Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Regular Meeting of May 21, 2024
Title
PARKING PLAN (23-01) AND VARIANCE (23-03) FOR A NEW 975-SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NINE-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK INSTEAD OF 17 FEET, A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE TO BE PROVIDED IN A DIFFERENT RATIO THAN REQUIRED, AND A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A RECONFIGURED GUEST PARKING SPACE AT 435 8TH STREET IN THE MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE, AND DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(Assistant Planner Johnathon Masi)
Body
Recommended Action:
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;
2. Approve a Variance to allow a nine-foot setback instead of the required 17-foot setback;
3. Approve a Variance to allow a reconfiguration of the required open space ratio, to allow more than 100 square feet to be counted on a roof deck; and
4. Approve a Parking Plan to allow a reconfiguration of the required guest parking, to allow a space parallel to the garage door.
Body
Executive Summary:
The applicant requests a Parking Plan and Variance, to allow a new single-family residence with a less than required garage setback, reconfigured ratio of required open space split between the roof deck and outdoor space adjacent to the main living area, and for guest parking space in an alternate configuration. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the requested Parking Plan and Variance, subject to conditions.
Background:
The subject property fronts on the north side of 8th Street, between Loma Drive and Cypress Avenue. The lot is 40.40 feet deep and 25 feet wide, totaling 1,010 square feet in lot area. The existing single-story structure constructed in 1923 is 480 square feet, with a porch partially extending beyond the front property line onto the portion of the public right-of-way developed with a sidewalk. The property has no on-site parking and no existing curb cut or driveway. The last building permit was issued in 1979, when the porch was constructed. The property is nonconforming to front and rear yard setbacks, off-street parking, and open space requirements.
An application for preliminary review of project plans was submitted April 13, 2023. Staff provided comments May 2, 2023, including indicating entitlements were required for projects deficient to standards as specified by Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC). An application for a Parking Plan and Variance was submitted on August 21, 2023.
Site Information Table:
The following table describes the existing site characteristics.
|
Site Information |
|
General Plan |
High Density Residential (HD) |
|
Zoning |
Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) |
|
Lot Size |
1,010 sq. ft. |
|
Existing Square Footage |
480 sq. ft. |
|
Surrounding Zoning |
North: |
R-3 |
|
|
East: |
R-3 |
|
|
South: |
R-2 and R-3 |
|
|
West: |
R-3 |
|
Surrounding Uses |
North: |
Single-Family |
|
|
East: |
Single-Family |
|
|
South: |
Single-Family, Multi-Family |
|
|
West: |
Multi-Family |
Project Description:
The project would demolish the existing single-story residence and redevelop the site with a new 975-square foot single-family residence, consisting of four floors, including the first-floor garage, a basement, and a roof deck. The first floor would house the two-car garage, and an entryway to the floors of the principal residence above. The second floor would consist of two bedrooms, a bathroom, and a small balcony accessible from the main bedroom. The third floor would contain the kitchen, living room, a bathroom, and an 82-square-foot deck space. The project also proposes a 260-square-foot roof deck. The basement would be accessible through the entryway facing the western property line. The basement would house an attached, studio accessory dwelling unit; the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) requires a ministerial approval in accordance with state law (Government Code Section 66314) which is outside the scope of this application.
The project proposes a nine-foot garage setback, with a guest parking space located parallel to the garage. Additionally, a new 16-foot-wide driveway and curb cut are proposed. The curb on 8th Street in front of the subject property is painted red, prohibiting public parking. Accordingly, the new curb cut does not eliminate on-street parking.
The project as proposed is the result of ongoing discussions between staff and the applicant. The project attempts to satisfy development standards where possible, and, where not possible, develop the property in a manner that meets the intent of the code and is consistent with PLAN Hermosa.
