require that replacement parking totaling 338 parking spaces, be made available during the construction period at several identified locations. Further, a shuttle service shall be instituted to allow visitors to the downtown to park in these remote locations and take the shuttle into the downtown area. In developing the shuttle service, the City shall minimize the number of remote parking site and shuttle stops in order to maximize the efficiency of the system. Once operational, the shuttle service shall be periodically evaluated to maximize ridership and reduce impacts on parking and circulation the downtown area. If parking for construction workers and construction vehicles cannot be handled within the proposed construction staging, areas, remote parking outside'of the downtown areas shall be secured and used. This remote parking shall be provided in areas not proposed for parking use by the users of the shuttle service. The City has found shuttle service to be successfully employed to reduce vehicle congestion in the downtown area for special events, and expects shuttle service to be similarly successful in connection with the Projects. d. Short -Term Air Oualitv Impacts. i. Fugitive Dust. Clearing, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces will generate dust at and near the project site during the construction period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts off-site sufficient.to cause a nuisance, SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction, and other feasible dust control measures shall be implemented as part of the proposed project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) and 4.5-1(c). Prior'to approval of the grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that compliance will be achieved. Approved actions shall be reflected in the Grading Plan and the Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs of compliance review. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(b) requires that other measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions shall be implemented to the extent feasible during construction. These measures are identified in detail at Draft EIR page 4.5-13, 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 12 - and in Section 2.0 of the EIR, and include watering of the site, suspension of grading during high winds and smog alerts, spreading of soil blinders, daily street sweeping, and washing of tracks leaving the project site. The Applicant is required to maintain water trucks on site at all times during construction. ii. Combustion Emissions. Combustion emissions will be released from on-site construction vehicles and on -road vehicles of construction workers during the construction period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 requires that, to the extent feasible, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation dictated by SCAQMD. These include use of low emission on-site equipment, maintenance of equipment per manufacturer's specifications, substitute electric, gasoline or methanol powered equipment for diesel -powered equipment where feasible. Other measures to reduce emissions from construction vehicles are identified at Draft EIR at pages 4.5-14 through 4.5-15. e. Creation of Opportunities for Crime. The parking structure could become a focal point for crime and lace an extra burden on the police department. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.7(3)(a) and (b), prior to submittal of detailed construction plans for the parking structure, the Applicant is required to meet with the Hermosa Beach Police Department to evaluate plans for security lighting, security systems, and ease of policing. The Police Department will conduct a subsequent review of the plans prior to their final approval to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated. f. Construction Impacts on Special Events. Construction activities have the potential to interfere with special on the beach, The Strand, at Noble Park and in the downtown area. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.7- 5(a) requires that construction be suspended on certain days as determined appropriate by the City. Prior to commencement of construction or demolition activities, special event days that 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 13 - would require suspension of construction activities shall be identified by the City and the applicant's contractors shall be informed of these dates. Compliance with the schedule shall be enforced by the City. To prevent nuisances associated with construction during high use summer months, Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(b) requires that construction on the Phase One Hotel site be limited from June 15th to September 15 to exclude weekends and legal holidays. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(c) requires that the Applicant limit hours of construction to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(d) prohibits temporary or permanent closure of the Strand for construction purposes, and requires that construction equipment access the site from public rights-of-way other than The Strand. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(e) requires the preparation and approval of a Construction Operation Plan which will provide for fencing specifications, limits on construction hours and days, pedestrian circulation routes, the demonstration of safe and open access to the beach and the Strand, and designated construction haul routes. The Applicant is required to provide a pedestrian canopy over The Strand in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. Under Mitigation ,Measure 4.7-5(f), beach access at Thirteenth Avenue and The Strand shall be made available for special event trucks if required during Phase One hotel construction. g. Water Supply Impacts for Fire -Fighting Purposes. The project could result in demand for water which could exceed the capacity of the existing water supply facilities for fire- fighting purposes. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.8-4 requires the applicant to coordinate with California Water Service Company ("CWSC") to determine whether existing facilities would need to be upgraded to meet the fire flow requirement for the project site. If it is determined that upgrades are necessary, the applicant is required to enter into an agreement with CWSC to fund the improvements. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any necessary upgrades are required to be constructed prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project. h. Solid Waste Impacts. The project will result in the generation of approximately 1,000 pounds of solid waste per day. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 14 r Facts in Support of Finding: Under Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(a), the applicant must include in its construction contract to recycle materials used in construction to the extent feasible in order to divert construction waster from regional landfills. Other recycling measures -- outlined in more detail in the Draft EIR at pages 4.8-1 and following, and in the Final EIR -- also must be incorporated into the project. 2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. a. Short -Term Land Use Impacts. Approval of the project will result in unavoidable, short-term, significant impacts on existing land uses including noise, dust and traffic arising out of the construction of the hotel and parking structure. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts, short-term, construction - related impacts cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts Supporting Finding: A number of mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts arising out of construction activities, including Mitigation Measures 4.7-5(a) through (e) concerning potential conflicts with special events; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary construction noise impacts; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary construction noise impacts; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary air quality impacts; and Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) concerning limitation of hours and days of construction. These measures will reduce certain aspects of the construction -related impacts to a level of insignificance. As to those construction -related impacts that cannot be reduced or avoided, including high noise levels from the use of heavy equipment, dust from grading activities, and temporary increases in traffic, the City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth below. b. Permanent View Impacts. Approval of the project will result in significant, unavoidable impacts on existing and coastal views from residential and commercial properties, Noble Park, and other areas in the project vicinity. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address impacts on existing views, obstruction of certain existing views cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance and is therefore found to be a significant and unavoidable effect of the project. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - is - Facts Supporting Finding: A portion of the project is to be located on a vacant lot over which certain existing homes and businesses currently enjoy ocean views. A three story parking structure will replace the existing surface parking. Neither the vacant lot nor the existing surface parking contribute significantly to the visual quality of the area. Nonetheless, the hotel and the parking structure will obstruct existing views of the ocean and coastline from a relatively small number of residences and businesses (see DEIR at 4.3-9 through 4.3-15.) Conditions of development require the Applicant to: • With respect to.the Final Plans for landscaping for the pedestrian plazas at Fourteenth Street and Thirteenth Street and The Strand, specify plant species and concentrate landscaping along the edges of the street rights-of-way with the goal of framing and maintaining as much of a view corridor to the ocean as is feasible; • Screen rooftop equipment from all off-site vantage points, and contain mechanical equipment within rooftop penthouses. Rooftop screening materials shall be complimentary in material and color to the building's exterior; • Screen service areas from off-site view and enclose trash containers using materials complimentary to the buildings; and • Since the issuance of the Draft EIR, the developer has also agreed to revise its plans to eliminate the rooftop deck and trellises extending above the roof line. The above measures will reduce certain aspects of the view impacts to a level of insignificance. As to those view impacts that cannot be reduced or avoided, including blocking or partial blocking of some ocean views, the City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse view impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is set forth below. C. Air Quality Impacts. Approval of the project will result in increased regional and local air pollutant levels on a project -specific and cumulative basis. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address the project's impacts on air quality, operational emissions caused by electricity and natural gas usage and by vehicular emissions from project -generated traffic will cause increases in regional and local air pollutants that cannot 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 16 - be reduced to a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts Supporting Finding: Hermosa -Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a non -attainment area for air quality standards under both federal and state law. The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") has developed an Air Quality Management Plan designed to bring the region into compliance with federal and state standards. Vehicle traffic, by far the largest generator of the pollutant emissions in the Basin, would be generated by guests staying at the hotel, employees of the hotel, office and retail space, shoppers visiting the retail space and visitors to the parking garage. In addition, hotel operational emissions from the project will exceed SCAQMD daily operational emissions for several identified pollutants. Mitigation measures are adopted to reduce these emissions: Mitigation Measure 4.5-4(a): - Provide convenient access to transit stops; Mitigation Measure 4.5-4(b): - Provide complimentary bikes or bike rentals for hotel visitors and encourage use of The Strand; - Incorporation of bicycle storage facilities into the design of the project; - Encourage use of shuttle and/or bus service; - Consult with Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, and all feasible energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into the project; - Install energy efficient street lighting and surface parking lighting; - Install low -polluting, energy efficient appliances in hotel; - Install solar water heaters where feasible; - Incorporate passive solar design; - Cascade ventilation air before exhaustion of air; and - Install facilities for electric -powered landscape maintenance equipment. Estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is difficult. It is unlikely, however, that these measures will be adequate to 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 17 reduce vehicular emissions to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, operational and vehicular emissions from the project are considered significant and unavoidable. The City finds that there are specific economic, social and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse air quality impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is set forth below. d. Noise Impacts. General construction activities will result in temporary significant increases in noise levels. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts, short-term, construction - related impacts cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding: Some construction -related noise impacts are inevitable from any construction project. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through 4.6-1(c), inclusive, the Applicant is required to limit construction hours and days as specified in Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) and to equip construction equipment with all feasible noise control devices. All construction is prohibits on weekends and holidays during the peak summer season from June 15th through September 15th. 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES The City Council has considered various project alternatives as analyzed in the EIR and makes the following findings: i. No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes that the hotel site would remain vacant and the parking structure would not be constructed. Both the hotel site and Parking Lot "C" would remain subject to future development consistent with the requirements of the C-2 zone. Such development would have some or all of the same impacts as the Projects. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative. Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative is infeasible because it is inconsistent with the City's goals, among others, of providing additional parking for the downtown area through a joint public/private venture, encouraging high quality development that will complement the City's unique beach environment, generating new revenue sources for the City and to provide opportunities for retail reinvestment attracting new daytime users to the downtown area. The No Project Alternative is also inconsistent with the Applicant's goals, among others, of providing a financially sound project 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 18 - while contributing to the fiscal stability of the City. The No Project Alternative would not obtain any of the City's or the applicant's goals and objectives. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. ii. Alternative One. Alternative One is the same as the Projects with the exception of the parking plan. Under this alternative, 100 parking spaces would be long-term leased within one mile of the hotel period for an interim period until the parking structure on City -owned Lot "C" is built. Hotel guests and visitors would be met by valets who would park all cars at the designated location. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative One. Alternative One is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. Facts in Support of Finding: Certain impacts associated with Alternative One would be greater than with the proposed project, such as land use conflicts, air quality, and noise. Impacts on traffic could be substantially greater than under the preferred alternative because of the doubling of trips associated with the initial arrival and departure of guests and each valet trip necessary to make these trips possible. Alternative One would meet the basic project objectives of the City and the Applicant but could be inconvenient for guests of the hotel because of the valet service and remote parking. Alternative One makes the project a less desirable resort destination than the preferred project and therefore a potentially less sound project financially. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. iii. Alterative Two. Alternative Two comprises a 96 room hotel with a 100 car parking structure which would be constructed and air -leased over Lot "C" owned by the City. The City would ultimately construct a multi-level parking structure that would be joined with the adjacent structure built by the hotel proponent. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Two. Alternative Two is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. Facts in Support of Finding: This alternative would be less efficient than the proposed alternative due to the dual 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 19 ramping system necessary for the two structures and the extra cost of constructing and joining separate facilities that could have been constructed together. Air pollutant emissions would be higher because of double construction. The alternative is also less desirable than the preferred project because it would provide approximately 100 fewer parking spaces, which would not meet the long-term goals for parking downtown. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. iv. Alternative Three. Alternative Three consists of construction of the Phase I of the Hotel Project only. The Phase II hotel lot would be used for surface parking, with valet/self service for 54 spaces. The City would construct a 380 -space parking structure, 14 spaces of which would be long-term leased to the hotel. Finding: Although Alternative Three may be environmentally superior to the Projects, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Three, and the alternative is rejected. Facts in Support of Finding: The reduction in size of the hotel from 96 to 54 rooms would reduce environmental impacts of the project, but would not fully realize the City's and the applicant's goals in that the project would be less financially successful, contribute less to the City's tax base, create fewer jobs and provide 100 fewer parking spaces than are desired by the City's long-term downtown parking goals. Alterative Three would have also similar environmental impacts as the preferred alternative in terms of views, construction, noise and land use conflicts. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. V. Alternative Four. Alternative Four consists of the construction of a 7,500 square foot restaurant on the south end of the Phase I site. The Phase II lot would be used for surface parking. The City would construct a 380 space parking structure with 7,000 square feet of retail/office space. Finding: Specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Four. Facts in Support of Finding: Alternative Four would not meet many of the basic objectives of the project, notably construction of a beach front resort hotel. Traffic, air quality 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 - 2 0 - and noise impacts could be greater under this alternative, particularly Saturday p.m. peak hour traffic, such that Alternative Four is not environmentally superior to the proposed Projects. There would still be view blockage impacts and construction impacts. Adding an additional restaurant to the downtown area could increase competition with respect to existing establishments. Alternative Four would provide 100 fewer parking spaces than the preferred project. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has considered each of the potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above (construction -related impacts, air quality and permanent view impacts) in deciding whether to approve development of the Projects. Although the City Council believes that many of the unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, it recognizes that approval of the Projects will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects. The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, that specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the City Council finds that any and each of the following considerations is sufficient to approve the Projects despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified and that each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts individually and that each consideration is severable from any other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The following considerations support approval of the Projects: a. The Projects will implement the City's General Plan and other plans for the downtown area. The City has determined pursuant to its General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and other plans for the downtown area that the site is appropriate for a beach front hotel resort and parking structure and that the number of rooms proposed for the hotel and number of parking spaces proposed for the structure are appropriate for the site given the character of the surrounding area, prevailing market conditions, and existing parking demand; 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 2 1 b. The Hotel Project will generate increased tax revenues for the City including a Transient Occupancy Tax and increased sales and property tax; C. The Projects are consistent with and will implement the City's long range vision for the revitalization of the downtown area; d. The Projects will implement the recommendations contained in the Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) study; e. The Hotel Project will establish an appropriate buffer between the downtown area and the adjacent public park; f. The Projects will provide opportunities for retail reinvestment attracting new daytime users to the downtown area in peak and non -peak seasons; g. The Projects promote additional street-scape improvements; h. The Projects are aesthetically attractive and will enhance the beach front; i. The Parking Structure Project serves the City's goals in that it will provide safe and adequate parking that meets the City's parking requirements through a mutually -beneficial joint private/public venture; j. The Projects will improve the existing aesthetic condition of the sites; k. The Projects will contribute to needed traffic improvements within the downtown area; and 1. The Hotel Project will contribute to needed storm drain improvements within the downtown area. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201631 0 2 2 - AMERICAN DREAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. December 4, 1996 City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa. Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Hermosa Inn Dear Sir/Madam: 6' 04 cr crrroF,;i,4�00 1;QEACH a a -,-i 13 The undersigned applicant hereby appeals each aspect of The Planning Commission's approval on December 3, 1996 of the 96 -room hotel at 1300 The Strand, including but not limited to the conditional use permit, the precise development plan, the parking plan and vesting tentative tract map No. 52158, on the basis that the determination made by the Planuing Commission of mitigation Measure 4.1-1 (see page 9, paragraph 31) is based on "fair dwc", which is vague and unclear. Who else wijl be contributing and in what proportion will the participants be contributing? Are the drainage calculations from the applicant's property included proportionally with the drainage run -o$' calculations from the other participants in order to arrive at a "flu share" calculation? The applicant is requesting that this appeal be heard at the December 17, 1996, Council Meeting. Thauk you for you; consideration in this matter. Sincerely, CT. Keenan III cc: Sol Blumenfeld Community Development Director, City of Hermosa Beach .700 EMERSON STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (415) 326-2244 FAX - `ti5 - 3A air as TOTAL P.02 . . , City of 21crmosaTeac� XF I. Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254.3885 V December 4, 1996 Mr. Charles J. Keenan III 700 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: APPEAL OF EACH ASPECT OF THE DECEMBER 3, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSIONS APPROVAL OF THE 96 -ROOM HOTEL AT 1300 THE STRAND. Dear Mr. Keenan: Your appeal of the subject decision, filed December 4, 1996, has been scheduled for a Public Hearing before the Hermosa Beach City Council on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, at 7:30 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. This hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, at 1315 Valley Drive. If you wish to submit any written evidence to be considered by the City Council at this meeting, we request that it be received by the Community Development Department by noon on Wednesday, December 11, 1996, for inclusion in the City Council agenda packets. A staff report will be mailed to you on Thursday, December 12, 1996, at the end of the business day, from the Community Development Department. Please address any questions to that department at 310-318-0236. Naoma Valdes Deputy City Clerk, 310-318-0204 cc: City Manager Community Development Dept. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PARKING PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52158; AND FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE OF PARKING SPACES IN A CITY PARKING STRUCTURE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, ALL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 96 ROOM HOTEL AT 1300 THE STRAND AND A PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE WITH UP TO 480 SPACES ON AN ADJACENT CITY OWNED PARKING LOT (LOT "C") The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby Find, Order, and Resolve as follows: Section 1. On December 11, 1995 Keenan Land Company (the "Applicant") filed an application for a conditional use permit, precise development plan, parking plan, vesting tentative tract map, and airspace encroachment permit for the development of a proposed 96 room hotel (the "Hotel Project") at 1300 The Strand (the "Hotel Site"). Section 2. The Hotel Project will be constructed in two phases. Phase One involves the construction of 56 hotel units fronting The Strand with temporary surface parking for 56 cars to be provided by the Applicant on the easterly portion of the Hotel Site. Phase Two, to be constructed later, involves the construction of 40 additional hotel units along 14th Street, replacing the surface parking provided for Phase One. Phase Two also includes construction by the City of the parking structure described in Section 3 of this Resolution, below. Section 3. The City desires to construct a 380 space public parking structure on a City owned parking lot (Lot "C", the "Parking Structure Site") located adjacent to the site of the Hotel Project. The Applicant has requested the ability to satisfy part of the parking requirement for the Hotel Project by acquiring 100 spaces in the Parking Structure. The multi-level Parking Structure is therefore proposed to contain 480 parking spaces, along with 7,000 square feet of retail and office uses located along Hermosa Avenue (the "Parking Structure", collectively with the Hotel Project, the "Projects"). Section 4. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 3, 1996 to consider approval of the Hotel Project. On the basis of the information presented at that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to certify the FEIR and approve the Hotel Project. That decision was timely appealed by the Applicant. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 Section 5. In response to the Applicant's appeal, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on December 17, 1996. Having heard and considered all oral and written testimony, including staff reports and the Final Certified Environmental Impact Reports for the Projects and all relevant evidence and argument, the City Council hereby finds as follows: A. The sites are zoned C-2, Restricted Commercial. The sites are physically suitable for the type and density.of the proposed development Projects, in that the site proposed for the Hotel Project consists of a large vacant property of approximately .72 acres which fronts on the Strand and the beach, while the site proposed for the parking structure is a one acre parcel already developed with a City -owned parking lot. B. The Projects are consistent with the Geheral Plan designations of GC (General Commercial -- Hotel Site) and CR (Commercial Recreation -- Parking Structure Site). C. As conditioned herein, the Projects will conform to all zoning and condominium regulations and will be compatible with neighboring commercial and residential properties. D. The Projects conform to the goals and objectives of the General Plan calling for: • Maximizing commercial uses on downtown commercial properties • Encouraging new businesses and more efficient commercial space utilization • Providing sufficient parking supply supporting existing commercial uses and proposed growth • Allowing off-site public parking and or private parking within a reasonable distance to satisfy parking requirements • Encouraging property upgrading and new investment in downtown. E. The subdivision and proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that no such easements currently exist across the site proposed for the Hotel project. F. The air space easement to accommodate a pedestrian bridge connecting the easterly and westerly portions of the Hotel Project will not conflict with the existing and proposed use of Beach Drive in that the pedestrian bridge will be constructed well above the clearance space necessary for pedestrian and vehicular use. G. The parking plan to accommodate Hotel project parking off- site will permit efficient development consistent with the scale and use of surrounding properties. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 2 H. The proposed parking easement to provide long term parking for the Hotel Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan, in that the parking easement will permit the Hotel project to meet the City's parking requirements without displacing street parking and other existing parking resources. I. The City Council has independently reviewed and certified a project Environmental Impact Report ("the EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 96051009) and Mitigation Monitoring Program in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) through the adoption of Resolution No. 96- , which Resolution is incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Because the EIR identified significant unavoidable environmental impacts from the projects, the City Council balanced the benefits of the projects against the unavoidable risks and adopted a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a). J. The proposed hotel and parking structure are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Local Coastal Plan relative to encouraging visitor serving uses in the downtown; K. The Hotel Project is located within the Downtown Enhancement District (DED). Pursuant to Section 17.44.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, and Amendment Number 6 of the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan, application of a parking requirement that is 650-. of the standard parking requirement for the City is appropriate, as supported by the following findings: 1. Fewer than 96,250 square feet of commercial development, including new buildings, expansions, and/or intensification of uses in the DED has received a Coastal Development Permit since November 1, 1994. 2. There will be adequate parking to support the development and to provide adequate beach parking, in that the Projects include construction of a 480 space parking structure on site. 3. A parking study recently completed for the downtown area shows the occupancy of the parking spaces in the downtown is 90% or less during daylight hours on summer weekends, and no more than 24,063 square feet of commercial development has occurred since the study. L. The development of the hotel and parking structure will promote downtown revitalization opportunities, in that the hotel will attract visitors to the downtown area. M. For the purpose of determining the measurement of grade and building height, the corner point elevations shall be established 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 3 at the proposed street elevation improvements as have been approved by the City's Department of Public Works. Supporting evidence has been presented to the City Council to indicate that the previous elevation of the project site is consistent with the proposed street elevation improvements and represents the previous unaltered grade of the site. Therefore, the hotel project is in conformance with the height limit for C-2 zoned property. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. , Precise Development Plan No. , the parking plan for the Hotel Project submitted on December 11, 1995, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52158, subject to the following conditions: A. PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AND USE REQUIREMENTS 1. The construction and continuing use of the Hotel Project shall conform to the submitted plans approved by the City Council. Any minor modifications shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for consistency with the plans approved by the City Council and City Council. 3. Precise building height, as approved by the City Council, shall be verified at the time of plan check, prior to the issuance of building permits, by the Community Development Director. The Hotel Project shall conform to height requirements, and building elevations shall comply with Section 17.26.50 and Section 17.42.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Design, construction, and continuing use of the Hotel Project shall comply with all requirements of the Public Works, Fire and Finance Departments. 5. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plans. 6. The applicant shall, pursuant to the reimbursement agreement executed between the City and the Applicant, fund and construct, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, all off-site improvements reflected on the final plans for the Hotel Project and approved by the City Council. Off- site improvements to be funded and constructed by the applicant shall include, without limitation: a. Beach Drive: repave Beach Drive contiguous with the project as an auto court; 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 4 b. 14th Street: Reconstruct and repave 14th Street between Hermosa Avenue and the Strand including the cul-de-sac; C. 14th Court: Repave 14th Court; and d. 13th Street: Repave 13th street between Hermosa Avenue and the Strand; install and permanently maintain project landscaping; install the project electrical transformer; install the City electrical transformer; construct and maintain common loading area at 13th Street pursuant to plans approved by City Council. 7. All off-site improvements shown on approved plans shall be completed prior to occupancy of Phase One of the project. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One, the applicant shall obtain an airspace encroachment permit or other acceptable entitlement from the City Council for the bridge connecting the easterly and westerly project buildings. 9. Project signs shall comply with Chapter 17.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Directional signs shall be provided for remote interim parking (as required by the Community Development Director) and to permanent parking structure parking. 10. The hotel developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney, that full construction financing, or other evidence of financial capability to construct the Hotel Project, has been secured prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map shall be null and void eighteen months from the date of approval unless building permits have been obtained for Phase One. The Applicant may apply in writing to the City Council prior to expiration for a time extension. 12. Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty four months after the date of approval unless the final map is approved and Phase One of the Project fully constructed. The Applicant may apply in writing to the City Council prior to expiration for a time extension. 13. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-4, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Department that water facilities on the Hotel Site meet the fire flow requirement established by the Fire Department. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service Company ("CWSC") to determine whether upgrades are, necessary and, if so, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with CWSC to fund and construct the necessary 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 - 5 - improvements. If improvements are determined to be necessary, improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of building permits: Construction of all necessary upgrades shall be completed prior to the issuance ofoccupancy permits for Phase One. 14. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 of the EIR, in order to prevent high noise levels and nuisance noise associated with The Strand, the proposed parking structure, and special events, from affecting hotel guests, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall provide an acoustical study performed by a licensed acoustical engineer which establishes the mitigation measures necessary to limit maximum interior noise levels in the hotel units fronting on The Strand and facing the City parking structure to LDN 45dBA. Such measures may include, without limitation, the installation of double -pained windows in all rooms. 15. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) of the EIR, construction equipment shall be equipped with all feasible noise -control devices 16. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-4(e) - (k) of the EIR the project shall be designed and operated so as to minimize emissions from energy consumption: - Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company shall be consulted during project design, and all feasible energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into the project; and - The Applicant shall install energy efficient street and surface parking lighting, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, such as high pressure sodium, low pressure sodium, metal halide or clean lucalox; and - The Applicant shall install low polluting, energy efficient appliances for hotel uses; and - The Applicant shall incorporate passive solar designs where appropriate; and - The design of the Hotel Project shall include cascading ventilation from high-priority (occupied space) areas to low -priority space (corridors, equipment, and mechanical space) areas before the air is exhausted; and - The Hotel Project design shall facilitate the use of electric yard maintenance equipment through the placement of exterior outlets throughout the project. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 6 B. ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPING, AND SCREENING 17. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on the approved building elevation plans except that in the final design process, the Applicant shall incorporate additional articulation into the building facade of the Hotel Project to respond to project changes from the original submittal. Minor modifications may be approved by the Community Development'Director. 18. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(a) final plans for landscaping the pedestrian plazas at 13th Street and 14th Street at the Strand shall specify plant species and concentrate landscaping along the edges of the street rights-of-way with the goal of framing and maintaining as much of the view corridor to the ocean as feasible. 19. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) rooftop equipment shall be screened from all off-site vantage points, and mechanical equipment shall be contained within rooftop penthouses. Rooftop screening materials shall be complimentary in material and color to the building's exterior, and shall be submitted in advance for review and approval by the Planning Division. 20. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(c) service areas shall be screened from off-site views and trash containers shall be enclosed using materials complimentary to the buildings. C. CONSTRUCTION & PHASING 21. The project shall be constructed in two phases. Phase One construction will include the development of 56 rooms, 1,482 sq. ft. meeting room, central lobby and surface parking for 54 cars on the project site and loading areas at 13th Street and Beach Drive pursuant to City approved project plans. Phase Two of the project involves the construction of 40 rooms, 1,568 sq. ft. of meeting room space, a bridge connecting Phase One and Phase Two projects, laundry area and spa area. 22. Construction staging shall be as shown on approved project staging plans per the Project EIR. Requests for alternate construction staging shall be considered through written request to the Community Development Department. 23. Phase One of the project shall be completed within two years of the date of project approval. Phase Two of the project shall be completed within four years of the date of project approval. The Applicant may apply in writing to the City Council prior to expiration for a time extension. 24. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(e) of the EIR, the applicant and the City shall coordinate in the preparation 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 7 of a Construction Operation Plan and Program. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits by the Director of Community Development. The plan shall incorporate the following: • Specifications for fencing of the site, construction staging areas, and pedestrian canopies. • Limitations on construction activities by date and hour. • A scaled plan that depicts pedestrian circulation routes and demonstrates the maintenance of safe and open access to the beach, The Strand, and Noble Park during project construction. 25. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the EIR, as part of the City review and development of the Construction Operation Plan and Program, the height and design of fencing and pedestrian canopies shall be evaluated to ensure maximum screening of views to site and aesthetic concerns. 26. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) of the EIR, construction hours for the project shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 8:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., on Saturday between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., with no construction allowed on Sunday. From June 15th through September 15th (peak summer season) there shall be no construction on Saturdays and legal holidays. 27. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) of the EIR, in order to avoid conflicts with special events held in the project area, construction on the site shall be suspended on certain days as determined appropriate by the City. Prior to any demolition or construction for the parking structure or the hotel, special event days that would require suspension of construction shall be identified by the City. The hotel proponent and the contractors for both the hotel and/or the parking structure shall be informed of these dates by the City as soon as feasible, and compliance with the schedule shall be enforced by the City. The City shall retain the right to change or extend the dates when warranted to ensure that special events are not significantly impacted by project construction. 28. The Director of Community Development shall, in the course of developing.a Construction Operation Plan, coordinate with other members of the City staff to examine whether some or all special events should be held in an area south of the Pier during the construction period. 29. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(d) of the EIR, no closure, either temporary or.permanent shall be allowed on the existing public walkway known as The Strand. All 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 8 construction equipment shall gain access to the site from public rights-of-way other than The Strand. To avoid hazards to Strand users during construction along The Strand, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian canopy in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. 30. Pursuant to Mitigation measure 4.7-5(f), to avoid interference with special event set-up and operation during the construction period for the Phase I hotel, Thirteenth Street at The Strand shall be made available for special event trucks if required. 31. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(a) of the EIR, the hotel developer shall include in its construction contract a clause which stipulates, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, that the contractor will recycle materials used in construction to the extent feasible in order to divert construction waste from regional landfills. D. HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 32. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, the hotel developer shall contribute a fair share towards the construction of a 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain at the Thirteenth Street and Beach Drive sump, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage. The fair share contribution shall be calculated based upon the project's contribution to runoff which would be directed to the storm drain, as determined by the Public Works Director. Construction of the storm drain shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase One. E. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION 33. The project shall conform to requirements of Section 17.48 of the Zoning Ordinance, Trip Reduction and Travel Management standards - non-residential projects of 50,000 square feet or greater. 34. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, the City and the hotel developer shall jointly fund improvements to the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue intersection based on fair share contributions. The eastbound lanes at the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue intersection shall be changed from their existing configuration to a dual left -turn and right turn. 35. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, in order to address the vehicular circulation associated with the Parking Structure, the traffic signals and the intersections at 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue shall be modified as follows, prior to the completion of the Parking Structure: 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 9 • 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue - Provide left -through option lane on northbound Hermosa Avenue, and modify existing traffic signal to produce split operation on Hermosa Avenue. • Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - Provide left -through option lane on southbound Hermosa Avenue, and modify existing traffic signal to produce split phase operation on Hermosa Avenue. 36. City staff and the Applicant shall, prior to the occupancy of Phase One, prepare a plan for a signage program regarding Hotel and Parking Structure access routes. F. PARKING; PARKING BY PHASE; CONSTRUCTION PARKING 37. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall provide parking for not less than 54 cars on the portion of the project site bounded by 14th Street, Beach Drive and 14th Court. The Applicant shall enter into a lease, encroachment permit, or other mechanism acceptable to the City for use of Fourteenth Court to provide a portion of the required parking for Phase One. The Applicant shall improve approximately 80 linear feet of right-of-way along Fourteenth Court to provide the required parking for Phase One. 38. The encroachment permit and/or lease agreement shall terminate upon commencement of construction of Phase Two of the Hotel Project, and at such time the use of Fourteenth Court shall revert to the City. 39. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall submit an interim parking plan for City approval. The parking plan shall implement the various conditions of approval and mitigation measures set forth in this Part "E". 40. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall restripe public parking Lot "C" and a portion of Thirteenth Street, in order to fully off -set the loss of public parking with the use of Fourteenth Court during Phase One. 41. The Applicant shall provide valet parking service for the Projects after completion of Phase One, and during Phase Two construction. 42. The Applicant shall fund not less than 20% of maintenance and operation costs for an employee shuttle to accommodate displaced parking for the duration of parking structure construction. The Applicant shall accommodate any displaced parking in Phase One on site as required by the parking mitigation measures established in the project EIR. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 - 10 - 43. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(a) of the EIR, if the Community Development Department determines during the plan check process or at any time thereafter that parking for construction workers and construction vehicles cannot be accommodated within construction staging areas, the Applicant shall provide at no cost to construction workers remote parking outside the downtown area, in areas not proposed for use by the shuttle service. The applicant shall ensure that construction contractor's require employees to use off-street parking. Such remote parking shall remain in use until the completion of construction of Phase One. 44. The Developer shall acquire through lease or easement agreement with the City, the right for hotel patrons to use not less than 100 parking spaces in the Parking Structure. The Parking Structure shall be constructed and fully operational prior to commencement of construction of Phase Two of the Hotel Project. 45. Upon the completion of Phase Two, all parking for the Hotel guests shall be provided in the Parking Structure or on the g Hotel site. The Certificate of Occupancy for Phases one and Two shall be conditioned upon the continued provision of parking in the Parking Structure. 46. In the event that the City parking structure is not completed prior to occupancy of Phase Two, the Applicant shall secure adequate off-site parking by covenant, lease, easement or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney for the interim period. 47. The Applicant shall provide eight permanent, dedicated, off- street parking spaces for Hotel employees. Employee parking space requirements shall be in addition to space requirements for Hotel guests. 48. Hotel guests and owners of Hotel -units shall not be eligible for participation in the City's parking permit program. City parking passes shall not be issued to Hotel owners and guests. G. AIR QUALITY 49. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) of the EIR, all required actions necessary to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts off-site sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction, shall be implemented as part of the proposed project. Prior to the approval of grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that such compliance will be achieved. All such approved actions shall be listed on the Grading Plan under the 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 - 11 - General Notes Section. The Applicant shall reimburse City for all costs of independent review of said compliance measures by SCAQMD or a qualified air quality consultant of the City's choice. 50. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(b) of the EIR, the project shall minimize fugitive dust emissions, through the application of the following and other measures as necessary: - Spread soil blinders on the Project site, on unpaved roads and in parking areas; and - Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; and - Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public roadways or occurs as a result of hauling; and - Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements; and - Wash trucks leaving the Project site; and - Suspend all grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. 51. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(c) of the EIR, the project shall minimize fugitive dust emissions by maintaining water trucks on-site at all times during construction to keep soil moist and prevent fugitive dust from escaping the project site. 52. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 of the EIR, to the extent feasible, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures dictated by the SCAQMD including, without limitation, the following measures: - Low emission on-site mobile construction equipment shall be employed; and - All construction shall be maintained in tune per manufacturer's specifications; and - Electric, gasoline -powered and methanol -powered equipment shall be substituted for diesel -powered construction equipment where feasible; and - The construction contractor shall not permit equipment to be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than two minutes); and 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 12 - All construction activities shall cease during Stage 2 smog alerts; and - Existing power sources shall be used at the Project site where feasible. The Applicant shall avoid using temporary power generators; and - Construction activities shall be planned and undertaken to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. H. SECTION IV - HOTEL OPERATION 53. The project shall be operated as a hotel with daily linen service, central lobby, front desk check in, valet parking service and central guest registration with management available on a 24 hour basis pursuant Chapter 17.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 54. The hotel shall be staffed with full time staff consisting of the following; General Manager, Assistant Manager, Front Desk supervisor, front desk clerks, building engineer, housekeeping supervisor, housekeeping staff, account staff clerk, night auditor, valet attendants, sales manager, catering manager, reservation clerks. 55. Daily linen services shall be provided during Phase One development with contract linen/laundry services provide from an off-site vendor. Linen/laundry services will be provided on-site in Phase Two of project development. 56. Hotel occupancy shall managed and controlled through a central reservation system and central management company for the life of the project. 57. All units are subject to City of Hermosa Beach Transient Occupancy Tax for a minimum of nine months per calendar year. 58. Units shall not be occupied by owners for more than 29 consecutive days nor more than 90 total days in any calendar year. 59. The project shall be audited by the City for conformance to room occupancy requirements on a quarterly basis. The audit. shall be prepared by a financial auditor selected by the City utilizing room occupancy records provided by the applicant. 60. The applicant/owner shall furnish 10015 of funds to cover the costs of quarterly audits for the purpose of establishing project Transient Occupancy Taxes as required by the Director ' of Finance. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 - 13 - 61. The project shall not be altered or reconstructed to preclude its use for transient occupancy as a hotel. 62. Collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes shall be provided by centralized management operations of the hotel. 63. Trash service and storage shall be provide in an enclosed structure pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Code. 64. Pursuant Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) of the EIR, to prevent impacts on the use of the Strand, the hotel management shall inform owners and guests and provide visible signage that access to the beach and The Strand is only permitted from 13th Street and 14th Street vie the hotel lobby. For the safety of their visitors and the general public the hotel management shall be responsible for enforcing this policy. 65. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(b) of the EIR, the hotel shall incorporate facilities for collection, compaction, and pick-up of recyclable materials including the following: • Receptacles in the common areas of the hotel for the collection of aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles and paper; • A central refuse disposal and storage area designed to accommodate separate receptacles for recyclable materials to allow for participation in the City's residential recycling program. 66. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(c) of the EIR, information regarding recycling opportunities provided by the hotel shall be posted in common rooms of the hotel in order to encourage guests and hotel employees to recycle. 67. Adequate storage space and truck access loading/unloading for recycling bins shall be provided for use by the hotel occupants. 68. An annual report of the amount and type of solid waste disposed and diverted by the construction and operation activities of the proposed project shall be provide to the Community Development Department. The report will also require the identification of the final disposal and recycling facilities used. 69. Hotel management and contractors must use the services of the City's exclusive franchise waste hauler for disposal of all non -hazardous wastes. Hotel management and contractors shall work with the waste hauler to obtain tonnage and volume date for the annual waste reports. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 - 14 - 70. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-4 (b) & (c) of the EIR, bicycle storage facilities shall be incorporated into the design of the hotel or adjacent pedestrian plazas to provide complimentary bikes or bike rental. I. CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE - COMMERCIAL 71. The project shall meet all requirements of the Commercial Condominium provisions of the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 17.22.90 -17.22. 140 of the Municipal Code. 72. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) in compliance with Section 17.22.90 Commercial/Industrial Condominiums shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 73. Proof of recordation of approved CC & R's shall be submitted to the Community Development Director six (6) months after recordation's of the Final Map. J. CERTIFICATIONS 74. An acceptance of conditions form shall be executed by the Applicant and any other current property owners and submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 75. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the Applicant and property owner 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. 76. The Conditional Use Permit and this Resolution shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 77. 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 an enforceable. 78. The Applicant shall defend with Counsel of the City's choosing, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval or any other proceeding or action taken pursuant to this permit. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 - 15 - 79. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. 80. 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 Applicant to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. SECTION 7. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and the facts and findings set forth herein, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed conveyance of parking spaces in the Parking Structure will be consistent with the General Plan if conditioned as follows: 81. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c) plans for the parking structure shall employ design techniques to minimize noise, lighting, and visual impacts to the degree feasible. Special attention should be paid to that section of the structure abutting residential uses. Design techniques shall consider limiting openings on the wall of the structure, modifying setbacks, and the use of property walls, vines and landscaping. City staff shall consult with neighboring residents and owners of property immediately abutting the parking structure during the final design process. 82. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), the Hermosa Avenue street frontage of the parking structure (which incorporates retail and office uses), and to a lesser extent the other facades of the parking structure, shall include articulation of the building mass through the use of off -sets, stepped terraces, changes in plane, and other such devices to reduce the visual obtrusiveness of the structure as seen from surrounding areas. 83. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) prior to final approval of plans for the parking structure, a landscape plan for the site shall be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following: • A fully automated irrigation system. • Vines, trees and other landscaped materials shall be used to the maximum extent feasible along the wall and perimeter of the structure to soften it's visual impact on pedestrian walkways and adjacent land uses. New 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 - 16 - tree plantings shall occur along the retail edge of the parking structure at 13th Street, and along the stairwells and elevators located at the corners of the parking structure. • Textured or colored paving materials shall be used for the pedestrian walkway along 13th Street, Beach Drive, and 14th Street consistent with the downtown improvement plan. 84. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-2, the City shall install an oil/grease separator to treat runoff generated in the parking structure, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management Program. 85. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c), the parking structure and associated common and landscaped areas shall be maintained by the City in excellent condition throughout the life of the project. ' Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1996. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution No. is a true and complete record of the action taken by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of December 17, 1996. Mayor 961211 10649-00020 pjn 1201630 0 17 City Clerk P.C. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HERMOSA INN HOTEL PROJECT AND CITY PARKING STRUCTURE; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HEREBY FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Keenan Land Company (the "Applicant") has filed an application for a conditional use permit, precise development plan, parking plan, parking agreement, vesting tentative tract map, and airspace encroachment permit for the development of a proposed 96 room hotel (the "Hotel Project") at 1300 The Strand (the "Hotel Site"). Section 2. The City of Hermosa Beach (the "City"), has proposed to construct a four -level public parking structure on a City owned parking lot (Lot "C", the "Parking Structure Site") located adjacent to the Hotel Site. The Applicant has requested the ability to satisfy part of the parking requirement for the Hotel Project by acquiring 100 spaces in the Parking Structure. The four level Parking Structure is therefore proposed to contain 480 parking spaces, along with 7,000 square feet of retail and office uses located along Hermosa Avenue (the "Parking Structure", collectively with the Hotel Project, the "Projects"). Section 3. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the Projects pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant , environmental impact on several specifically identified resources and governmental services. The Initial Study was distributed for public review on May 2, 1996 for a thirty (30) day public review period that ended on June 3, 1996. Section 4. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Projects. A Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was prepared for the Projects and sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or interested agencies and persons. The City contracted with an independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 Section 5. On May 16, 1996 a public scoping meeting was held before the City's Environmental Review Committee. The public scoping meeting was noticed by publication in the local press, by posting on the Hotel and Parking Structure sites, in the vicinity of the Project Sites, at City Hall, and through an announcement on cable television. The meeting provided an introduction to the project and the CEQA process, and provided an opportunity for the public and interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR. Section 6. On September 19, 1996, the DEIR was completed. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, the City,prepared a Notice of Completion of the DEIR which was filed by mail with the State Office of Planning and Research on , 1996. A copy of the Notice of Completion and of the mailing list to agencies and interested individuals, is included in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR"). The DEIR was circulated to interested persons and agencies between September 19, 1996 and November 3, 1996 for a 45 -day comment period pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(c). A duly noticed public meeting was held before the Planning Commission on September 25, 1996 for the purpose of taking public comments regarding the DEIR. In response to the circulation of the DEIR, the City received written and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The City prepared written responses to all comments which raised significant environmental issues. The City incorporated the comments and the City's responses into the FEIR and returned responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 210'92.5. Section 7. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR circulated September 19, 1996, including any revisions thereto; the list of persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the DEIR; the comments which were received by the City regarding the DEIR; and the City's written responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 8. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the FEIR and the Projects on December 3, 1996 at which time evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing was provided in accordance with applicable law. Section 9. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the EIR and upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based and the EIR for the Project are on file and available for public examination during 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 2 normal business hours in the Office of the Community Development Director of the City of Hermosa Beach, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. The custodian of said records is the Community Development Director of the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 10. The Planning Commission finds that the public and government agencies have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and FEIR. Section 11. The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently analyzed by the City and its Staff, and that the EIR represents the independent judgment of the City as lead agency with respect to the Project. The Planning Commission further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports accompanying the Projects' descriptions and EIR, the corrections and modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new information so as to require recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1. Section 12. The Planning Commission finds that the comments regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been received by the City; that the Planning Commission has received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that the Planning Commission, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency, has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the Planning Commission therefore certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Section 13. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR, the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Population, Employment and Housing, Biology, Geology, Energy, Cultural and Historical Resources, and Hazards. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR, and also at pages 1-3 through 1-4, inclusive, of the DEIR Section 14. The Initial Study identified some of the Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, and upon public and agency comments and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts in the following areas identified as "potentially significant" in the Initial Study: 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 3 a. Hydrology and Drainage: The proposed project will not degrade groundwater resources in the Project area, as the groundwater level below the Project site has been estimated at ten feet below ground. Only a portion of the Parking Structure will require excavation, and only to roughly four feet below ground. Therefore, grading, excavation and construction activities for the Projects will not impact groundwater resources. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.1 of the EIR. b. Land Use. The proposed project will not be inconsistent with relevant plans and policies, including the City General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, and more recent plans for the downtown area. With the implementation of mitigation measures contained in the EIR and the Applicant's decision to delete the roof deck and other roof top elements from the Hotel Project, the Projects are viewed as being consistent with applicable Plans. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.2 of the EIR. C. Aesthetics. The proposed project will not have a negative aesthetic effect on views from the Strand, the beach and surrounding public areas. The height, scale, mass, and design of the proposed hotel is not out of character with surrounding development. The potentially significant impact identified in the Initial Study largely was a result of proposed roof top elements of the Hotel Project which might have exceeded the City's building height limit. Roof top structures which may have exceeded the height limit have been deleted from the Hotel Project. Residential and commercial buildings in close proximity to the Hotel Site range in height from 30-45 feet. In addition, construction of the Projects will not increase shade and shadow effects in the vicinity of the Projects. While increased shade and shadow effects are inevitable with any development on the project site, existing streets and setbacks preclude any impact on sensitive uses. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 4.3 of the EIR. d. Parking. The proposed project will not increase the demand for parking in the downtown area. The Projects will ultimately 480 new spaces of parking. Code compliant parking is provided throughout the construction process through a variety of enforceable measures. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. e. Circulation. Temporary road closures as a result of construction of the Projects will not significantly affect circulation in the downtown area, as traffic will be able to flow between Beach Drive and 13th Street, maintaining circulation to City parking lots. Other impacts will be short-term and occasional. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 4 f. Traffic. Traffic generated by the Hotel Project will not adversely affect the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan ("CMP") intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Artesia/Gould Avenue, based upon CMP evaluation criteria. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.4 of the EIR. g. Air Quality. The Projects'will not cause violations of the State CO standard. Pursuant to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, CO concentrations at the intersections measured will decrease by the year 2000. Further, compliance with the Building Code will ensure that the Parking Structure Project will incorporate adequate ventilation to meet relevant standards. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.5 of the EIR. h. Noise. The Projects will not significantly contribute to traffic noise level increases along roadways in the project area. Traffic -generated noise level increases would result in noise levels within City standards. The Projects will not create significant nuisance noises from delivery staging areas, parking structure activities and other miscellaneous hotel operations. The Applicant has eliminated plans for a roof top deck which would have created some level of nuisance noises. Other potential operational nuisance noise sources will be located away from sensitive receptors. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 4.6 of the EIR. i. Public Services. The projects will not significantly increase demand for fire, paramedic and police services. The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that staffing levels and response times are adequate to provide services for the Projects. Occupancy of the Hotel Project will not significantly increase the demand placed on recreational resources. The Applicant will pay a Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and the Hotel Project guests are expected to utilize the beach rather than public park areas. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Section 4.7 of the EIR. j. Utilities. The Projects will not significantly the City's sewer system, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's ("LACSD") wastewater treatment plant, and the water supply. Projected wastewater generation from the Hotel Project is below the thresholds of significance established by the City, LACSD, and the. local water purveyor. Further explanation for this determination may be found in Section 4.7 of the EIR. Section 15. Based upon the initial study, the EIR, public comments and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the.Projects may create significant impacts in the areas of hydrology and drainage, 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 5 transportation, circulation and parking, air quality, noise, aesthetics and views, land use, public services, and utilities. The Projects may create significant cumulative impacts in the areas of traffic and circulation, air quality, aesthetics, hydrology and drainage, and public services and utilities. With the exceptions of construction impacts, operational air quality impacts, construction -related noise impacts, view impacts, and cumulative air quality impacts from increased vehicular emissions, the EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. With regard to construction, operational air quality, construction noise, view impacts, and cumulative air quality impacts from vehicular emissions, the EIR identifies mitigation measures that will substantially lessen each impact. Further explanation for these determinations may be found in Sections 2.0, 4.0 through 4.7, inclusive, and 5.0 of the EIR. Section 16. In response to each significant impact identified in the EIR, and listed in Section 15 of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into, the Projects which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. Each such change or alteration shall be a condition of approval of the Projects. The changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the Projects, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 17. The FEIR describes, and the Planning Commission has fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the "No Project" alternative; Alternative One, which incorporated long- term off-site parking; Alternative Two, which considered a 96 - room hotel with a smaller parking structure; Alternative Three, construction of the Phase One Hotel only with on-site surface parking; and Alternative Four, construction of a 7,500 square foot restaurant and a 380 space parking structure. The alternatives identified in the EIR either would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only with unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, and for any one of the reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A," the Planning Commission finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the Project alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative, identified in the EIR and each is hereby rejected. The Planning Commission further finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the EIR, and that all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Projects. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 6 Section 18. The Planning Commission hereby makes the findings contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with respect to each of the significant impacts defined in the FEIR and the alternatives analysis. Further, the Planning Commission hereby finds that each fact in support of finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the FEIR. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Section 19. Upon approval of this Resolution, the Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's Office, County of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3d day of December, 1996. CHAIRPERSON Peter Tucker ATTEST: SECRETARY 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 7 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS 1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE. a. Hydrology and Drainage. i. Quantity of Runoff. Development of the project will result in higher surface water runoff than currently leaves the project site, exacerbating existing deficiencies in the storm drain system serving the site. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: Mitigation Measure No. 4.1-1 requires the Applicant to contribute a fair share towards the construction of a 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain at the Thirteenth Avenue and Beach Drive sump in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage. The fair share contribution shall be based on the project's contribution to run-off which would be directed to the storm drain. Construction of the storm drain shall be completed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permits. The storm drain at Thirteenth Avenue and Beach Drive would drain the sump at that intersection when its tributary lateral storm drain flapgates are closed and would also provide a backup outlet for the Lower Pier Avenue area. ii. Ouality of Runoff. Approval and development of the project could result in degradation of the quality of storm drain runoff. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: Construction and operational activities could create sediments and pollutants to enter into the storm drain system, such as concrete wash water, fuels, oil, antifreeze, trash and debris. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.1-2(a) and 4.2-1(b), measures to reduce the impact of pollutants to runoff shall be in compliance with Hermosa Beach's existing ordinances and guidelines concerning best management practices for stormwater runoff. The City shall also install an oil/grease separator to treat runoff generated in the parking structure, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Stormwater Management Program. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 — 8 — b. Land Use Conflicts. i. Operational Conflicts. Operational aspects of the hotel, including the meeting rooms, outdoor spa area, drop-off area, service deliveries and rooftop deck could result in land use conflicts with nearby nonconforming residential uses, The Strand and local businesses. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts Supporting Finding: To prevent impacts on the use of The Strand, Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a) requires the hotel management to inform owners and guests that access to the beach and The Strand is permitted only from Thirteenth Street and Fourteenth Street via the hotel lobby. For the safety of the visitors and the general public, the hotel management will be responsible for enforcing this policy. The rooftop deck and trellises have been eliminated as features of the proposed project. This will eliminate possible noise conflicts with surrounding residences. To reduce impacts on adjacent residential uses associated with the siting and use of the parking structure, Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c) requires that plans for the structure employ design techniques to minimize noise, lighting and visual impacts to the degree feasible. Special attention must be paid to those sections of the structure abutting residential uses. In these areas, designers should consider limited openings on the wall of the structure, modifying setbacks and the use of property walls, vines and landscaping. Finally, in order to prevent high noise levels associated with use of The Strand, the proposed parking structure and special events from affecting hotel guests, Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(d) and 4.6-4 require that the Applicant complete an acoustical study and shall install noise control measures such as double -paned windows in all rooms fronting on The Strand, and facing the parking structure. ii. Height Impacts. The height of the hotel as originally proposed, specifically the trellis and other rooftop structures, exceed the basic height limit for the C-2 zone and may not be in compliance with the zoning code. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: The applicant has submitted revised plans to the City to eliminate the rooftop deck, chimneys and trellis structures from the project design. Prior to approving the project, the Planning Commission must 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 9 establish the relevant grade and will require that the Hotel structure comply with the height limit as measured from grade. iii. Temporary View Impacts. Construction of the hotel and parking structure could have temporary adverse effects on views from the beach and The Strand. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 requires that the City evaluate the height and design of construction fencing and pedestrian canopies prior to erection to ensure maximum screening of views to the construction site during construction from the beach and The Strand. iv. Aesthetic Impacts of the Parking Structure. The design of the parking structure could have a negative aesthetic impact on downtown. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, =or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), design features shall be incorporated into the parking structure to reduce visual impacts, including articulation of the building mass through the use of off -sets, stepped terraces, changes in plane, and other such devices, to reduce the visual obtrusiveness of the structure. Mitigation Measure 4.4-3(b) requires that appropriate landscaping be installed including a fully automated sprinkler system, maximal (to the extent feasible) tree and vine planting, and textured or colored paving materials. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c) requires that the structure be maintained in excellent condition throughout its lifetime. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3- 3(d), the fan palms located on Lot C shall be relocated or replaced with trees of a minimum 36" box size. C. Transportation, Parking and Circulation. i. Cumulative Traffic Impacts. Increases in traffic associated with the project will adversely affect the capacity of intersections in the study area. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Additional changes or alterations are within the jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the Planning Commission. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 — 10 — Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.4- 1(a) through (c), inclusive, require that the City and the Applicant will jointly fund improvements to the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue -14th Street intersection based on fair share contributions. The eastbound lanes at the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue -14th Street intersection shall be changed from their existing configuration to a dual left -turn and right -turn. In addition, prior to terminating the interim shuttle program to address short-term displaced parking the downtown areas (discussed below), the City shall determine the feasibility of implementing a long-term shuttle service for downtown visitors with the objective of discouraging automobile use and encouraging pedestrian circulation in the downtown area. This program shall be periodically evaluated and adjusted to maximize ridership and reduce congestion in the downtown area. The City also will implement a monitoring program at the Monterey/Pier Avenue Intersection to determine the timing for implementation of mitigation measures once the Level of Service at that intersection falls below LOS E. The City shall also continue to implement its Transportation Demand Management Plan on a project -by -project basis including various requirements for reducing vehicle trips. In addition to these measures, current plans by CalTrans and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan will provide additional mitigation for cumulative impacts along PCH. However, the EIR indicates that the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may be the adoption of a Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, rather than the imposition of conditions on a project -by -project basis. ii. Vehicular Circulation. Access to the parking structure and hotel will increase traffic operations in the project area, adversely affecting vehicular circulation. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, traffic signals at the 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue and at the Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue intersections shall be modified in the following ways to improve circulation in the vicinity of the hotel and parking structure: • Thirteenth Street and Hermosa Avenue: Provide left -through option lane on northbound Hermosa Avenue and modify existing traffic signal to produce split operation on Hermosa Avenue. • Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue: Provide left -through option lane on southbound Hermosa Avenue and modify existing traffic sigpal to produce split phase operation on Hermosa Avenue. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 — 11 iii. Temporary Parking Displacement. Construction of the hotel and parking structure will temporarily displace 254 parking spaces. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.4(a) and (b) require that replacement parking totaling 338 parking spaces, be made.available during the construction period at several identified locations. Further, a shuttle service shall be instituted to allow visitors to the downtown to park in these remote locations and take the shuttle into.the downtown area. In developing the shuttle service, the City shall minimize the number of remote parking site and shuttle stops in order to maximize the efficiency of the system. Once operational, the shuttle service shall be periodically evaluated to maximize ridership and reduce impacts.on parking and circulation the downtown area. If parking for construction workers and construction vehicles cannot be handled within the proposed construction staging, areas, remote parking outside of the `downtown areas shall be secured and used. This remote parking shall be provided in areas not proposed for parking use by the users of the shuttle service. The City has found shuttle service to be successfully employed to reduce vehicle congestion in the downtown area for special events, and expects shuttle service to be similarly successful in connection with the Projects. d. Short-Term,Air Ouality Impacts. i. Fugitive Dust. Clearing, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces will generate dust at and near the project site during the construction period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts off-site sufficient to cause a nuisance, SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction, and other feasible dust control measures shall be implemented as part of the proposed project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) and 4.5-1(c). Prior to approval of the grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that compliance will be achieved. Approved actions shall be reflected in the Grading Plan and the Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs of compliance review. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(b) requires that other measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions shall be implemented to the extent feasible during construction. These measures are identified in detail at Draft EIR page 4.5-13, 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 12 and in Section 2.0 of the EIR, and include watering of the site, suspension of grading during high winds and smog alerts, spreading of soil blinders, daily street sweeping, and washing of tracks leaving the project site. The Applicant is required to maintain water trucks on site at all times during construction. ii. Combustion Emissions. Combustion emissions will be released from on-site construction vehicles and on -road vehicles of construction workers during the construction period. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 requires that, to the extent feasible, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation dictated by SCAQMD. These include use of low emission on-site equipment, maintenance of equipment per manufacturer's specifications, substitute electric, gasoline or methanol powered equipment for diesel -powered equipment where feasible. Other measures to reduce emissions from construction vehicles are identified at Draft EIR at pages 4.5-14 through 4.5-15. e. Creation of Opportunities for Crime. The parking structure could become a focal point for crime and lace an extra burden on the police department. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.7(3)(a) and (b), prior to submittal of detailed construction plans for the parking structure, the Applicant is required to meet with the Hermosa Beach Police Department to evaluate plans for security lighting, security systems, and ease of policing. The Police Department will conduct a subsequent review of the plans prior to their final approval to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated. f. Construction Impacts on Special Events. Construction activities have the potential to interfere with special on the beach, The Strand, at Noble Park and in the downtown area. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.7- 5(a) requires that construction be suspended on certain days as determined appropriate by the City., Prior to commencement of construction or demolition activities, special event days that 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 — 13 — would require suspension of construction activities shall be identified by the City and the applicant's contractors shall be informed of these dates. Compliance with the schedule shall be enforced by the City. To prevent nuisances associated with construction during high use summer months, Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(b) requires that construction on the Phase One Hotel site be limited from June 15th to September 15 to exclude weekends and legal holidays. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(c) requires that the Applicant limit hours of construction to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(d) prohibits temporary or permanent closure of the Strand for construction purposes, and requires that construction equipment access the site from public rights-of-way other than The Strand. Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(e) requires the preparation and approval of a Construction Operation Plan which will provide for fencing specifications, limits on construction hours and days, pedestrian circulation routes, the demonstration of safe and open access to the beach and the Strand, and designated construction haul routes. The Applicant is required to provide a pedestrian canopy over The Strand in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. Under Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(f), beach access at Thirteenth Avenue and The Strand shall be made available for special event trucks if required during Phase One hotel construction. g. Water Supply Impacts for Fire -Fighting Purposes. The project could result in demand for water which could exceed the capacity of the existing water supply facilities for fire- fighting purposes. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. Facts in Support of Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.8-4 requires the applicant to coordinate with California Water Service Company ("CWSC") to determine whether existing -facilities would need to be upgraded to meet the fire flow requirement for the project site. If it is determined that upgrades are necessary, the applicant is required to enter into an agreement with CWSC to fund the improvements. Improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of building permits. Any necessary upgrades are required to be constructed prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project. h. Solid Waste Impacts. The project will result in the generation of approximately 1,000 pounds of solid waste per day. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified above. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 — 14 — Facts in Support of Finding: Under Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(a), the applicant must include in its construction contract to recycle materials used in construction to the extent feasible in order to divert construction waster from regional landfills. Other recycling measures -- outlined in more detail in the Draft EIR at.pages 4.8-1 and following, and in the Final EIR -- also must be incorporated into the project. 2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. a. Short -Term Land Use Impacts. Approval of the project will result in unavoidable, short-term, significant impacts on existing land uses including noise, dust and traffic arising out of the construction of the hotel and parking structure. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts, short-term, construction - related impacts cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts Supporting Finding: A number of mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impacts arising out of construction activities, including Mitigation Measures 4.7-5(a) through (e) concerning potential conflicts with special events; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary construction noise impacts; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary construction noise impacts; Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) through (c) concerning temporary air quality impacts; and Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) concerning limitation of hours and days of construction. These measures will reduce certain aspects of the construction -related impacts to a level of insignificance. As to those construction -related impacts that cannot be reduced or avoided, including high noise levels from the use of heavy equipment, dust from grading activities, and temporary increases in traffic, the City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth below. b. Permanent View Impacts. Approval of the project will result in significant, unavoidable impacts on existing and coastal views from residential and commercial properties, Noble Park, and other areas in the project vicinity. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address impacts on existing views, obstruction of certain existing views cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance and is therefore found to be a significant and unavoidable effect of the project. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 — 15 — Facts Supporting Finding: A portion of the project is to be located on a vacant lot over which certain existing homes and businesses currently enjoy ocean views. A three story parking structure will replace the existing surface parking. Neither the vacant lot nor the existing surface parking contribute significantly to the visual quality of the area. Nonetheless, the hotel and the parking structure will obstruct existing views of the ocean and coastline from a relatively small number of residences and businesses (see DEIR at 4.3-9 through 4.3-15.) Conditions of development require the Applicant to: • With respect to the Final Plans for landscaping for the pedestrian plazas at Fourteenth Street and Thirteenth Street and The Strand, specify plant species and concentrate landscaping along the edges of the street rights-of-way with the goal of framing and maintaining as much of a view corridor to the ocean as is feasible; • Screen rooftop equipment from all off-site vantage points, and contain mechanical equipment within rooftop penthouses. Rooftop screening materials shall be complimentary in material and color to the building's exterior; • Screen service areas from off-site view and enclose trash containers using materials complimentary to the buildings; and • Since the issuance of the Draft EIR, the developer has also agreed to revise its plans to eliminate the rooftop deck and trellises extending above the roof line. The above measures will reduce certain aspects of the view impacts to a level of insignificance. As to those view impacts that cannot be reduced or -avoided, including blocking or partial blocking of some ocean views, the City finds that there are specific economic, social, legal, technological and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh.its potential adverse view impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is set forth below. C. Air Quality Impacts. Approval of the project will result in increased regional and local air pollutant levels on a project -specific and cumulative basis. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address the project's impacts on air quality, operational emissions caused by electricity and natural gas usage and by vehicular emissions from project -generated traffic will cause increases in regional and local air pollutants that cannot 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 — 16 be reduced to a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts Supporting Finding: Hermosa Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a non -attainment area for air quality standards under both federal and state law. The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") has developed an Air Quality Management Plan designed to bring the region into compliance with federal and state standards. Vehicle traffic, by far the largest generator of the pollutant emissions in the Basin, would be generated by guests staying at the hotel, employees of the hotel, office and retail space, shoppers visiting the retail space and visitors to the parking garage. In addition, hotel operational emissions from the project will exceed SCAQMD daily operational emissions for several identified pollutants. Mitigation measures are adopted to reduce these emissions: Mitigation Measure 4.5-4(a): - Provide convenient access to transit stops; Mitigation Measure 4.5-4(b): - Provide complimentary bikes or bike rentals for hotel visitors and encourage use of The Strand; - Incorporation of bicycle storage facilities into the design of the project; - Encourage use of shuttle and/or bus service; - Consult with Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, and all feasible energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into the project; - Install energy efficient street lighting and surface parking lighting; - Install low -polluting, energy efficient appliances in hotel; - Install solar water heaters where feasible; - Incorporate passive solar design; - Cascade ventilation air before exhaustion of air; and - Install facilities for electric -powered landscape maintenance equipment. Estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is difficult. It is unlikely, however, that these measures will be adequate to 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 17 reduce vehicular emissions to below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, operational and vehicular emissions from the project are considered significant and unavoidable. The City finds that there are specific economic, social and other considerations that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh its potential adverse air quality impacts. A Statement of .Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is set forth below. d. Noise Impacts. General construction activities will result in temporary significant increases in noise levels. Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts, short-term, construction - related impacts cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. Facts in Support of Finding: Some construction -related noise impacts are inevitable from any construction project. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) through 4.6-1(c), inclusive, the Applicant is required to limit construction hours and days as specified in Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) and to equip construction equipment with all feasible noise control devices. All construction is prohibits on weekends and holidays during the peak summer season from June 15th through September 15th. 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has considered various project alternatives as analyzed in the EIR and makes the following findings: i. No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative assumes that the hotel site would remain vacant and the parking structure would not be constructed. Both the hotel site and Parking Lot "C" would remain subject to future development consistent with the requirements of the C-2 zone. Such development would have some or all of the same impacts as the Projects. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative. Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative is infeasible because it is inconsistent with the City's goals, among others, of providing additional parking for the downtown area through a joint public/private venture, encouraging high quality development that will complement the City's unique beach environment, generating new revenue sources for the City and to provide opportunities.for retail reinvestment attracting new daytime users to the downtown area. The No Project Alternative is also inconsistent with the Applicant's goals, among others, of providing a financially sound project 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 18 while contributing to the fiscal stability of the City. The No Project Alternative would not obtain any of the City's or the applicant's goals and objectives. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. ii. Alternative One. Alternative One is the same as the Projects with the exception of the parking plan. Under this alternative, 100 parking spaces would be long-term leased within one mile of the hotel period for an interim period until the parking structure on City -owned Lot "C" is built. Hotel guests and visitors would be met by valets who would park all cars at the designated location. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative One. Alternative One is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. Facts in Support of Finding: Certain impacts associated with Alternative One would be greater than with the proposed project, such as land use conflicts, air quality, and noise. Impacts on traffic could be substantially greater than under the preferred alternative because of the doubling of trips associated with the initial arrival and departure of guests and each valet trip necessary to make these trips possible. Alternative One would meet the basic project objectives of the City and the Applicant but could be inconvenient for guests of the hotel because of the valet service and remote parking. Alternative One makes the project a less desirable resort destination than the preferred project and therefore a potentially less sound project financially. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. iii. Alterative Two. Alternative Two comprises a 96 room hotel with a 100 car parking structure which would be constructed and air -leased over Lot "C" owned by the City. The City would ultimately construct a multi-level parking structure that would be joined with the adjacent structure built by the hotel proponent. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Two. Alternative Two is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. Facts in Support of Finding: This alternative would be less efficient than the proposed alternative due to the dual 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 19 ramping system necessary for the two structures and the extra cost of constructing and joining separate facilities that could have been constructed together. Air pollutant emissions would be higher because of double construction. The alternative is also less desirable than the preferred project because it would provide approximately 100 fewer parking spaces, which would not meet the long-term goals for parking downtown. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. iv. Alternative Three. Alternative Three consists of construction of the Phase I of the Hotel Project only. The Phase II hotel lot would be used for surface parking, with valet/self service for 54 spaces. The City would construct a 380 -space parking structure, 14 spaces of which would be long-term leased to the hotel. Finding: Although Alternative Three may be environmentally superior to the Projects, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Three, and the alternative is rejected. Facts in Support of Finding: The reduction in size of the hotel from 96 to 54 rooms would reduce environmental impacts of the project, but would not fully realize the City's and the applicant's goals in that the project would be less financially successful, contribute less to the City's tax base, create fewer jobs and provide 100 fewer parking spaces than are desired by the City's long-term downtown parking goals. Alterative Three would have also similar environmental impacts as the preferred alternative in terms of views, construction, noise and land use conflicts. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. V. Alternative Four. Alternative Four consists of the construction of a 7,500 square foot restaurant on the south end of the Phase I site. The Phase II lot would be used for surface parking. The City would construct a 380 space parking structure with 7,000 square feet of retail/office space. Finding: Specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible Alternative Four. Facts in Support of Finding: Alternative Four would not meet many of the basic objectives of the project, notably construction of a beach front resort hotel. Traffic, air quality 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 2 and noise impacts could be greater under this alternative, particularly Saturday p.m. peak hour traffic, such that Alternative Four is not environmentally superior to the proposed Projects. There would still be view blockage impacts and construction impacts. Adding an additional restaurant to the downtown area could increase competition with respect to existing establishments. Alternative Four would provide 100 fewer parking spaces than the preferred project. The overriding social, economic and other considerations set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide additional facts in support of this finding. 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning Commission has considered each of the potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above (construction -related impacts, air quality and permanent view impacts) in deciding whether to approve development of the Projects. Although the Planning Commission believes that many of the unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, it recognizes that approval of the Projects will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects. The Planning Commission specifically finds that, to the extent that adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance, that specific economic, social, legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that any and each of the following considerations is sufficient to approve the Projects despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified and that each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts individually and that each consideration is severable from any other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason. The following considerations support approval of the Projects: a. The Projects will implement the City's General Plan and other plans for the downtown area. The City has determined pursuant to its General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and other plans for the downtown area that the site is appropriate for a beach front hotel resort and parking structure and that the number of rooms proposed for the hotel and number of parking spaces proposed for the structure are appropriate for the site given the character of the surrounding area, prevailing market conditions, and existing parking demand; 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 2 1 b. The Hotel Project will generate increased tax revenues for the City including a Transient Occupancy Tax and increased sales and property tax; C. The Projects are consistent with and will implement the City's long range vision for the revitalization of the downtown area; d. The Projects will implement the recommendations contained in the Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) study; e. The Hotel Project will establish an appropriate buffer between the downtown area and the adjacent public park; f. The Projects will provide opportunities for retail reinvestment attracting new daytime users to the downtown area in peak and non -peak seasons; g. The Projects promote additional street-scape improvements; 'h. The Projects are aesthetically attractive and will enhance the beach front; i. The Parking Structure Project serves the City's goals in that it will provide safe and adequate parking that meets the City's parking requirements through a mutually -beneficial joint private/public venture; j. The Projects will improve the existing aesthetic condition of the sites; k. The Projects will contribute to needed traffic improvements within the downtown area; and 1. The Hotel Project will contribute to needed storm drain improvements within the downtown area. 961124 10649-00020 cas 1201613 — 22 — P.C. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PARKING PLAN, AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52158; AND FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE OF PARKING SPACES IN A CITY PARKING STRUCTURE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, ALL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 96 ROOM HOTEL AT 1300 THE STRAND AND A PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE WITH UP TO 480 SPACES ON AN ADJACENT CITY OWNED PARKING LOT (LOT "C") The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby Find, Order, and Resolve as follows: Section 1. On December 11, 1995 Keenan Land Company (the "Applicant") filed an application for a conditional use permit, precise development plan, parking plan, vesting tentative tract map, and airspace encroachment permit for the development of a proposed 96 room hotel (the "Hotel Project") at 1300 The Strand (the "Hotel Site"). Section 2. The Hotel Project will be constructed in two phases. Phase One involves the construction of 56 hotel units fronting The Strand with temporary surface parking for 56 cars to be provided by the Applicant on the easterly portion of the Hotel Site. Phase Two, to be constructed later, involves the construction of 40 additional hotel units along 14th Street, replacing the surface parking provided for Phase One. Phase Two also includes construction by the City of the parking structure described in Section 3 of this Resolution, below. Section 3. The City desires to construct a 380 space public parking structure on a City owned parking lot (Lot "C", the "Parking Structure Site") located adjacent to the site of the Hotel Project. The Applicant has requested the ability to satisfy part of the parking requirement for the Hotel Project.by acquiring 100 spaces in the Parking Structure. The multi-level Parking Structure is therefore proposed to contain 480 parking spaces, along with 7,000 square feet of retail and office uses located along Hermosa Avenue (the "Parking Structure", collectively with the Hotel Project, the "Projects"). Section 4. The Planning Commission hearing on December 3, 1996 to cons Project. Having heard and consider testimony, including staff reports Environmental Impact Reports for th evidence and argument, the Planning follows: 1201601.1 held a duly noticed public ider approval of the Hotel ed all oral and written and the Final certified e Projects and all relevant Commission hereby finds as A. The sites are zoned C-2, Restricted Commercial. The sites are physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development Projects, in that the site proposed for the Hotel Project consists of a large vacant property of approximately .72 acres which fronts on the Strand and the beach, while the site proposed for the parking structure is a one acre parcel already developed with a City -owned parking lot. B. The Projects are consistent with the General Plan designations of GC (General Commercial -- Hotel Site) and CR (Commercial Recreation -- Parking Structure Site). C. As conditioned herein, the Projects will conform to all zoning and condominium regulations and will be compatible with neighboring commercial and residential properties. D.' The Projects conform to the goals and objectives of the General Plan calling for: • Maximizing commercial uses on downtown commercial properties • Encouraging new businesses and more efficient commercial space utilization • Providing sufficient parking supply supporting existing commercial uses and proposed growth • Allowing off-site public parking and or private parking within a reasonable distance to satisfy parking requirements • Encouraging property upgrading and new investment in downtown. E. The subdivision and proposed improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that no such easements currently exist across the site proposed for the Hotel project. F. The air space easement to accommodate a pedestrian bridge connecting the easterly and westerly portions of the Hotel Project will not conflict with the existing and proposed use of Beach Drive in that the pedestrian bridge will be constructed well above the clearance space necessary for pedestrian and vehicular use. G. The parking plan to accommodate Hotel project parking off- site will permit efficient development consistent with the scale and use of surrounding properties. H. The proposed parking easement to provide long term parking 'for the Hotel Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan, in that the parking easement will permit the Hotel project to meet the City's 1201601.1 - 2 - parking requirements without displacing street parking and other existing parking resources. I. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and certified a project Environmental Impact Report ("the EIR") (State Clearinghouse No. 96051009) and Mitigation Monitoring Program in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) through the adoption of Resolution No. 96- , which Resolution is incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Because the EIR identified significant unavoidable environmental impacts from the projects, the Planning Commission balanced the benefits of the projects against the unavoidable risks and adopted a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a). J. The proposed hotel and parking structure are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Local Coastal Plan relative to encouraging visitor serving uses in the downtown; K. The Hotel Project is located within the Downtown Enhancement District (DED). Pursuant to Section 17.44.040 of the Zoning ordinance, and Amendment Number 6 of the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan, application of a parking requirement that is 65% of the standard parking requirement for the City is appropriate, as supported by the following findings: 1. Fewer than 96,250 square feet of commercial development, including new buildings, expansions, and/or intensification of uses in the DED has received a Coastal Development Permit since November 1, 1994. 