Discussion:
The proposed project is subject to development standards, as outlined by Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Chapter 17.16 - R-3 Multiple-Family Residential Zone. Additionally, the project is subject to HBMC Chapter 17.21 - Accessory Dwelling Units. Consistent with state law, the ADU design is subject to the development standards described below, and because of its consistency with these requirements, is subject to ministerial review only. The development standards are provided to holistically understand the project proposed.
|
Criteria |
Required |
Provided |
|
LOT STANDARDS: |
|
Minimum Lot Area |
4,000 sq. ft. |
1,010 sq. ft. (existing)1 |
|
Lot Coverage Maximum |
65% |
57% |
|
HEIGHT: |
30 ft. |
29.98 ft. |
|
YARDS: |
|
|
|
Front |
4 ft. |
5 ft. |
|
Side |
3 ft. |
3 ft. |
|
Rear |
5 ft./3 ft. |
5 ft./3 ft. |
|
PARKING: |
|
Total Parking Spaces Minimum |
3 spaces |
3 spaces |
|
Garage Spaces Minimum |
2 spaces |
2 spaces |
|
Guest Space Minimum2 (When accessed by a street) |
1 space, perpendicular to garage opening |
1 space, parallel to garage opening |
|
Driveway Slope |
12.5% maximum |
8% |
|
Garage Setback |
17 ft. |
9 ft. |
|
OPEN SPACE3: |
|
Roof Deck |
100 sq. ft. maximum |
260 sq. ft. with variance |
|
Directly accessible to Primary Living Area |
100 sq. ft. minimum |
82 sq. ft. with variance |
|
Total Open Space |
300 sq. ft. minimum |
342 sq. ft. with variance |
|
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT |
|
Size |
850 sq. ft. maximum |
495 sq. ft. |
|
Setbacks |
25 ft. front/4 ft. sides |
Below Grade |
|
Height |
16 ft. maximum |
Below Grade |
|
1 Substandard lot size may be retained, pursuant to HBMC 17.46.200 2 Subject of requested Variance 3 Subject of requested Parking Plan |
The minimum lot size for newly created R-3 zoned lots is 4,000 square feet. The project site is 1,010 square feet. Staff reviewed all R-3 lots across the city and found the median lot size for the R-3 zone is 3,810 square feet. Attachment 5 includes a summary of R-3 lots by lot size, including the smallest and largest lot sizes, the median lot size, and the subject property lot size as reference. Additionally, the attachment includes a graph of Citywide R-3 lot sizes, excluding outliers. Of 1,747 R-3-zoned lots in the City, the subject property is the 15th smallest property and falls within the smallest one percent of R-3-zoned lots.
Open Space:
HBMC Section 17.16.080 requires a total of 300 square feet of usable open space per unit in the R-3 zone. A maximum of 100 square feet of required open space can be located on a roof deck, and a minimum 100 square feet of open space must be directly accessible to and on the same floor as the primary living area. The project proposes only 82 square feet adjacent to the primary living area on the third floor (18 square feet less than the minimum required), and 260 square feet of countable open space on the roof deck (160 square feet in excess to count towards the total required open space). In total, the project proposes 342 square feet. A variance is required to allow for a reduced amount of open space located directly accessible to the primary living area and allow a greater area of roof top open space to be counted toward the total minimum open space required.
Off-Street Parking / Parking:
HBMC Section 17.44.090 concerning off-street parking location, requires a garage to be set back 17 feet when fronting on a public street. The project site is a 1,010-square-foot lot located within the R-3 Zone. The property dimensions are 40.40 feet deep and 25 feet wide. To satisfy the required garage setback depth (17 feet), the interior garage dimensions (20 feet deep), and the required rear yard setback (5 feet), the lot depth would have to be 42 feet. The lot depth is 1.6 feet less than the minimum lot depth required to fit the garage in compliance with all setbacks, though access to living area above is not included. Per HBMC Section 17.44.100(B)(2), a guest parking space situated parallel to alleys and located behind a garage with a 9-foot setback shall have a minimum length of 22 feet. The project proposes satisfying the required parking dimensions for a guest space adjacent to an alley.
Open Space:
The project proposes 975 square feet of living area. If the project were to meet the required open space ratio, the total living area would be at most 975-200=775 square feet. As demonstrated by Attachment 5, the subject property would have a ratio of living area to open space equal to 2.5 square feet, where each 2.5 square feet for living area would have one-square-foot of open space (775 square feet living area divided by 300 square feet of open space). In comparison, the property with the median lot size for the R-3 Zone, 182 2nd Street, developed with two condominiums, has a ratio of 18.5 square feet of living area for each square foot of open space (5,541 square feet living area divided by 300 square feet of open space). In addition, the property within the 0.9th percentile for lot size, 132 Neptune Avenue, developed with a single-family residence, has an open space ratio of 18.73. Additionally, 132 Neptune Avenue has one garage parking space, along with nonconforming setbacks, and open space.