2. There will be adequate parking to support the development and to provide adequate beach parking, in that the Projects include construction of a 480 space parking structure on site. 3. A parking study recently completed for the downtown area shows the occupancy of the parking spaces in the downtown is 90% or less during daylight hours on summer weekends, and no more than 24,063 square feet of commercial development has occurred since the study. L. The development of the hotel and parking structure will promote downtown revitalization opportunities, in that the hotel will attract visitors to the downtown area. M. For the purpose of determining the measurement of grade and building height, the corner point elevations shall be established at the proposed street elevation improvements as have been approved by the City's Department of Public Works. Supporting 1201601.1 - 3 - evidence has been presented to the Planning Commission to indicate that the previous elevation of the project site is consistent with the proposed street elevation improvements and represents the previous unaltered grade of the site. Therefore, the hotel project is in conformance with the height limit for C-2 zoned property. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. , Precise Development Plan No. , the parking plan for the Hotel Project submitted on December 11, 1995, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52158, subject to the following conditions: A. PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AND USE REQUIREMENTS 1. The construction and continuing use of the Hotel Project shall conform to the submitted plans approved by the Planning Commission. Any minor modifications shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for "consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Precise building height, as approved by the Planning Commission, shall be verified at the time of plan check, prior to the issuance of building permits, by the Community Development Director. The Hotel Project shall conform to height requirements, and building elevations shall comply with Section 17.26.50 and Section 17.42.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Design, construction, and continuing use of the Hotel Project shall comply with all requirements of the Public Works, Fire and Finance Departments. 5. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the approved plans. 6. The applicant shall, pursuant to the reimbursement agreement executed between the City and the Applicant, fund and construct, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, all off-site improvements reflected on the final plans for the Hotel Project and approved by the Planning Commission. Off-site improvements to be funded and constructed by the applicant shall include, without limitation: a. Beach Drive: repave Beach Drive contiguous with the project as an auto court; 1201601.1 4 b. 14th Street: Reconstruct and repave 14th Street between Hermosa Avenue and the Strand including the cul-de-sac; C. 14th Court: Repave 14th Court; and d. 13th Street: Repave 13th street between Hermosa Avenue and the Strand; install and permanently maintain project landscaping; install the project electrical transformer; install the City electrical transformer; construct and maintain common loading area at 13th Street pursuant to plans approved by Planning Commission. 7. All off-site improvements shown on approved plans shall be completed prior to occupancy of Phase -one of the project. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One, the applicant shall obtain an airspace encroachment permit or other acceptable entitlement from the City Council for the bridge connecting the easterly and westerly project buildings. 9. Project signs shall comply with Chapter 17.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Directional signs shall be provided for remote interim parking (as required by the Community Development Director) and to permanent parking structure parking. 10. The hotel developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney, that full construction financing, or other evidence of financial capability to construct the Hotel Project, has been secured prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map shall be null and void eighteen months from the date of approval unless building permits have been obtained for Phase One. The Applicant may apply in writing to the Planning Commission prior to expiration for a time extension. 12. Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map shall become null and void twenty four months after the date of approval unless the final map is approved and Phase One of the Project fully constructed. The Applicant may apply in writing to the Planning Commission prior to expiration for a time extension. 13. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-4, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Department that water facilities on the Hotel Site meet'the fire flow requirement established by the Fire Department. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water 1201601.1 - 5 - Service Company ("CWSC") to determine whether upgrades are necessary and, if so, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement with CWSC to fund and construct the necessary improvements. If improvements are determined to be necessary, improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of building permits. Construction of all necessary upgrades shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase One. 14. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 of the EIR, in order to prevent high noise levels and nuisance noise associated with The Strand, the proposed parking structure, and special events, from affecting hotel guests, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall provide an acoustical study performed by a licensed acoustical engineer which establishes the mitigation measures necessary to limit maximum interior noise levels in the hotel units fronting on The Strand and facing the City parking structure to LDN 45dBA. Such measures may include, without limitation, the installation of double -pained windows in all rooms. 15. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) of the EIR, construction equipment shall be equipped with all feasible noise -control devices 16. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-4(e) - (k) of the EIR the project shall be designed and operated so as to minimize emissions from energy consumption: - Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company shall be consulted during project design, and all feasible energy conservation measures shall be incorporated into the project; and - The Applicant shall install energy efficient street and surface parking lighting, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, such as high pressure sodium, low pressure sodium, metal halide or clean lucalox; and - The Applicant shall install low polluting, energy efficient appliances for hotel uses; and - The Applicant shall incorporate passive solar designs where appropriate; and - The design of the Hotel Project shall include cascading ventilation from high-priority (occupied space) areas to low -priority space (corridors, equipment, and mechanical space) areas before the air is exhausted; and 1201601.1 - 6 - - The Hotel Project design shall facilitate the use of electric yard maintenance equipment through the placement of exterior outlets throughout the project. B. ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPING, AND SCREENING 17. Architectural treatment shall be as shown on the approved building elevation plans except that in the final design process, the Applicant shall incorporate additional articulation into the building facade of the Hotel Project to respond to project changes from the original submittal. Minor modifications may be approved by the Community Development Director. 18. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(a) final plans for landscaping the pedestrian plazas at 13th Street and 14th Street at the Strand shall specify plant species and concentrate landscaping along the edges of the street rights-of-way with the goal of framing and maintaining as much of the view corridor to the ocean as feasible. 19. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) rooftop equipment shall be screened from all off-site vantage points, and mechanical equipment shall be contained within rooftop penthouses. Rooftop screening materials shall be complimentary in material and color to the building's exterior, and shall be submitted in advance for review and approval by the Planning Division. 20. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(c) service areas shall be screened from off-site views and trash containers shall be enclosed using materials complimentary to the buildings. C. CONSTRUCTION & PHASING 21. The project shall be constructed in two phases. Phase One construction will include the development of 56 rooms, 1,482 sq. ft. meeting room, central lobby and surface parking for 54 cars on the project site and loading areas at 13th Street and Beach Drive pursuant to City approved project plans. Phase Two of the project involves the construction of 40 rooms, 1,568 sq. ft. of meeting room space, a bridge connecting Phase One and Phase Two projects, laundry area and spa area. 22. Construction staging shall be as shown on approved project staging plans per the Project EIR. Requests for alternate construction staging shall be considered through written request to the Community Development Department. 23. Phase One of the project shall be completed within two years of the date of project approval. Phase Two of the project shall be completed within four years of the date of project 1201601.1 - 7 - approval. The Applicant may apply in writing to the Planning Commission prior to expiration for a time extension. 24. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(e) of the EIR, the applicant and the City shall coordinate in the preparation of a Construction Operation Plan and Program. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits by the Director of Community Development. The plan shall incorporate the following: • Specifications for fencing of the site, construction staging areas, and pedestrian canopies. • Limitations on construction activities by date and hour. • A scaled plan that depicts pedestrian circulation routes and demonstrates the maintenance of safe and open access to the beach, The Strand, and Noble Park during project construction. 25. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 of the EIR, as part of the City review and development of the Construction Operation Plan and Program, the height and design of fencing and pedestrian canopies shall be evaluated to ensure maximum screening of views to site and aesthetic concerns: 26. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(a) of the EIR, construction hours for the project shall be limited to Monday through Friday between 8:00 A.M. and 5:30 P.M., on Saturday between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., with no construction allowed on Sunday. From June 15th through September 15th (peak summer season) there shall be no construction on Saturdays and legal holidays. 27. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) of the EIR, in order to avoid conflicts with special events held in the project area, construction on the site shall be suspended on certain days as determined appropriate by the City. Prior to any demolition or construction for the parking structure or the hotel, special event days that would require suspension of construction shall be identified by the City. The hotel proponent and the contractors for both the hotel and/or the parking structure shall be informed of these dates by the City as soon as feasible, and compliance with the schedule shall be enforced by the City. The City shall retain the right to change or extend the dates when warranted to ensure that special.events are not significantly impacted by project construction. 28. The Director of Community Development shall, in the course of developing a Construction Operation Plan, coordinate with 1201601.1 - 8 - other members of the City staff to examine whether some or all special events should be held in an area south of the Pier during the construction period. 29. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(d) of the EIR, no closure, either temporary or permanent shall be allowed on the existing public walkway known as The Strand. All construction equipment shall gain access to the site from public rights-of-way other than The Strand. To avoid hazards to Strand users during construction along The Strand, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian canopy in conformance with the Uniform Building Code. 30. Pursuant to Mitigation measure 4.7-5(f), to avoid interference with special event set-up and operation during the construction period for the Phase I hotel, Thirteenth Street at The Strand shall be made available for special event trucks if required. 31. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(a) of the EIR, the hotel developer shall include in its construction contract a clause which stipulates, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, that the contractor will recycle materials used in construction to the extent feasible in order to divert construction waste from regional landfills. D., HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 32. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, the hotel developer shall contribute a fair share towards the construction of a 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain at the Thirteenth Street and Beach Drive sump, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of -Hermosa Beach Master Plan of Drainage. The fair share contribution shall be calculated based upon the project's contribution to runoff which would be directed to the storm drain, as determined by the Public Works Director. Construction of the storm drain shall be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase One. E. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION 33. The project shall conform to requirements of Section 17.48 of the Zoning Ordinance, Trip Reduction and Travel Management standards - non-residential projects of 50,000 square feet or greater. 34. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, the City and the hotel developer shall jointly fund improvements to the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue intersection based on fair share contributions. The eastbound lanes at the Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue intersection shall be changed 1201601.1 - 9 - from their existing configuration to a dual left -turn and right turn. 35. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, in order to address the vehicular circulation associated with the Parking Structure, the traffic signals and the intersections at 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue shall be modified as follows, prior to the completion of the Parking Structure: • 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue - Provide left -through option lane on northbound Hermosa Avenue, and modify existing traffic signal to produce split operation on Hermosa Avenue. • Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - Provide left -through option lane on southbound Hermosa Avenue, and modify existing traffic signal to produce split phase operation on Hermosa Avenue. 36. City staff and the Applicant shall, prior to the occupancy of Phase One, prepare a plan for a signage program regarding Hotel and Parking Structure access routes. F. PARKING; PARKING BY PHASE; CONSTRUCTION PARKING 37. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall provide parking for not less than 54 cars on the portion of the project site bounded by 14th Street, Beach Drive and 14th Court. The Applicant shall enter into a lease, encroachment permit, or other mechanism acceptable to the City for use of Fourteenth Court to provide a portion of the required parking for Phase One. The Applicant shall improve approximately 80 linear feet of right-of-way along Fourteenth Court to provide the required parking for Phase One. 38. The encroachment permit and/or lease agreement shall terminate upon commencement of construction of Phase Two of the Hotel Project, and at such time the use of Fourteenth Court shall revert to the City. 39. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall submit an interim parking plan for City approval. The parking plan shall implement the various conditions of approval and mitigation measures set forth in this Part "E". 40. Prior to occupancy of Phase One of the Hotel Project, the Applicant shall restripe public parking Lot "C" and a portion of Thirteenth Street, in order to fully off -set the loss of public parking with the use of Fourteenth Court during Phase One. 1201601.1 - 10 - 41. The Applicant shall provide valet parking service for the Projects after completion of Phase One, and during Phase Two construction. 42. The Applicant shall fund not less than 20% of maintenance and operation costs for an employee shuttle to accommodate displaced parking for the duration of parking structure construction. The Applicant shall accommodate any displaced parking in Phase One on site as required by the parking mitigation measures established in the project EIR. 43. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-4(a) of the EIR, if the Community Development Department determines during the plan check process or at any time thereafter that parking for construction workers and construction vehicles cannot be accommodated within construction staging areas, the Applicant shall provide at no cost to construction workers remote parking outside the downtown area, in areas not proposed for use by the shuttle service. The applicant shall ensure that construction contractor's require employees to use off-street parking. Such remote parking shall remain in use until the completion of construction of Phase One. 44. The Developer shall acquire through lease'or easement agreement with the City, the right for hotel patrons to use not less than 100 parking spaces in the Parking Structure. The Parking Structure shall be constructed and fully operational prior to commencement of construction of Phase Two of the Hotel Project. 45. Upon the completion of Phase Two, all parking for the Hotel guests shall be provided in the Parking Structure or on the Hotel site. The Certificate of Occupancy for Phases One and Two shall be conditioned upon the continued provision of parking in the Parking Structure. 46. In the event that the City parking structure is not completed prior to occupancy of Phase Two, the Applicant shall secure adequate off-site parking by covenant, lease, easement or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney for the interim period. 47. The Applicant shall provide eight permanent, dedicated, off- street parking spaces for Hotel employees. Employee parking space requirements shall be in addition to space requirements for Hotel guests. 48. Hotel guests and owners of Hotel units shall not be eligible for participation in the City's parking permit program. City parking passes shall not be issued to Hotel owners and guests. 1201601.1 - 11 - G. AIR QUALITY 49. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) of the EIR, all required actions necessary to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts off-site sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction, shall be implemented as part of the proposed project. Prior to the approval of grading permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director that such compliance will be achieved. All such approved actions shall be listed on the Grading Plan under the General Notes Section. The Applicant shall reimburse City for all costs of independent review of said compliance measures by SCAQMD or a qualified air quality consultant of the City's choice. 50. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(b) of the EIR, the project shall minimize fugitive dust emissions, through the application of the following and other measures as necessary: - Spread soil blinders on the Project site, on unpaved roads and in parking areas; and - Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; and - Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public roadways or occurs as a result of hauling; and - Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements; and - Wash trucks leaving the Project site; and - Suspend all grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. 51. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(c) of the EIR, the project shall minimize fugitive dust emissions by maintaining water trucks on-site at all times during construction to keep soil moist and prevent fugitive dust from escaping the project site. 52. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 of the EIR, to the extent feasible, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures dictated by the SCAQMD including, without limitation, the following measures: 1201601.1 - 12 - - Low emission on-site mobile construction equipment shall be employed; and - All construction shall be maintained in tune per manufacturer's specifications; and - Electric, gasoline -powered and methanol -powered equipment shall be substituted for diesel -powered construction equipment where feasible; and - The construction contractor shall not permit equipment to be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than two minutes); and - All construction activities shall cease during Stage 2 smog alerts; and - Existing power sources shall where feasible. The Applicant power generators; and be used at the Project site shall avoid using temporary - Construction activities shall be planned and undertaken to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. H. SECTION IV - HOTEL OPERATION 53. The project shall be operated as a hotel with daily linen service, central lobby, front desk check in, valet parking service and central guest registration with management available on a 24 hour basis pursuant Chapter 17.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 54. The hotel shall be staffed with full time staff consisting of the following; General Manager, Assistant Manager, Front Desk supervisor, front desk clerks, building engineer, housekeeping supervisor, housekeeping staff, account staff clerk, night auditor, valet attendants, sales manager, catering manager, reservation clerks. 55. Daily linen services shall be provided during Phase One development with contract linen/laundry services provide from an off-site vendor. Linen/laundry services will be provided on-site in Phase Two of project development. 56. Hotel occupancy shall managed and controlled through a central.reservation system and central management company for the life of the project. 57. All units are subject to City of Hermosa Beach Transient Occupancy Tax for a minimum of nine months per calendar year. 1201601.1 - 13 - 58. Units shall not be occupied by owners for more than 29 consecutive days nor more than 90 total days in any calendar year. 59. The project shall be audited by the City for conformance to room occupancy requirements on a quarterly basis. The audit shall be prepared by a financial auditor selected by the City utilizing room occupancy records provided by the applicant. 60. The applicant/owner shall furnish 100% of funds to cover the costs of quarterly audits for the purpose of establishing project Transient Occupancy Taxes as required by the Director of Finance. 61. The project shall not be altered or reconstructed to preclude its use for transient occupancy as a hotel. 62. Collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes shall be provided by centralized management operations of the hotel. 63. Trash service and storage shall be provide in an enclosed structure pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Code. 64. Pursuant Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a) of the EIR, to prevent impacts on the use of the Strand, the hotel management shall inform owners and guests and provide visible signage that access to the beach and The Strand is only permitted from 13th Street and 14th Street vie the hotel lobby. For the safety of their visitors and the general public the hotel management shall be responsible for enforcing this policy. 65. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(b) of the EIR, the hotel shall incorporate facilities for collection, compaction, and pick-up of recyclable materials including the following: • Receptacles in the common areas of the hotel for the collection of aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles and paper; • A central refuse disposal and storage area designed to accommodate separate receptacles for recyclable materials to allow for participation in the City's residential recycling program. 66. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-5(c) of the EIR, information regarding recycling opportunities provided by the hotel shall be posted in common rooms of the hotel in order to encourage guests and hotel employees to recycle. 1201601.1 - 14 - 67. Adequate storage space and truck access loading/unloading for recycling bins shall be provided for use by the hotel occupants. 68. An annual report of the amount and type of solid waste disposed and diverted by the construction and operation activities of the proposed project shall be provide to the Community Development Department. The report will also require the identification of the final disposal and recycling facilities used. 69. Hotel management and contractors must use the services of the City's exclusive franchise waste hauler for disposal of all non -hazardous wastes. Hotel management and contractors shall work with the waste hauler to obtain tonnage and volume date for the annual waste reports. 70. Pursuant to Mitigation Measures 4.5-4 (b) & (c) of the EIR, bicycle storage facilities shall be incorporated into the design of the hotel or adjacent pedestrian plazas to provide complimentary bikes or bike rental. I. CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE - COMMERCIAL 71. The project shall meet all requirements of the Commercial Condominium provisions of the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 17.22.90 -17.22. 140 of the Municipal Code. 72. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &R's) in compliance with Section 17.22.90 Commercial/Industrial Condominiums shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 73. Proof of recordation of approved CC & R's shall be submitted to the Community Development -Director six (6) months after recordation's of the Final Map. J. CERTIFICATIONS 74. An acceptance of conditions form shall be executed by the Applicant and any other current property owners and submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. 75. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the Applicant and property owner 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. 1201601.1 - 15 - 76. The Conditional Use Permit and this Resolution shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 77. 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 an enforceable. 78. The Applicant shall defend with Counsel of the City's choosing, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval or any other proceeding or action taken pursuant to this permit. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. 79. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. 80. 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 Applicant to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. SECTION 6. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing and the facts and findings set forth herein, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65402, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed conveyance of parking spaces in the Parking Structure will be consistent with the General Plan if conditioned as follows: 81. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c) plans for the parking structure shall employ design techniques to minimize noise, lighting, and visual impacts to the degree feasible. Special attention should be paid to that section of the structure abutting residential uses. Design techniques shall consider limiting openings on the wall of the structure, modifying setbacks, and the use of property walls, vines and landscaping. City staff shall consult with neighboring residents and owners of property immediately abutting the parking structure during the final design process. 82. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), the Hermosa Avenue street frontage of the parking structure (which incorporates 1201601.1 - 16 - retail and office uses), and to a lesser extent the other facades of the parking structure, shall include articulation of the building mass through the use of off -sets, stepped terraces, changes in plane, and other such devices to reduce the visual obtrusiveness of the structure as seen from surrounding areas. 83. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b) prior to final approval of plans for the parking structure, a landscape plan for the site shall be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. The landscape plan shall incorporate the following: • A fully automated irrigation system. • Vines, trees and other landscaped materials shall be used to the maximum extent feasible along the wall and perimeter of the structure to soften it's visual impact on pedestrian walkways and adjacent land uses. New tree plantings shall occur along -the retail edge of the parking structure at 13th Street, and along the stairwells and elevators located at the corners of the parking structure. • Textured or colored paving materials shall be used for the pedestrian walkway along 13th Street, Beach Drive, and 14th Street consistent with the downtown improvement plan. 84. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-2, the City shall install an oil/grease separator to treat runoff generated in the parking structure, in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the City of Hermosa Beach Storm Water Management Program. 85. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c), the parking structure and associated common and landscaped areas shall be maintained by the City in excellent condition throughout the life of the project. 1201601.1 - 17 - Section 7. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 3rd day of December, 1996. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution No. is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their regular meeting of December 3, 1996. Peter Tucker, Chairman 1201601.1 Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary - 18 - AMERICAN DREAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. December 4, 1996 City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 Re: Hermosa Ina Dear Sir/Madam., The undc=gned applicant hereby appeals each aspect of The Planning Commission's approval on Deaernber 3, 1996 of the 96 room hotel at 1300 The Strand, including but not limited to the conditional use permit, the precise development plan, the parking plan and vesting tentative tract map No. 52158, on the basis that the determination made by the Planning Commission of mitigation Measure 4.1-1 (see page 9, paragraph 31) is based on "fair shatc", which is vague and unclear. Who else will be contributing and in what proportion will the participants be contributing? Are the drainage calculations ,from the applicant's property included proportionally with the drainage run-off calculations from the other participants in order to arrive at a "fair snare" calculation? The applicant is requesting that this appeal be heard at the December 17, 1996, Council Meeting. Thank you for your consideration M- this matter. Sincerely, C . Kecnan M cc: Sol Blumenfeld Community Development Director, City of Hermosa Beach 700 EMERSON STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (415) 326-2244 FAX - q1� -,U(o as TOTAL P.02 I�l-ir7-9, 12/17/96 CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPEAL OF THE HERMOSA INN PROJECT AT 1300 THE STRAND AND PARKING STRUCTURE SPEAKER SIGN -IN SHEET rHEaim ICcomms TlSLIMITEDT03MlNUiESPE, ?SPEAoe Fo (Tf 1 l Name Address 5 s�L)c God 5-7 f Lf-( I"' coo 2 Tjc nN,uLr UAR6 4'/i %J -Z-? J 12.E Z le Y -e v e,\k 15 i 5_�__ .5}. KL v"0 CV v G M 50WLfssner 2715VoWe Hermosa Beach, cAso254 December 16, 1996 Hermosa Beach City Clerk: I wish to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission to approve the conditions of approval, Hermosa Inn Hotel and 480 car parking structure - conditional use permit; precise development plan; parking plan; vesting tentative tract map; general plan consistency with lease of city owned property and conveyance of parking in city owned parking structure and ceritfication of final environmental impact report - 1300 the strand. Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Page f of 4 H. Longacre to HB City Council (Public Hearing #1, 12/17/96) 17 December 1996 Attention: Hermosa Beach City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, California 90254 From: Howard Longacre (City resident and property owner) 1221 Seventh Place Hermosa Beach, California 90254 17 December 1996 This is a written testimony to be included in the official record of Public Hearin Item #1 of the Adjourned Regular Hermosa Beach City Council meeting Tuesday, 17 December 1996, 7:30pm in the city council chambers in Hermosa Beach, California. Please deliver immediately to all concerned and/or at the beginning of the public hearing as appropriate. Kindly use the time, which I will not utilize speaking at the meeting, to review my submittal. Thank You. Honorable Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council and Others: You do not have ANY plan for the downtown that will do anything that assures an end to night-time barroom growth and a beginning of QUALITY daytime business growth. You have no plan! None! Zero! You do not know, or evidently care to know what the downtown costs versus city receipts. You do not have a simple profit and loss statement for the downtown. Not for any year. You do not have any projections showing any city profits from the downtown which can be used to better the residential community infrastructure, especially the road pavement. You have no data in clear readable format. NO PROFITABLE BUSINESS OPERATES AS YOU ARE OPERATING. You are operating in a vacuum with pipe dreams, and with ego and the patronage of those to profit in their own private bank accounts evidently driving all of your actions. You have no valid profit/loss data in front of you. NONE! You are utilizing and proposing to utilize a tremendous amount of the people's hard earned money, millions of dollars(some unquestionably improperly), to benefit a handful of alcohol serving businesses, and a few landlord/property owners. WHY? You have no plan as to how the city is to benefit dollar -wise for the unprecedented impacts of traffic, noise, crime, and pollution that will surely result from your actions. You have no plan. None! You have no data. Nothing.. Again you are acting in a Page 1 of 4 0 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1� Page 2 of 4 H. Longacre to HB City Council (Public Hearing #1, 12/17/96) 17 December 1996 vacuum, driven by ego and patronization by those who will benefit in their own private bank accounts, at the expense of the men, women, and children residents of our city. I MAKE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND ACTION: That you have the city manager prepare a TRUE profit and loss statement for the downtown immediately, and that you make the individual macro amounts of this public. Add up all receipts from business taxes, utility taxes, parking revenues, ticket revenues, property tax receipts, sales tax receipts, etc. Add up all costs, fire, police, city staff, infrastructure, legal, etc. Present this for this year and as estimated for the next five out years, and then for each year tabulate which way you are going, and why, at quarterly reviews. It is very simple. Demand it, require it, do it. Stop acting in a vacuum, driven by ego and the patronization by those who will profit in their private bank accounts at our residents expense. When the true loss is known for the current year, and the projected loss for the out years, recommend that you then use this information to implement taxes on downtown businesses, and events, which cause the losses and also do that which is necessary to eliminate the losses from your actions. It is time the downtown pay its way and then some to compensate for the privilege to be as it is in one of the most premier locations in the world, and given the impacts it causes to the quality of life of the residents and the residential property values. If a business costs this city more than it provides, then something is wrong. When business operators and downtown landlords praise your efforts to spend other people's money when it is to clearly benefit their private bank accounts, with little or no benefit to the financial position of the city, you all should feel like true fools for not realizing the true facts. It is extremely dumb, stupid, and ridiculous for the city to pour millions of dollars of the people's money into the downtown when there is no tabulated data, whatever, showing factually how the city will reduce the negative cost of the downtown. To take actions that benefit downtown businesses and landlords only (who make up the majority of those who are supporting your actions) while degrading the residential quality of life and also the financial position of this city leads many to wonder why you would take such actions. I remind you again, that you have no data showing clearly a profit and loss statement for the downtown. You refuse to have the city manager prepare this data and provide this information to you, the public, and especially the press (and the press should be hounding you for this profit/loss statement right now), so that the people of the city know the true Page 2 of 4 H. Longacre to HB City Council (Public Hearing #1, 12/17/96) 17 December 1996 facts. You should not act on anything substantial until you have this profit and loss statement, and such statement should be audited by not just any firm auditing cities for a fee, but by a highly respected auditing firm. Without such data you are operating in a vacuum, out of ego, and the patronization from those who will benefit in their private bank accounts at our residents expense. It is your chosen job to represent this city and to operate this city with the whole city as the focus. You are not doing this. It you were, you would have a profit/loss statement in front of you, at every meeting, for every major area, showing what is happening in the non-profit city corporation which you are at the helm of. HOTEL: Too big, too dense, ugly, will eventually turn into a flop -house in my opinion. It establishes an uncontrollable level of density which can and will be cascaded throughout the entire downtown. If the room rates are as discussed it will be virtually empty 9 months of the year. PARKING GARAGE AND THE EIR: Not needed for quality low impact daytime business! Will be used to intensify high impact, costly to the city, nighttime alcohol dispensing businesses. It is way too big. From a civil engineering point of view a bad design from ingress and egress considerations. It will present substantial air pollution problems for nearby residents which could lead to costly law suits. It will create a view blight for many homes. Have you been in the Redondo parking garage when cars are lined up Torrance Boulevard trying to get in or out? Its a zoo. And the air pollution is unbelievable inside their structure. Again you have no proper study showing the true negative effects of this garage and hotel density, showing what will happen when the rest of the downtown is built out to a similar degree of density, and which other properties will have the legal right to do if this hotel and parking garage is approved. The EIR is deficient without question in my view. You are not meeting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)! What happened to the original 2 -level parking design as talked about by the R/UDAT group back in 1992? How quickly you forget! Asking for too much will probably end up getting you nothing. You will probably have court challenges on everything from the EIR to especially the outrageous and improper use of the proposition -A parks money discussed below. THE COUNTY DEAL: Totally improper use of proposition -A parks money. Probably will be challenged in court. If the parking garage is such a good idea financially why are Page 3 of 4 H. Longacre to HB City Council (Public Hearing #1, 12/17/96) 17 December 1996 not the downtown property owners financing it through an assessment district? Thpy are the only ones to benefit. Fortunately you have made no secret of the fact that using the proposition -A parks money was really a deal to pay for the lifeguards. That makes a court challenge especially easy, while perhaps keeping the city from getting into serious trouble involving impropriety by its city council in its private negotiations with county elected officials and others. There should be a tabulation made of all such private discussions which have gone before. REGARDING LIFEGUARDS AND BEACH MAINTENANCE: You should not give one dime to the county. It is our beach and we are permitting hundreds of thousands to use it free at significant negative impact on our city. You have lowered our government to that of the Board of Supervisors by negotiating with the county in secret at breakfast, lunch, and God knows how else. You should have told them NO, and then publicize their actions and misuse of moneys of every action they are taking. You are mortgaging and placing encumbrances on the future of Hermosa Beach to the county and a private developer. If we need to do this we might as well de -incorporate and merge with Redondo Beach. They would most likely be happy to obtain our annual revenue and have to increase their staff only marginally to replace our entire city staff. At least then our residents would be represented and our streets re -paved. Start doing something right. Say no to the county, say no to this unneeded parking garage, tell the hotel developer to build to code like any homeowner has to. It is that simple and more. SLTNM4ARY: I assume and certainly would hope that no one in our elected government is benefiting financially, directly or indirectly, or anyone under their financial control is or will benefit from any action this government takes or will take in its day to day business of the city. I state this for I am at a total loss as to why the current course of such actions is being taken with respect to the hotel, the garage, and this deal with the county. It makes no sense whatever. It will do serious lasting damage to our town. So why is it being done? Sincerely, Howard Longacre Page 4 of 4 rage i of (12/17/96 Public Hearing #1 POINT -OF -ORDERS) H. Longacre to HS City Council , 16 December 1996 Page 1 of 2 Attention: Hermosa Beach City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council City Hall Administration Office City of Hermosa Beach Hermosa Beach, California 90254 From: Howard Longacre (City resident and property owner) 1221 Seventh Place Hermosa Beach, California 90254 16 December 1996 This contains formal written POINT -OF -ORDERS to be included in the official record regarding Public Hearing Item #1 at the Adjourned Regular Hermosa Beach City Council meeting to be on Tuesday, 17 December 1996 at the hour of 7.30pm in the city council chambers in Hermosa Beach, California Please deliver immediately to all concerned and/or at the beginning of the public hearing as appropriate. Thank You. Honorable Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council and Others: Point of Orders: 1) Conflicts of interest present: Notwithstanding the past opinions of your counsel, it continues to appear very improper in my view for Councilmember Bowler to participate in the matters of this public hearing. His past and/or present significant participation/ownership in a downtown business which requires off- site public parking and has little or none of its own, and the Tavern Owners Association, and the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, is clear evidence of a blatant conflict of interest. Further, his participation is probably unnecessary given the apparent mindset of the present city council as a whole. Additionally, irrespective of his potential vote, his presence and participation in discussions will further aid any court challenges to actions taken on these matters by the council. Also, should any other councilmember(s) have any ongoing business relationship or otherwise with any downtown property owner or business to benefit from council actions with respect to parking decisions of this public hearing, they also would probably exhibit a conflict of interest, and would best choose to avoid participation in the decisions to be made regarding this public hearing, to again not aid any court challenges which inevitably are not in the city's interest. 2) Scheduling of this Public Hearing improper: It is highly unusual in my view that the proposed -hotel developer chose to appeal the planning commission decision SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION rage c ai c (12/17/96 Public Hearing #1 POINT -OF -ORDERS) H. Longacre to HB City Council, 16 December 1996 Page 2 of 2 within 15 hours following the commission meeting, with the city having submitted a legal advertisement for said appeal that same following day to be included in'this adjourned regular meeting, which had previously been set up ostensibly for this very purpose. This all seems quite irregular, especially given the religious holiday period and the shotgun scheduling. It does appear that the city may be trying to circumvent full participation by the public on very substantial matters effecting this city. When you are proposing to spend millions of dollars of the taxpayer; s money, and doing something that will be of very substantial negative effect in the view of many, if not most residents, one finds actions to expedite this process quite deplorable. 3) Noticing the public is deficient: I note to you that as of yesterday, Sunday (12/15/96) I could not find any public notice of this public hearing on the proposed hotel property, and I could only find two standard small placards barely visible nailed to some posts about 20 inches from the ground at obscure locations of the large parking lot C. I note that other cities often put up signs 2 feet by 3 feet wide, and even larger, on matters of such significance and locate them clearly where people will be sure to see them, and for longer periods of time. Also other cities run additional large special ads on newspaper pages which contain reports covering city matters, other than the minimal legal ad in the legal section of the classifieds of one paper. Also, there was not even a second small ad for this public hearing in the current Easyreader. I suggest that the noticing and shotgun scheduling, with special rush, at the time of the most major holiday of the year, for this particular developer, and at a non- standard meeting, will also aid a court challenge. This hearing should be clarified, and clearly re -advertised and re -noticed for your second meeting in January, by which time you and the city staff will have perhaps had time to more properly review all materials and questions before you and better gain full public participation. This will also give city staff and the developer proper time to re- evaluate questions of concern. This hearing, given its scope and importance is deficient in city wide notice. Your counsel should also advise you that you should start noticing things to the maximum rather than the bare minimum. Sincerely, Howard Longacre December 12, 1996 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Pf uvpje� staff yz�e-co�A;, El 0 Adjourned Regular Meeting of December 17, 1996 PUBLIC E14PROVEMENT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND PARKING STRUCTURE AGREEMENT Recommendation: Approve agreements and authorize the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City at the appropriate time. .............................................................. The following agreements should be acted on after you have made a decision on the appeal of the hotel and parking structure project. 1. The Public Improvement Agreement provides for the hotel developer to build certain public improvements and the City will reimburse the developer over a period of years. 2. The Parking Structure Agreement sets forth the use of 100 spaces through an easement agreement and in consideration of the payment of $1,100,000 and ongoing funds for maintenance. R%.ectfulfly submitted, Stepen R. Burrell City Manager PARKING STRUCTURE AGREEMENT This Parking Structure Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of , 1996, by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a California municipal corporation (the "City") and Keenan Land Company, a California corporation (the "Developer") (the "Parties" or "Party") with reference to the following facts. RECITALS A. The City established the Downtown Business Area . Enhancement District by Ordinance 93-1096 on August 10, 1993 (the "District"), to among other matters, promote activities which will encourage the economic revitalization of businesses and the physical appearance of the downtown business district, including activities such as the (i) acquisition of additional parking; (ii) construction of parking structures; and (iii) promotional activities which enhance business and tourism within the District. B. The City owns that certain real property within the District roughly bounded by 14th Street, 14th Court, Hermosa Avenue, and Beach Drive, as more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A (the "Property"), and desires to construct on the Property a 300 parking space parking structure (the "Improvements") (collectively, the Improvements and the Property shall hereafter be referred to as the "Development"). C. The Developer intends to construct in phases a 100 room first class hotel adjacent to the Development (the "Hotel Development"). The Developer i,s unable to provide required off- street parking for its entire development on its property and desires to induce the City to construct surplus parking spaces as part of the Improvements, and to grant the Developer a parking easement in a portion of the Development to provide parking for the Hotel Development. D. In recognition of the public benefits to be achieved with the construction of a first class hotel in the City, the City is willing to construct an extra 100 parking spaces (the "Surplus Parking") as part of the Improvements, and to grant to the Developer an exclusive easement in the Surplus Parking, at its fair market value, to provide parking for the Hotel Development (the "Parking Easement"), subject to the provisions of this Agreement and to the Hotel Development being used in a 961126 dcs 1093665.5 — 1 — 1 manner consistent with the definition of "hotel" in the City's Zoning Ordinance. E. The City intends to fund the construction of the Improvements with financing from the County of Los Angeles (the "County") through Proposition A Funds. However, as a result of the Developer's request that the City construct the Surplus Parking, the financial provisions relating to the Surplus Parking must be resolved before the City can proceed with construction of the Improvements. F. The Developer cannot complete Phase II of the proposed Hotel Development unless it makes arrangements for the provision of adequate off-site parking, either as part of the Improvements or elsewhere. G. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth the method by which the Development can be completed in a manner which is beneficial to both Parties, and the conditions precedent which must be satisfied by both Parties. NOW, THEREFORE, in recognition of the recitals hereinabove, for other mutual promises and covenants and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: II. CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS A. Condition Precedent to Commence Construction of the Improvements. The City's obligations under this Agreement are contingent on receipt or ready availability of funding from the County to finance the construction of the Improvements, including satisfaction or waiver by the City and County of all conditions precedent for providing the funds to the City to finance the construction of the Improvements, by , 1996; otherwise this Agreement shall be null and void. B. Construction of the Improvements. By August 1, 1997, or days after satisfaction of the condition precedent set forth in Section 1.1, whichever is later, the City shall commence or shall cause the commencement of the construction of the Improvements. The construction of the Improvements shall be completed by August 1, 1998. C. Advance Parking Easement Payment. Within ten (10) days after the recordation of the notice of completion for the 961126 dcs 1093665.5 —2- 2 2- 2 Improvements, the Developer shall deposit with the City One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000), which the Parties hereby agree is the fair market value of the Parking Easement (as set forth in Article 2 below). PARKING EASEMENT A. Parking Easement. Within (_) days after the City's Planning Commission adopts a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for the Hotel Development, but in no event prior to payment of the Advance Parking Easement Payment described in Section 1.3, the City shall grant and deliver to the Developer the Parking Easement which will be evidenced by the executed Parking Easement Agreement, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit Band incorporated herein by this reference. B. Parking Conditions. The Surplus Parking shall be: (a) contiguous to one another; (b) adequately secured by aesthetically sensitive designed materials, such as a cyclone fence or other effective security devices; (c) accessible twenty- four (24) hours a day; and (d) available for self -parking. IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT A. Government Approvals. The Developer shall proceed with due diligence to obtain all governmental permits and approvals required for the construction of Phase I of the Hotel Development (collectively referred to as "Governmental Approvals"). Phase I of the Hotel Development shall consist of ("Phase I"). B. Construction of Phase I. Within ninety (90) days after obtaining the Governmental Approvals, the Developer shall commence construction of Phase I. Construction of Phase I shall be completed within nine (9) months after commencement of construction, at which time Phase I of the Hotel Development shall qualify for a Certificate of Occupancy. C. Temporary Parking - Phase I. Prior to commencing construction of Phase I, the City shall permit the Developer to use the City land known as a portion of 14th Court, to provide temporary parking to Phase I. This permission shall be evidenced by a license agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and the Developer. Developer shall pay the sum of $ 961126 des 1093665.5 —3- 3 3- 3 N- -- ..-,. to City for each month that temporary parking for the Hotel Development is provided on City property. Unless earlier terminated, the temporary use shall expire upon the date that the Parking Easement is conveyed to the Developer as set forth in Section 2.1 above. D. Temporary Parking - Phase II. Notwithstanding Section 1.2 above, in the event that the Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued for the Development by the time that the Developer obtains all building permits required for the construction of Phase II of the Hotel Development, the City shall permit the Developer to meet the parking requirements for Phase I of the Hotel Development through valet parking for a period not to exceed two (2) years, or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Development, whichever comes first. Provided, however, that if the Certificate of Occupancy for the Development has not been issued by the time that the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for Phase II of the Hotel Development, then the Developer shall have the right to continue to meet the parking requirements for the Hotel Development through valet parking until such time as the Certificate of Occupancy for the Development has been issued. These covenants shall be included as conditions of approval in the Developer's conditional use permit. V. DEVELOPER PERFORMANCE A. Conditions Precedent to Developer Performance. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Parties agree that the following conditions precedent must be met by the time indicated below or expressly waived by the Developer before the Developer will have any obligation to perform pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; B. Approved Conditional Use Permit. The Developer shall have obtained approval of its conditional use permit for the Hotel Development from the City no later than 199 and C. Approval of Coastal Commission Permit. The Developer shall have obtained any approvals and/or permits required for the Hotel Development by the California Coastal Commission no later than ninety (90) days after City approval of the conditional use permit for the Hotel Development. 961126 dcs 1093665.5 — 4 — 4 VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Notice. Formal notices and communication between the City and the Developer shall be sufficiently given if, and shall not be deemed given unless, dispatched by (i) certified mail, (ii) express overnight courier, (iii) personal delivery to the principal offices of the City and the Developer as follows: CITY: City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90284 Attention: City Manager Facsimile: (310) 372-6186 DEVELOPER: Keenan Land Company 700 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Charles J. Keenan, III Facsimile: (415) 326-2920 B. Arbitration. Any dispute or claim relating to this Agreement or any breach or alleged breach hereof shall, upon the request of any Party involved, be submitted to and settled by arbitration in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, pursuant to the rules then in effect of the American Arbitration Association (or at any other place mutually acceptable to the Parties involved). Any award rendered shall be final and conclusive upon the Parties, and a judgment thereon may be entered in the highest court of the forum, state or federal, having jurisdiction. The expenses of this arbitration shall be borne equally by the Parties to the arbitration, provided that each Party shall pay for and bear the cost of its own experts, evidence and counsel's fees, and further provided that in the discretion of the arbitrator any award may include the cost of a Party's counsel if the arbitrator expressly determines that the Party against whom such award is entered has caused the dispute,. controversy or claim to be submitted to arbitration as a dilatory tactic. 