Similarly, the subject property provides a smaller floor area ratio (FAR) than other lots in the same zone. FAR describes the amount of living area compared to the lot size of the property. Of the example lots 182 2nd Street (median lot example) has a FAR of 1.45, and 132 Neptune Avenue (small lot example) has an FAR of 1.78, while the subject property proposes an FAR of 0.97. Providing open space in a conforming configuration would further limit the FAR of the subject property and would further separate the subject property from normal development patterns of the R-3 zone.
Findings:
Variance:
The purpose of the variance is to grant relief from the development standards when, “because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, (where) the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.” Required findings for Variances are outlined by HBMC Section 17.54.020. The findings and analyses supporting the requested Variances are provided below.
Exceptional circumstances applicable to the property involved;
The project site is a 1,010-square-foot lot located within the R-3 Zone. Further, the property dimensions are 40.40 feet deep and 25 feet wide. As shown on Figure 1 of Attachment 3, to satisfy the required garage setback depth (17 feet), the interior garage dimensions (20 feet deep), and the required rear yard setback (5 feet), the lot depth would have to be 42 feet. The lot depth is 1.6 feet less than the minimum lot depth required to fit the garage in compliance with all setbacks, though access to the living area above is not included. The applicant requests a nine-foot garage setback to provide sufficient space for a stairway to access the floor above and to accommodate a guest parking space parallel to the garage door. Where providing 17 feet is not possible, nine feet allows for a guest space onsite, in a modified configuration, resulting in the property conforming with the total parking required for a single-family residence, and provide property access to the primary residence.
The project provides 182 square feet of open space. The project proposes a reconfiguration of where open space counts, resulting in a total of 300 square feet open space, consistent with the minimum required for the zone. Even when reconfigured, providing open space is significant in ensuring access to clear air and sunlight between adjacent properties. The proposed unit is 975 square feet, and if the project satisfied the open space requirement as defined per HBMC 17.16.080, the unit would be even smaller. The subject property provides a smaller floor area ratio (FAR) than other R-3 properties. FAR describes the amount of living area compared to the lot size of the property. 182 2nd Street has a FAR of 1.45, and 132 Neptune Avenue has an FAR of 1.78, while the subject property proposes an FAR of 0.97. Providing open space in a conforming configuration would further limit the FAR of the subject property and would further separate the subject property form normal development patterns of the R-3 zone. The limited size of the lot and the need for functional living space is justification to allow the variance for reconfigured open space. The project if granted a variance, would provide a minimum 300 square feet of open space in an alternative configuration, meeting the intent of the code and the property owners would enjoy the benefits of private outdoor space.
The current structure on the property is 480 square feet. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the R-3 zone is 1,320 square feet. Staff reviewed all R-3 lots across the City and found the median lot size for the R-3 zone is 3,810 square feet. Attachment 5 includes a summary of R-3 lots by lot size, including the smallest and largest lot sizes, the median lot size, and the subject property lot size as reference. Additionally, the attachment includes a graph of citywide R-3 lot sizes, excluding outliers. Of 1,747 R-3 Zoned lots in the city, the subject property is the 15th smallest property; falling within the smallest one percent of R-3 lots. Further, the project proposes 975 square feet of living area. If the project were to meet the required open space ratio, the total living area would be at most 975-200=775 square feet. The project as proposed attempts to satisfy development standards or the intent of the standards despite the lot area and dimensions creating exceptional circumstances.
That the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity of the subject property;
As demonstrated on Figure 1 of Attachment 3, the depth of the lot cannot accommodate the minimum required garage setback depth (17 feet), the interior garage dimensions (20 feet deep), and the required rear yard setback (5 feet) without a variance. The applicant requests a variance to allow a nine-foot garage setback. Without a variance, the property would not be able to provide parking in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. The variance provides the property owner the ability to meet setback requirements, while also providing covered parking, consistent with what neighboring properties have available. Further, where the minimum parking depth for a guest space is 17 feet when the space is located perpendicular to the garage door, a 9-foot setback would allow a guest parking space consistent with alley-adjacent parking-minimum 9 feet wide by 22 feet long, oriented parallel to the garage, as outlined by HBMC 17.44.100(B)(2).