961126 dca 1093665.5 —5— �i C. Enforced Delay: Extension of Time of Performance (Force Majeure). Notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in.default where delay or failure to perform is due to: war, insurrection; strike; lock -out; riot; flood; earthquake; fire; casualties; act occasioned by violence of nature; act of the public enemy; epidemic; quarantine restriction; freight embargo; lack of transportation; governmental restriction or priority; litigation including litigation challenging the validity of this transaction or any element thereof; unusually severe weather; acts or failure to act of the other party to this Agreement or any other public or governmental agency or entity; or the imposition of any applicable Governmental Moratorium (except that an act or failure to act by the City shall not excuse or delay performance by the City under this Agreement). An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the other party within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the cause. D. I Severability of Provisions. Any provision of this Agreement which is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof, and any such prohibition or unenforceability in any jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Parties hereto waive any provision of law now or hereinafter in effect which renders any provision hereof prohibited or unenforceable in any respect. E. Applicable Law. This Agreement, and the application or interpretation hereof, shall be governed by the laws of the State of California applicable to agreements made and to be performed entirely therein. F. Indemnification. The City and the Developer hereby indemnify and save harmless each other from any loss or damage incurred by the indemnified Party by reason of the negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty or willful misconduct by the indemnifying Party related to the provision of the development services under this Agreement. 961126 dcs 1093665.5 —6- 51 6- 51 G. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on the Parties hereto, and their successors and assigns. H. Terminology. All personal pronouns used in this Agreement, whether used in the masculine, feminine and neuter gender, shall include all other genders, the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa as the context may require. I. Reliance. No person other than the Parties to this Agreement may directly or indirectly rely upon or enforce the provisions of this Agreement, whether as a third party beneficiary or otherwise. J. Relationship of Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed by the Parties or any third party to create the relationship of partners or joint venturers between the City and the Developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date of the Agreement first written above. CITY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, a municipal corporation By: Its: DEVELOPER KEENAN LAND COMPANY, a California corporation By: Its: 961126 dca 1093665.5 —7- 7 7_ 7 EXHIBIT A (Legal Description of the Property) 961126 dcs 1093665.5 A-1 EXHIBIT B FORM OF PARKING EASEMENT AGREEMENT [to be added] 961126 dca 1093665.5 B-1 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT This Public Improvements and Reimbursement Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of , 1996 by and between the City of Hermosa Beach, a municipal corporation (the "City") and Keenan Land Company, a California corporation (the "Developer") (sometimes referred to individually as the "Party" or collectively, as the "Parties"), with reference to the following facts. RECITALS A. The City established the Downtown Business Area Enhancement District by Ordinance 93-1096 on August 10, 1993 (the "District"), to among other matters, promote activities which will encourage the economic revitalization of businesses and the physical appearance of the downtown business district. B. To meet one of the objectives of the District, the City plans to construct certain off-site public improvements within the District. C. The City and Developer intend to enter into or have entered into a Parking Structure Agreement in which a parking garage (the "Parking Garage") will be constructed (i) to provided parking to the general public in the District, and (ii) to meet the parking needs of the Developer in connection with its construction of a 100 -room first class hotel development adjacent to the Parking Garage (the "Hotel Development"). D. The off-site public improvements will contribute to the revitalization and beautification of the District, and will benefit the entire District, including the Parking Garage and the Hotel Development. E. The funding cycle schedules of the off-site public improvements are incompatible with the construction schedules for the Parking Garage and the Hotel Development. F. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth various alternatives to accomplish the completion of the Public Improvements in a manner which is beneficial to both Parties, and the conditions precedent which must be satisfied before pursuing a particular alternative. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals hereof, and the mutual covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 961205 10649-00001 1si 1093667,1 0 G. Construction and Funding of Public Improvements. (a) The Developer hereby agrees to finance and construct the off-site public improvements, shown on the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein (the "Public Improvements"), for the benefit of the City, subject to the conditions provided in the Agreement. (b) The Developer shall carry out the construction of the Improvements in conformity with all applicable laws (as such laws may be interpreted and enforced by the governmental agency having jurisdiction thereof), including all design requirements of the City, and all applicable federal and state labor standards. (c) Before commencement of construction of any of the Improvements the Developer shall, at its own expense, secure or shall cause to be secured, any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental agency affected by such construction, development or work. H. Interim Financing. The Developer shall advance all the necessary funds (the "Advancement Funds") to finance the construction of the Public Improvements. All funds so advanced shall earn interest at percent ( %) compounded annually, which shall commence to accrue from the date of City acceptance. I. Reimbursement by City. The City shall repay the Advancement Funds and any accrued interest to the Developer within the time period set forth in the Schedule of Performance. The obligation of the City to reimburse Developer for the Advancement Funds shall be subject to the timely completion by the Developer of all the Improvements. Completion shall be defined as acceptance by the City. In no case will reimbursement by the City exceed $275,000. J. Notice. Formal notices and communication between the City and the Developer shall be sufficiently given if, and shall not be deemed given unless, dispatched by (i) certified mail, (ii) express overnight courier, (iii) personal delivery to the principal offices of the City and the Developer as follows: CITY: City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center - 2 - 961205 10649-00001 13J 1093667.1 0 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Attn: City Manager Fax: (310) 372-6186 With copies to: Richards, Watson & Gershon 333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1469 (213) 626-8484 (213) 626-0078 (facsimile) Attn: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney DEVELOPER: Kennan Land Company 700 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Charles J. Keenan, III Fax: (415) 326-2920 With copies to: Goldfarb & Lipman One Montgomery Street Twenty -Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 788-6338 (415) 788-0999 (facsimile) Attn: K. Defaults and Remedies. The failure of the either Party to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement, which such failure continues uncured after receipt of notice in writing from the non -defaulting Party to the defaulting Party of the purported failure or breach and the expiration of thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice, shall constitute an Event of Default. Provided, however, if due to the nature of such failure more than thirty (30) days is needed to cure such failure, an Event of Default shall not occur if the defaulting Party commences to cure such failure within thirty (30) days and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. L. Severability of Provisions. Any provision of this Agreement which is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to - 3 - 961205 10649-00001 1sJ 1093667.1 0 the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof, and any such prohibition or unenforceability in any jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceability such provision in any other jurisdiction. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Parties hereto waive any provision of law now or hereinafter in effect which renders any provision hereof prohibited or unenforceable in any respect. M. Applicable Law. This Agreement, and the application or interpretation hereof, shall be governed by the laws of the State of California applicable to agreements made and to be performed entirely therein. N. Indemnification. The City and the Developer hereby indemnify and save harmless each other from any loss or damage incurred by the indemnified Party by reason of the negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty or willful misconduct by the indemnifying Party related to the provision of development services under this Agreement. 0. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on the Parties hereto, and their successors and assigns. P. Terminology. All personal pronouns used in this Agreement, whether used in the masculine, feminine and neuter gender, shall include all other genders, the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa as the context may require. Q. Reliance. No person other than the Parties to this Agreement may directly or indirectly rely upon or enforce the provisions of this Agreement, whether as a third party beneficiary or otherwise. R. Relationship of Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed by the Parties or any third party to create the relationship of partners or joint venturers between the City and the Developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as on due date of the Agreement first written above. CITY CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, A Municipal corporation By: - 4 - 961205 10649-00001 13J 1093667.1 0 Steve Burrell, City Manager DEVELOPER KEENAN LAND COMPANY, A California corporation By: Its: - 5 - 961205 10649-00001 laj 1093667.1 0 EXHIBIT A 1. 13th Street between Beach Drive and The Strand 2. 14th Street between The Strand and Hermosa Avenue 3. Beach Drive between 13th and 14th Streets 4. 14th Street storm drain upgrade and improvement All work shall be in accordance with plans and specifications as approved by the City. The total reimbursement for this shall not exceed $275,000.00. A-1 Dec -17-96 04:34P TERRA -CAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. 10.530 JOANBRIDGE STREET • BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706 • (818) 960-3894 • FAX(818)338-9W9 SITE DEVELOPMENT - LANDSCAPE December 17, 1996 Mr. Stephen Burrell City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 92612 Reference: Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape Dear Mr. Burrell: It is of utmost importance that the following statements by myself, Nikolai J. Samarin, be heard without prejudice, impartiality or any bias in regards to the ongoing Formal Protest that our firm submitted last December 10, 1996. Let it be known, that this morning I received copies of Unispec's resume and references. I spent most of the morning and early afternoon following up primarily on his alleged references. What I have discovered is both alarnting and frightening. It appears that at least two of his major references were fabricated and or possibly falsified. The follow-up information will shed additional light on his Non -Responsiveness at bid time. A) Reconstruction of Grant Elementary School- Ms. Julie Leap 310452-5058 Director Contract was awarded but only $35,000.00 was let. Unispec could not acquire bonding. Job wound up in litigation. Reference received from Julie Leap. Additionally, this alleged reference has no correlation to Lower Pier Streetscape. This project was not $2,650,000 as indicated in his references and he never built the project. B) Interim Housing Utilities for Relocatable Buildings -Ms. Julie Leap 310-452-5058 Director. Contract value was less than $150,000. Not S 1,850,000.00 ... Ms. Leap, the Director of Facilities at Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District also stated that most of the work Unispec contracted was sublet to other Contractors. Also, Ms. Leap eluded to the fact that none of the work was "A" licensed General Engineering work nor similar to the Lower Pier Streetscape project. She also stated that he subbed out the electrical portions of the work. The additional information was received directly from the references or from returned phone calls from various agencies. C) Malibu High School Swimming Reconstruction -Ms. Julie Leap -310-452-5058 Director of Facilities. Ms. Julie Leap informed us that Unispec sublet most of the contract to California Pools. It was a problem job and wound up again in some form of litigation. Again, 1 would like to point out that this pool contract had virtually no similarities or direct relativity to the Lower Pier Streetscape. The only similarity is that both Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach arc near the Pacific Ocean. P_02 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2 Dec -17-96 O4:35P D) Redondo Beach Unified School District -Mr. Steve Fowler 310-379-5449 Director of Maintenance. Contract was not $388,000.00, it was a mere $76,000.00 and it was only l - school site several years ago. He basically changed out light bulbs and fixtures. This reference has absolutely no correlation, similarity or any contractual significance pursuant to the Monumental Electrical work on Lower Pier Streetscape that is required within [lie C-10 classification. He has no qualifications to build this portion of the work based on his references. E) Earthquake Repairs for City of Santa Monica -Ms. Loren Friedman 310-458-8736 It appears that this contract and others in the City of Santa Monica were based on small purchase orders in 520,000.00 increments. Possibly, one or two contracts were let. However, Ire utilized his "B" license and or his Wall Paper Hanging/Painting License to even acquire this reference. Again, patching and painting walls does not appear to be relevant to the Lower Pier Streetscape. In addition to the references, Unispec's own admission proves that he cannot build this project as a bona fide "A" licensed Gencral Engineering Contractor. He has no current references that are related to this project as directly called out in the bid package, p. BP -4-8-10. He also has no past references that are directly related to or similar in any shape or form as called out in the specifications or bid package. Unispcc has no references that shed light on his ability to perform any Electrical, Storm Drain, Sewer, Landscape and Irrigation on this above mentioned project. Unispec Construction also failed to tell the truth in relation to Item 7, page. BP4 of the Bid package. Item 7 asks "What contracts has your firm failed to complete in the past 3 -years. Unispec failed to complete Grant Elementary Reconstruction Project after it had started. The funny thing is he used it as a reference to dupe the Public Works Department into thinking he had actually built a 2.65million dollar contract when in fact lie had only received $35,000.00 of the 2.65 trillion. I will adress the rest of the story in front of the City's Council this evening. Respectfully, Terra -Cal Construction, Inc., L-v,1 �)_ Nikolai J. Samarin Divisional Team Estimator P_O3 IEC -1 7-1996 1-3 e2 UNISPEC n P. OFFICE OF `�„x'1. ,(T3I "HE'CITY ENGINEER 4�" ': , x p•�/ s� �:�� 7Y / FAX: 415 DIAMOND WRECT P.O. BOX 270 REDONDO BEACH, CALWORNIA 90277-0270 July 24, 1996 Mr. Jack Raad, Principal Urnspec Construction 12021 Wilshire Boulevard ##307 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Re: RBPAC Control Room & Sound System Project Dear Mr. Raad: This is to express the City ofRedondo Beach's gratitude for a job well done on the Redondo Reach Perfoniung Arts Center Control Room Gonstruction and the new Sound System Project. The quality of Unispec Construction's work is superb. Your careful attention to details is apparent . We also appreciate all your efforts towards the completion of the project. We will be looking forward to working with you on other projects, in the future. Sincerely, Mazin Azzawi Associate Civil Engineer 12/17/96 13:36 TX/RX N0.1265 P.003 !PHONE 31s-0661 10) 372-8021 'Di -EC -17-1996 13:02 - OFFICE 3.0G OFFICE OF THE'CITY ENGINEER Jufy 24, 1996 ZNJ I SPEC 4i5 DMIAU SD WREE; P.Q. BOX 270 REDONDO BEACH. GAUFOfF NTA 90277-0270 Mr. Jack Raad, principal Unispec Construction 12021 Wilshire Boulevard #307 Los Angeles, CA 94025 Re: RBPAC Control Room & Sound System Project ]dear Mr. Raad: This is to express the City of Redondo Beach's gratitude for a job well done on the Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center Control Room construction and the new Sound System Project. P. VJ TELEPHONE �Yot areT FAX: (310) 372-8021 The duality of Unispee Construction's work is superb. Your careful attention to details is apparent . We also appreciate all your efforts towards the completion of the project. We will be looking forward to working with you on other projects, in the future. Sincerely, Mazin Azzawi Associate Civil Engineer I 12/17/96 13:36 TX/RX N0.1265 P.003 M Lit C..-1 r-1 y�+r Y.��f•Jc' THE PMC -ADP April 14, 1993 NTURE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: F 04 I am pleased to be able to certify that Unispec Construction, Inc. has performed very well on the construction projects for the Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District. I have found them to be very safety conscious while producing quality work. Their daily communication with on-site personnel (principals, teachers, inspectors, architects, etc.) and myself, was excellent. I look forward to the opportunity of working with Unispec Construction, Inc. again in the future, and would highly recommend these to other interested pasties. Please do not hesitate to call me it you have any questions / inter ly, J e Demko Project Manager JVD:Ics Copy to: File 2425 Sixteenth Street Room 30 Santa Monicn, CA 90405=2699 (310) 452M856 FAX (310) 399-8488 TOTAL P.04 12/17/96 13:36 TX/RX N0.1265 P.004 0 le - Zcc-17- 1996 13: p2. UN I.SF'E!- P • 134 THE PMC -ADP VENTURE April 14, 1993 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I am pleased to be able to certify that Unispec Construction, Inc. has performed very well on the construction projects for the Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District. I have found them to be very safety conscious while producing quality work. Their daily communication with on-site personnel (principals, teachers, inspectors, architects, etc.) and myself, was excellent. I look forward to the opportunity of working with Unispec Construction, Inc. again in the future, and would highly recommend thern to other interested parties. Please do not hesitate to call me it you have any questions, incer ly, V J e Demko Project Manager JVD:Ics Copy to: File 2425 Sixteenth Street Room 30 Santa MonIC,.t7, CA 90405-2699 (310) 45?. -1856 FAX (310) 399-8488 TOTAL P.04 w _� _ 12/17/96 13:36 TX/RX N0.1265 P.004 ■ EEC - 17-1996 13: G1 ZRJ I SPEC ar�ttolca -Mali �tifierl School D2sric 1651 Sixteenth Soret, Santa Medi( -.a, California 90404-3b91 • •(3'101 450-8338 Franklin Elementary School 2400 Montana Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 May 13, 1993 To Whom It May Concern: Jack Raad and his company, Unispec Construction have just completed a construction project that involved preparing and installing four permanent portable classrooms on my school site. During the time that Jack performed the work, T found him to be conscientious, diligent and professional. While always focusing on completing the job, he understood the unique needs of a school site. He paid attention to safety, school schedules and our quest for excellence in the work provided. Jack stood behind his work. He worked with me to insure that our work was completed in a timely manner. He taut in extended hours, to provide us with a completed project. The duality of the work is excellent- We are most pleased with our new classrooms. I only wish that the Fire Marshall were as prompt as Jack was throughout our construction. I am pleased to share my satisfaction with the work he performed. Sincerely, Dale Petrulis, Principal DP: la BOARD OF EDUCATION Putn Brady Margaret R, Franco Brenda Gottfried Michael Hifi Patricia Hoffnt;w Mary Kuy Kurtmrh Peggy Lyons Dr. Neil Schttiidt. Superintendent of Schools 12/17/96 13:36 TX/RX N0.1265 P.001 ■. _E)EC-1 7 -1995 1-7:01 L" I SFEC P. t31 Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District 16-51 Sixteenth SlrYet, Santa Mtuili[:a, California 9(3404 -MF 131 % (3-101450-833B Franklin Elementary School. 2400 Montana Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 May 13, 1993 To Whom It May Concern: Jack Raad and his company, Unispec Construction have just completed a construction project that involved preparing and installing four permanent portable classrooms on my school site. During the time that Jack performed the work, I found him to be conscientious, diligent and professional. While always focusing on completing the job, he understood the unique needs of a school site. He paid attention to safety, school schedules and our quest for excellence in the work provided. Jack stood behind his work. He worked with me to insure that our work was completed in a timely manner. He put in extended hours, to provide us with a completed project_ The quality of the work is excellent_ We are most pleased with our new classrooms. I only wish that the Fire Marshall were as prompt as Jack was throughout our construction. I am pleased to phare my satisfaction with the work he performed. Sincerely, 1 Dale Petrulis, Principal DP:la BOARD OF EDUCATION Pain Uraay Margaret R Fratico Brenda Gottfried Michael HM Patricia Hoffman Mary Kay Karriarlr Poggy L,wms Dr. Neil Schmidt. Sttperinwnticnt ul Schools 12/17/96 13:36 TX/RX N0.1265 P.001 E-- THE PMC -ADP VENTURE February 23, 1993 Mr Jack Raad, President, Unispec Construction, Inca 12021 Wilshire Blvd #307, Los Angeles, CA 90025 RE: Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District ES Reconstruction Proaram: Contractor Prequalification General 5.6 Mr Raad: This is to notify you that, based on the "Contractor's Statement of Experience and Financial Condition" submitted to us recently, your firm is qualified to bid on projects with an assumed budget of $ 750,000 or more_ If you have any additional questions, please feel tree to contact me. Sincerely, Ipea.C Duda Principa JCD/hs Copy to: D Huie M Swanson A Gipson B 6onozo File 2425 Sixteenth Street Room 30 Santa Monica, CA 90405-2699 (310) 452-1856 FAX (310) 399-8488 12/17/96 13:36 TX/RX N0.1265 P.002 0 rcc-1 r -19% 13 : al LN I.SFEC P. 02 THE PMC -ADP VENTURE February 23, 1993 Mr Jack Raad, President, Unfspec Construction, fna 12021 Wilshire Blvd 9307, Los Angeles, CA 90025 RE: Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District ES Reconstruction Proaram: Contractor Preoualification General 5.6 Mr Raad: This is to notify you that, based on the "Contractor's Statement of Experience and Financial Condition" submitted to us recently, your firm is qualified to bid on projects with an assumed budget of $ 750,000 or more. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me, Sincerely, toss r. Duda Principa JCDms Copy to: D Huie M Swanson A Gipson B Bonozo File 2,125 Sixteenth Street Room 30 Santa Monica, CA 90405-2699 (310) 452-1856 FAX (310) 399-8488 I- _ - 12/17/96 13:36 TX/RX N0.1265 P.002 ■ December 17, 1996 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council a Adjourned Regular Meeting of December 17, 1996 ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE DEMOLITION OR MODIFICATION OF HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF Recommendation: Waive full reading and adopt ordinance. Background: In response to much public concern regarding the possible demolition of the Bijou Theatre auditorium, the City Council, at its meeting of December 10, 1996 directed staff to return at this time with an urgency ordinance for your review and adoption. Respectfully submitted, StephekR.rrell City Manager SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 3 ORDINANCE NO. 96-1168U AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE DEMOLITION OR MODIFICATION OF HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Moratorium declared. Except as otherwise provided in Section 4 hereof, the City of Hermosa Beach hereby declares a moratorium on the issuance of building permits, demolition permits, conditional use permits, variances, zone changes, precise development plans and any other entitlements for the use or development of land which would result in the demolition or modification (interior or exterior) of potential historic or architecturally significant resources within the City. Section 2. Moratorium defined. Except as otherwise provided in Section 4 hereof, notwithstanding any other ordinance or Code of the City of Hermosa Beach, no application for a building permit, demolition permit, conditional use permit, variance, zone change, precise development plan or other permit or entitlement for use for new construction shall be accepted, processed or issued which would result in the demolition or modification (interior or exterior) of any potential historic or architecturally significant resource and no environmental assessment, environmental impact report, negative declaration or categorical exemption shall be prepared in connection with any such permit or entitlement. Section 3. Definition. For purposes of this Ordinance, a "potential historic or architecturally significant resource" shall mean any of those structures listed on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference thereto. The structures included on the list are defined as potential resources because their age, distinguishing architectural style or characteristics, role in the history or cultural development of Hermosa Beach, the importance of the architect or designer who designed the structure or because of the existence of other similar characteristics relating to elements of the cultural, social, architectural or political history of the City. Section 4. Exemptions. The moratorium or limitation provided for in Sections l and 2 hereof shall not be applicable to any of the following: (a) Permits required to be issued as a result of any legally binding development agreement pertaining to any property in the City; 961213 Voll\MJ\HBMORA (b) Permits issued and required to be issued pursuant to any vesting tentative maps determined by the City to be binding and applicable to the City. (c) Minor changes of a building footprint for an existing building or structure solely for the purpose of providing access for the disabled and if in compliance with applicable zoning and development standards. (d) Minor modifications to an existing building required by law to be constructed in order for the building to comply with applicable fire, building or other safety requirements. (e) Emergency repair or replacement of a structure existing on or before December 17, 1996 and damaged by fire, flood, or other natural causes. (f) Continued use of the structure for the purposes for which it is being used as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Nothing contained in this section shall exempt or except construction or use exempted by this section from any requirement or regulation of the Building Code, Zoning Ordinance, or other ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach. Section 5. Relief from Moratorium. The owner of any structure listed on Exhibit A may apply to the City Council to remove the structure from the list on the grounds that the structure has no historic or architectural significance and was included in error, that the structure is structurally unsound and must be demolished or altered to protect the public health, safety or welfare, or that the structure cannot be used for any economic purpose whatsoever absent alteration or demolition. Upon receipt of such an application, the City Council shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing, receive and consider the evidence submitted with regard to the application, and remove the structure from the list only if it finds that the structure has no historic or architectural significance, or that the structure is structurally unsound and a hazard to life and safety, or that the structure cannot be used for any economic purpose whatsoever unless it is altered or demolished. In the event a structure is removed from Exhibit A pursuant to this Section, the Planning Commission and/or the Council may place reasonable conditions on any subsequent request to alter the structure to protect to the maximum extent feasible the structure's significant architectural or historical characteristics. -2- 961213 V011\MJ\HBM0RA Section 6. Severability. If any part or provision of this Ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be effected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Section 7. Penalty. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in County jail for not to exceed six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation exists shall constitute a separate and distinct violation of this Ordinance. In addition to the foregoing, any violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject to abatement as provided by all applicable provisions of law. Section 8. Statement of Purpose and Urgency Findings. The City of Hermosa Beach intends to conduct studies forthwith relative to the identification of historically and architecturally significant resources within the City, and to the efficacy of protecting those resources by means of an historic preservation ordinance. In order to do so, it will be necessary to engage the services of consultants to assist in the identification and inventorying or historic resources, and to prepare an appropriate historic preservation ordinance. Pending such studies, and the preparation and adoption of the appropriate zoning regulations, it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare that existing potential historic and architecturally significant resources not be altered or destroyed, which would defeat the very purpose of adopting a historic preservation ordinance; consequently, it is necessary that this ordinance take effect immediately. If this ordinance does not take effect immediately, actions might be undertaken which may be in conflict with the ordinance ultimately adopted and that historic and architectural resources might be altered or -demolished so as to undermine the very purpose of that ordinance. Due to the foregoing circumstances, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. Potential architecturally and historically significant resources have been identified by means of a survey, and those resources are listed in Exhibit A. These structures are not necessarily the only resources which may be identified, nor are the structures listed in Exhibit A necessarily ultimately going to be designated as resources. Nonetheless, the alteration or demolition of the structures listed in Exhibit A would constitute a threat to the -3- 961213 V011\MJ\HBM0RA public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, it is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare that this ordinance take effect immediately. This ordinance is an interim ordinance and shall expire forty-five (45) days after the adoption thereof unless extended pursuant to the provisions of Section 65858 of the Government Code. This is an interim measure, adopted pursuant to the authorization of State law in order to maintain the status quo pending the completion of the studies and adoption of amended zoning regulations, or sooner. It is not a final disposition as to development of any particular parcel of property within the City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 1996. MAYOR and PRESIDENT o CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: CITY CLERK -4- 961213 Voll\MJ\HBMORA Exhibit A List of Potential Architecturally and Historically Significant Resources Building Address Comments 1. Bank of America Building 90 Pier Ave. One of oldest commercial structures in downtown 2. Hermosa Hotel 26 Pier Ave. The oldest building in downtown 3. Bijou Theater 1229 Hermosa Ave. Oldest movie theater in City *Compiled from City of Hermosa Beach, General Plan. Note: list may be expanded based upon further survey of architecturally and historically significant resources. Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Recommendation: December 9, 1996 Regular meeting of December 10, 1996 Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape- Award of Bid It is recommended that City Council: 1. Authorize the award of the construction contract for the Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape Project (CIP 94-160) to Unispec Construction of Los Angeles, California in the amount of $1,683,541.00. 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the construction contract subject to approval by the City Attorney. 3. Direct the City Clerk to reject all other bids and release all bid bonds after award by City Council. Upon completion of work, direct the Director of Public Works to accept the project as complete on behalf of the City Council and release all contract bonds. 4. Authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as necessary within budget. 5. Appropriate funds to the Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape Project(CIP 94-160) as presented in the Fiscal Impact section of this report. Background: Plans and Specifications for the Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape Project were approved by City Council at their October 17, 1996 special meeting. On November 14, 1996 the City released the plans and specifications for bid. On Monday, December 9, 1996 the City Clerk received and opened six bids: Firm Name Basic Bid Add Alternate 1. Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. $2,995,314.60 $320,000 2. Excel Paving $2,261,568.60 $ 54,560 3. Advanced Construction $2,314,536.00 $220,000 4. Terra Cal Construction $1,750,000.00 $200,000 5. Sequel Contractors $1,979,767.00 $210,000 6. Unispec Construction $1,451,041.00 $220,000 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION A L Analvsis: The Public Works Department has reviewed the low bidders documents and has found that an addition error was made in the calculation of the bid which would increase the bid amount to $1,463,541. Even with this correction the Unispec bid would remain low. The rest of their bid documents are in order and their subcontractors have met the City's strict standards for quality of workmanship. The Public Works Department therefor recommends award of the Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape Project to Unispec Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,463,541.00. The bid included an option on the specification for the street lighting poles and fixtures to include all stainless steel construction rather than the standard painted steel. This would add an additional $220,000 to the bid but would assure a virtually maintenance free installation which could be expected to last indefinitely. If City Council elects to add this preferable option to the contract the approved amount would be increased to $1,683,541.00. Because the timely completion of this project is of utmost importance to the community in general and the Lower Pier Avenue businesses in particular, the specifications were written to include incentives to the contractor to achieve various milestones in the progress of construction (See Attached Section 1.10 of the Specifications). The maximum amount of incentive, if the contractor delivers each of the phases of construction ahead of schedule, would be $120,000. Fiscal Impact• The actual costs for the Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape Project are projected to be: Construction Contract $1,463,541.00 Stainless Street Light Fixtures and Poles $ 220,000.00 Contingencies (10% of contract) $ 146,3 54.00 Maximum Early Completion Incentive $ 120,000.00 Total $1,949,895.00 The funding sources recommended are: DEC Fund $457,616 Proceeds from sale of Alano property $105,000 Vasek Polak $ 59,664 Lighting and Landscaping $120,000— $ 53,728—' STPL Fund $286,837 Sewer Fund $304,050 Benefit Assessment District Proposition C Total Respectfully submitted, Joseph C. Markawich Capital Improvement Program Engineer Noted For Fiscal Impact: 6A. 4.11 &Zor��� ski Copeland Director of Finance $400,000 $163.000 $1,949,895.00 Concur: ft Amy Anuralu Director of Public Works s . )�V, — Stephen ll City Mana er Bid Breakdown by Subcontractors-Unispec Construction CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH -- BID OPENING LOG SHEET Proiect Name: Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape - CIP 994-160 Date: December 9. 1996 Bidder's Name Bid Bond Page 1 of 1 Amount of Bid 1)- Los Angeles En 'neerin Inc.60 g � 4134 Temple City Blvd., Rosemead, 91770 (00 2) Excel Paving 2230 Lemon Ave., Long Beach, 90806 3) � Advanced Construction 938 Lincoln Blvd., Santa Monica, 90403 4 7) iDGE Si-,-0,qt-Pwc0I-i4R!t 9 170 E 0 0 Et- a240 WOODROF5 poLok3EVj ct6- 02.E CEAtt(ODEC est: 0 9 1996rpw 50 000 • " Office of the City Clerk'- 131WQ Uef Drive - Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 o C) 1. Material and equipment may not be stored on public right-of-ways. Contractor may apply to City for permission to leave equipment in place overnight occasionally, which may be determined at the City's sole discretion. B. Contractor Staging and Parking Contractor's staging area is located on Lower Pier Avenue between the Strand and Hermosa Avenue. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to locate additional storage as he feels necessary. 1. Contractor's designated remote area parking is located at the Von's underground parking structure which is accessed off of Ardmore Avenue north of Pier Avenue. C. Required Temporary Rights-of-way Contractor shall maintain pedestrian access to businesses with doors opening onto the Work between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. 1. Contractor shall provide vehicular service and delivery access to the businesses between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. 2. Contractor shall coordinate with each business Owner to minimize times when business entrance is not accessible. Entrances shall not be inaccessible for more than four consecutive hours in any 24 hour period. 3. Maintain minimum V-0" wide temporary sidewalk. 1.10 Time of Completion A. Performance Periods: The Contractor shall immediately commence the work upon receipt of a Notice -to -Proceed, and shall achieve completion of hardscape improvements and final completion in accordance with the following schedule: Activities Date Received Bids December 9, 1996 Award of Contract (Est.) December 10, 1996 Notice -to -Proceed (Est.) December 19, 1996 Start Date January 2, 1997 Final Completion Date May 2, 1997 B. Early Completion Incentives. 1. In the event the Contractor achieves completion of hardscape Improvements for any of the phases prior to the dates specified above, the Contractor shall receive an incentive according to the following table: Phase Description Milestone Date Incentive/Day Wdmum III Paving Between Curbs February21,1997 $2,000 $20,000 IV Southerly Sidewalk March 7,1997 $4,000 $40,000 V Northerly Sidewalk March 21,1997 $4,000 $40,000 VI Pier/Hermosa Intersection April 18,1997 $2,000 $20,000 City of Hermosa Beach November 14, 1996 Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape 01010-6 Bid Documents Project No. 94160 2. The date for completion of hardscape improvements shall not be adjusted for any reason whatsoever. It is agreed by the parties that this data is being established at the sole discretion of the City and that the Contractor has no right, either contractually or statutorily, to such sum unless the Contractor achieves completion of the hardscape Improvements prior to the dates specified. Bonuses shall be set forth as part of the next regular invoices submitted by the Contractor referencing its basis for entitlement to such appropriate bonus. C. Liquidated Damages a. 1. The City and the Contractor mutually acknowledge and agree that a tiered system of liquidated damages based, in part, upon fixed calendar dates as provided above is essential to accommodate the balance variances in potential risks, costs and liabilities to the City. The City and the contractor therefore agree to the following amounts for liquidated damages: Phase Description Milestone Date Damages/Da 11 Street Demolition January 17,1997 $2,000 111 Paving Between Curbs February 21, 1997 $4,000 IV Southerly Sidewalk March 7,1997 $4,000 V Northerly Sidewalk March 21, 1997 $4,000 VI PierMermosa Intersection April 18,1997 $20,000- \111 Final Completion May 2,1997 $4,000" $4,000 per day April 19 through April 25 $10,000 per day April 26 through May 15 $50,000 per day May 18 and everyday thereafter $4,000 per day May 2 through May 15 $10,000 per day May 18 and everyday thereafter 2. The liquidated damages for each milestone should continue to accumulate until completion for that phase of the work. Therefore, the total liquidated damages will be the sum of the liquidated damages assessed for each phase of the work. END OF SECTION November 14, 1996 City of Hermosa Beach Bid Documents 01010-7 Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape Project No. 94160 Dec -10-96 02:40P TERRA -CAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. 14530 JOANBRIOGE STREET • BALDWIN PARK. CA 81706 • (em 98o•3694 • FAX (818) 338-9089 SITE DEVELOPMENT • LANDSCAPE December 10, 1996 Mr. Joe Mankawich Capital Improvements Programming Engineer City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-6186 Reference: Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape C.I.P. 94-160 Dear Mr. Mankowich: On Monday December 09, 1996 at 2:00 PM, Terra -Cal Construction, Inc., submitted a legitimate bid proposal for the Signature Strectscapc project aforementioned. Our firm was the second apparent low bidder at the time of the opening. The apparent Low -Bidder was Unispec. After requesting Unispec's bid proposal from your department, we have found numerous errors and omissions in Unispec's bid proposal that we feel renders there apparent Lpw-Bid , "Non-Respsonsive." After an in depth review of the facts surrounding this letter, we have come upon the following: Articles of Non -Responsiveness • Failed to meet any DBE, MBE and/or WBE guidelines as called out in the specifications and Bid Proposal. • Failed to include in the bid -package the DBE page showing the listed Subs and Suppliers as required. Failure to include this page is automatic grounds for termination pursuant to the City of Hermosa Beach's own specifications. See IB -1 2.b (Bids will be rejected based on failure to submit prescribed forms or exact facsimile of that form.) • Failed to list any references of previous work performed in the General Engineering Industry with the bid package. It was mandatory at the time of bid to fill in page BP -4 items) 7, 9 and 10. Unispec failed to supply any references to the City of Hermosa Beach. • Failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are building 51% of the project with their own forces as required by California State Law. It is evidenced in Unispec's bid that their firm will be Subcontracting a majority of the work and Unispec will basically be acting as a Broker or Briefcase Contractor in building this demanding project. • On page BP -6 of the Bid package, Unispec clearly has indicated that they cannot build this project in the time frame allowed and will incur liquidated damages which will gross over $ 100,000.00. Also the contract wouldn't be finished until June 1997, numerous days past the deadline. The contract was ordered to be finished by May 02, 1997 or 86- Working days dating back to January 02, 1997. P-02 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION L UEC-lU-yb UL=4UN • On page BP -10, (Bid Bond) attachment, Unispec's bid is rendered null and void. due to the expired Notary which binds the Power of Attorney to the bid bond. This is yet another reason to reject the bid and deem it. non-responsive. • Listed a subcontractor's (Shaw & Sons) project team as running the job instead of their own forces. • Finally, Unispec failed to list a specialty Subcontractor, C-10 category, to perform specialty lighting and traffic signal revamping. Due to the failure to list a Specialty Subcontractor thei&bid again is non-responsive in nature. In addition to Unispec not listing any references for this project or any of their previous contracts at the time of bid, it is impossible to obtain any type of recommendation on Unispec. Any information obtained after the fact would give Unispec an unfair competition in the evaluation of their bid. In conclusion, it is our sincere opinion that the above referenced items are not mere infractions but major irregularities that should not be ignored nor be allowed to be submitted after the fact. We all realizc that this was a very extensive and intensive bid package, however, these arc items that are standard in all bid packages and should not be omitted at any time. We wish to re -state at this time that Terra -Cal is the most responsive and responsible Bidder and it is our opinion that the Bid should be awarded to our firm. Sincerely, 7Te -Cal Construction, Inc. 4X. Stephen Walton Project Manager an _ Nikolai J. Samarin Project Estimator SWINS:gmc CC: Entire Council P_03 To:. Honorable Mayor And Member of the Hermosa Beach City Council From: Amy Amirani, Director of Public Works Date: 12/17/96 Re: City Attorney Response to Terra Cal letter On opening the sealed bids the apparent low bidder was Unispec Construction, Inc. Thereafter the second low bidder, Terra. -Cal Construction, Inc., protested that Unispeds bid was nonresponsive. In its letter dated 12/10/96 Terra -Cal protested Unispeds bid on the following eight bases. A summary of Terra -Cars complaint appears in italics, Unispec's response (by letter dated 12/12/96) follows in regular type, and comments by the staff and the City Attorney then follow in bold type. Unispec failed to meet any DBE guidelines Unispec has submitted DBE documents and meets the DBE requirements for this project. Unispec has submitted evidence to the City demonstrating that its bid met the federal 12% DBE goal for this project. Three project suppliers have Caltrans DBE certifications, and the value of their subcontracts meets the 12% goal. 2. Unispec failed to include page showing DBE subcontractors (violating IB -1, 2. b). Unispec has submitted DBE documents and meets the DBE requirements for this project. The bid documents do not appear to require the submission of the DBE subcontractors page at the time of the submission of the bids. The DBE page is not included as part of the "Bidding Documents" found in Section B of the contract documents. Rather, it is included in Section F.8, an appendix containing federal requirements for federal -aid construction projects. Nothing in the instructions to bidders indicates that it is to be completed and returned with the bid. The federal instructions included as part of the appendix do indicate that "Bidder DBE Information" form is to be completed and submitted with the bid. However, the instructions go on to state that "required DBE information" must be submitted within 4 business days following bid opening if it is not submitted with the bid itself. Failure to submit the information within that time is "grounds" for finding the bid nonresponsive—it is not stated that the bid must be held to be nonresponsive. 3. Unispec failed to list any references (failed to fill in page Bp -4, ftems(s) 7, 9, and 10). Unispec has provided the City with references for its previous projects, and they have been checked and confirmed by the City. SUPPLEMENTAL %121'�`�°°°°' �°M'�' INFORMATION Unispec did not list any references in its bid; instead, it supplied satisfactory references to the City after the opening of the bids. The bid documents clearly requested that bidders supply references, and the failure to do so could render the bid nonresponsive (0-1, section 2.a). The City may waive this irregularity, however (IB -4, section 7). The irregularity in question is not of the type that would permit the bidder to withdraw its bid without loss of its bid bond. Neither does it give the bidder any competitive advantage over any other bidder. Under these circumstances, the City may waive the irregularity. 4. Unispec failed to prove they are building 51% of the project. Terra -Cal has not shown that Unispec is building less than 51% of the project, and no California law requires that a prime contractor build more than 51%. There is no law requiring that a contractor build more than 51% of a project, but the Green Book standard specifications require the contractor to perform as least 50% of the dollar value of the work (§ 2-3.1). These standard specifications are incorporated in this project (GC -1, 1.01). Compliance with this requirement is not required to be reflected in the bi"he Green Book indicates that the contractor is to provide a written statement for approval before starting the work which demonstrates that this requirement will be fulfilled. Nothing in Unispec's bid is inconsistent with its ability to perform 50% of the dollar value of the work Although Terra -Cal did not raise the point, Unispec did not list the percentage of work to be done by its subcontractors on BP -7 (neither did Terra -Cal list percentages for all of its subcontractors). Listing such percentages is not required by law (Public Contract Code § 4104 only requires that the "portion" of the work be described, not the percentage of the total work). The listing of percentages is only a requirement of the City's bid form, and we see no reason that the irregularity of not listing percentages cannot be waived in light of the Green Book's requirement for submission of the value of the work for each subcontractor after contract award. 5. Unispec indicated they cannot build the project within the required time limits (121 days vs 86 working days). The bid documents do not prohibit weekend work, and there are 121 calendar days between January 2 and May 2, 1997. The bid specifications clearly indicate an intent to permit weekend work. While subsections 01010.1.07.A.2, and .3 prohibit weekend work without prior approval, subsection A.Lb encourages contractors to propose night and weekend schedules. There are 121 calendar days between those two dates provided that both the first and last days are counted. While the bid documents do not permit 121 working days as a matter of right, they do clearly disclose the city's willingness to permit weekend work Under the circumstances, Unispec's statement that it will complete the working within 121 days is reasonable and consistent with the bid documents. 96121710649-00001 dk 02033291 -2- 6. An expired notary's commission invalidates Unispec's bid bond The notary's commission was in effect when the power of attorney was signed; its subsequent expiration does not affect the validity of the power of attorney Unispec is correct and Terra -Cal has withdrawn this objection (letter dated 12/12/96). The expiration of the notary's commission does not affect the validity of a document signed while the commission was valid. 7. Unispec listed subcontractor Shaw & Sons as running the job instead of their own forces The submitted information described the subcontractor's management team, not Unispec's management team. Unispec attached information for three supervisory employees of Shaw & Sons Concrete Contractors, the proposed terrazzo and concrete subcontractor. Submission of this information is consistent with the requirements of Addendum No. 1, BP 2-7. Nothing in the information appears to suggest that Shaw's management team will be running Unispec's work 8. Unispec failed to list a specialty C-10 contractor for electrical work Unispec is itself a C-10 contractor and needs no specialty subcontractor to perform this work. Unispec is correct. Its contractor's license indicates it holds a C-10 (electrical) license, so no specialty subcontractor is required. 96121710649.00001 ddp 02033291 — 3 — Dec -17-96 04:34P TERRA -CAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. 10.530 JOANBRIDGE STREET • BALDWIN PARK, CA 91706 • (818) 960-3694 • FAX (8 18) 338-9089 SITE DEVELOPMENT • LANDSCAPE December 17. 1996 Mr. Stephen Burrell City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 92612 Reference: Lower Pier Avenue Streetscape Dear Mr. Burrell: It is of utmost importance that the following statements by myself, Nikolai J. Samarin, be heard without prejudice, impartiality or any bias in regards to the ongoing Formal Protest that our firm submitted last December 10, 1996. Let it be known, that this morning I received copies of Unispec's resume and references. I spent most of the morning and early afternoon following up primarily on his alleged references. What I have discovered is both alarming and frightening. It appears that at least two of his major references were fabricated and or possibly falsified. The follow-up information will shed additional light on his Non -Responsiveness at bid time. A) Reconstruction of Grant Elementary School- Ms. Julie Leap 310-452-5058 Director Contract was awarded but only $35,000.00 was let. Unispec could not acquire bonding. Job wound up in litigation. Reference received from Julie Leap. Additionally, this alleged reference has no correlation to Lower Pier Streetscape. This project was not $2,650,000 as indicated in his references and he never built the project. B) Interim Housing Utilities for Relocatable Buildings -Ms. Julie Leap 310-452-5058 Director. Contract value was less than $150,000. Not $1,850,000.00 ... Ms. Leap, the Director of Facilities at Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District also stated that most of the work Unispcc contracted was sublet to other Contractors. Also, Ms. Leap eluded to the fact that none of the work was "A" licensed General Engineering work nor similar to the Lower Pier Streetscape project. She also stated that he subbed out the electrical portions of the work. The additional information was received directly from the references or from returned phone calls from various agencies. C) Malibu High School Swirruning Reconstruction -Ms. Julie Leap -310-452-5058 Director of Facilities. Ms. Julie Leap informed us that Unispec sublet most of the contract to California Pools. It was a problem job and wound tip again in some form of litigation. Again, 1 would like to point out that this pool contract had virtually no similarities or direct relativity to the Lower Pier Streetscape. The only similarity is that both Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach arc near the Pacific Ocean. P_02 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 2 Dec -17-96 O4:35P D) Redondo Beach Unified School District -Mr. Steve Fowler 310-379-5449 Director of Maintenance. Contract was not $388,000.00, it was a mere $76,000.00 and it was only t - school site several years ago. He basically changed out light bulbs and fixtures. This reference has absolutely no correlation, similarity or any contractual significance pursuant to the Monumental Electrical work on Lower Pier Streetscape that is required within the C-10 classification. He has no qualifications to build this portion of the work based on his references. E) Earthquake Repairs for City of Santa Monica -Ms. Loren Friedman 310-458-8736 It appears that this contract and others in the City of Santa Monica were based on small purchase orders in $20,000.00 increments. Possibly, one or two contracts were let. However, Ile utilized his "B" license and or his Wall Paper Hanging/Painting License to even acquire this reference. Again, patching and painting walls does not appear to be relevant to the Lower Pier Streetscape. In addition to the references. Unispec's own admission proves that he cannot build this project as a bona fide "A" licensed General Engineering Contractor. He has no current references that are related to this project as directly called out in the bid package, p. BP4-8-10. He also has no past references that arc directly related to or similar in any shape or form as called out in the specifications or bid package. Unispcc has no references that sited light on his ability to perform any Electrical, Storm Drain, Sewer, Landscape and Irrigation on this above mentioned project. Unispec Construction also failed to tell the truth in relation to Item 7, page. BP4 of the Bid package. Item 7 asks "What contracts has your firm failed to complete in the past 3 -years. Unispec failed to complete Grant Elementary Reconstruction Project after it had started. The funny thing is he used it as a reference to dupe the Public Works Department into thinking he had actually built a 2.65million dollar contract when in fact lie had only received $35,000.00 of the 2.65 million. I will adress the rest of the story in front of the City's Council this evening. Respectfully, Terra -Cal Construction, Inc., L'u' " L• Nikolai J. Samarin Divisional Team Estimator P-03