The limited living area per floor supports the need for allowing more than 100 square feet of roof deck to be counted towards the 300 square feet open space requirement for the property (Attachment 3). The current structure on the property is 480 square feet. Staff reviewed all R-3 lots across the city and found the median lot size for the R-3 zone is 3,810 square feet. Attachment 5 includes a summary of R-3 lots by lot size, including the smallest and largest lot sizes, the median lot size, and the subject property lot size as reference. Additionally, the attachment includes a graph of citywide R-3 lot sizes, excluding outliers. Of 1,747 R-3 Zoned lots in the city, the subject property is the 15th smallest property; falling within the smallest one percent of R-3 lots. Further, the project proposes 975 square feet of living area. If the project were to meet the required open space ratio, the total living area would be at most 975-200=775 square feet. As demonstrated by Attachment 5, the subject property would have a ratio of living area to open space equal to 2.5 square feet, where each 2.5 square feet for living area would have one-square-foot of open space (775 square feet living area divided by 300 square feet of open space). In comparison, the property with the median lot size for the R-3 zone, 182 2nd Street, developed with two condominiums, has a ratio of 18.5 square feet of living area for each square foot of open space (5,541 square feet living area divided by 300 square feet of open space). In addition, the property within the 0.9th percentile for lot size, 132 Neptune Avenue, developed with a single-family residence, has an open space ratio of 18.73. 132 Neptune Avenue has one garage parking space, and has nonconforming setbacks, and open space.
That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located;
The requested 9-foot garage setback would provide enough separation between the right-of-way and the garage to accommodate a guest parking space parallel to the garage. Staff found the proposed reduced setback maintains a balance between accommodating the proposed project and preserving public interests such as public safety. Further, parking in a reconfigured layout from what is required to satisfy HBMC 17.44, would allow the project to comply with the minimum amount of parking required for the R-3 zone. The property is located in the Coastal Zone and proposes three off-street parking spaces where there are currently none. The new development would eliminate a nonconformity with regard to parking, which would reduce strain on public parking inventory and would allow greater access to the Coastal Zone.
Allowing more than 100 square feet of deck space to count towards the 300 square feet minimum for the site, would not pose a substantial risk to public welfare or the subject property. The project proposes to satisfy all setback requirements, remain within the allowable height for the zone, and provide private open space in a manner that would allow full use of private property.
That granting of the variance will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to, the general plan.
The project as proposed; eliminates existing nonconforming conditions that make the property inconsistent with PLAN Hermosa and proposes a new development that incorporates characteristics of the Sand Section Neighborhood.
The project eliminates existing nonconforming conditions that make the existing residence inconsistent with PLAN Hermosa. Specifically, the existing residence includes a front yard patio which extends beyond private property into the right-of-way and is nonconforming to all setbacks. Though the project includes a deviation from some development standards, staff found the proposed reduced garage setback consistent with similar small lots and found the setback would provide enough separation from the right-of-way to ensure pedestrian safety.
Additionally, the project proposes three off-street parking spaces where there are currently none. The property is located in the Coastal Zone, on a block with no on-street parking available. In the context of the Coastal Act’s mandate for coastal access retention, the project proposes removing reliance on public resources for a private residence in a parking impacted area.
Finally, the proposed project attempts to satisfy minimum requirements for new development in the City, in a way that is consistent with PLAN Hermosa. Specifically, the project proposes a similar scale and mass to adjacent properties within the Sand Section neighborhood. The project includes building articulation facing 8th Street and attempts to satisfy minimum open space requirements in a manner consistent with the desired form and character described by PLAN Hermosa. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval ensuring the project compliance with relevant goals and policies including:
1. Approval of Variance 23-03 shall not be construed to mean any waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County, and City laws and regulations. Unless modified herein, the project shall fully comply with all requirements of the R-3 Zone as applicable of the Municipal Code, except for the following provisions under this Resolution:
a. The setback, measured from the front property line, shall be a minimum of 9 feet, to accommodate required guest parking.
b. The required guest parking space located directly parallel to the garage door, shall be a minimum 9 feet wide by 22 feet long. No portion of the provided guest parking shall occupy or impede the adjacent right-of-way.
c. The required open space onsite shall be portioned as described. Minor changes to the approved reportioned open space may be approved, subject to Community Development Director approval:
i. 82 square feet provided on a third-floor deck.
ii. A minimum of 208 square feet provided on a roof deck.
General Plan Consistency:
This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Specifically:
|
General Plan Consistency |
|
Land Use Element |
Findings |
|
Goal 1. Create a sustainable urban form and land use patterns that support a robust economy and high quality of life for residents. |
The project is within the permitted lot coverage standard for the R-3 zone. Further, the project meets rear and side yard setback requirements for the zone. The property is located in the Sand Section Neighborhood, which discourages box-like front facades, in favor of more articulated designs. The project provides façade articulation along 8th Street, to reduce visual indications of massing of the structure consistent with the desired form and character of the neighborhood. |
|
Policy 1.6. Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing. |
|
|
Goal 2. Neighborhoods provide for diverse needs of residents of all ages and abilities and are organized to support healthy and active lifestyles. |
The site is currently developed with a single-family residence, nonconforming to most development standards. The project is located in the Sand Section Neighborhood, which accommodates an integrated mixture of housing types. The proposed new single-family residence is a use consistent with the zone and general plan designation. The project retains the uniquely small size of the existing unit, while eliminating some nonconforming conditions. |
|
Policy 2.5. Balanced neighborhoods. Promote a diverse range of housing unit types and sizes within the allowed densities. |
|
|
Goal 4. A parking system that meets the parking needs and demand of residents, visitors, and employees in an efficient and cost-effective manner. |
The existing residence has no on-site parking. The project proposes adding two covered parking spaces and one guest space. The project reduces overreliance on public parking to accommodate a residential use and satisfies the minimum required parking for the on-site use. The project proposes removing a nonconforming condition and creates more availability of public parking in the Coastal Zone. |
|
Policy 4.2. Encourage coastal access. Ensure parking facilities and costs of such facilities are not a barrier to beach access by the public. |
|
|
Goal 10. A strong sense of cultural and architectural heritage. |
The site is currently developed with a single-family residence constructed in 1923. The applicant provided a historic resource report prepared by a qualified professional, pursuant to the Secretary of interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The report found the property was not eligible under all state and local designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit. |
|
Policy 10.6. History and cultural heritage. Support and encourage efforts to document and share the cultural heritage and history of Hermosa Beach. |
|
|
Policy 10.10. Archaeological and paleontological resources. Recognize the prehistory and history of the city and strive to identify, protect, and preserve archaeological and paleontological resources. |
|
|
Sustainability and Conservation Element |
Findings |
|
Goal 7. Essential topsoil is retained and erosion is minimized. |
A condition of approval is proposed to require the project incorporate, where feasible, permeable pavers in the required driveway and setback areas which are not proposed as landscaping. |
|
Policy 7.1 Permeable pavement. Require the use of permeable pavement in parking lots, sidewalks, plazas, and other low-intensity paved areas. |
|
|
Parks and Open Space Element |
Findings |
|
Goal 5. Scenic vistas, viewpoints, and resources are maintained or enhanced. |
A condition of approval is proposed is to require all exterior lighting be downcast to limit impacts to nighttime views and adjacent properties. |
|
Policy 5.7. Light pollution. Preserve skyward nighttime views and lessen glare by minimizing lighting levels along the shoreline. |
|
Environmental Determination:
Pursuant to Section 15300.2(f) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Additionally, the City’s General Plan, PLAN Hermosa, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes Mitigation Measures establishing that the City shall require project applicants of discretionary projects to conduct historical resources studies, surveys, and assessment reports on a project-by-project basis, when a project proposes to alter, demolish, or degrade a designated landmark or a potential historic landmark as defined by HBMC Chapter 17.53. As described by HBMC Chapter 17.53, the property could be a landmark if one or more of the following criteria are true:
1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural history; or
2. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; or
3. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
4. It is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect; or
5. Its unique location or singular physical characteristic(s) represents an established and familiar visual feature or landmark of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
The applicant provided a historic resource report (Attachment 6), prepared by qualified professional, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The report found the property was not eligible under all state and local designation criteria due to a lack of significant historical associations and architectural merit.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the proposed project qualifies for a Class Three categorical exemption, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, as defined in section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, as it consists of construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption(s) apply, nor would the project result in a significant cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time or have a significant effect on the environmental due to unusual circumstances or damage a scenic highway or scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Public Notification:
For the May 21, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, a total of 293 public hearing notices were mailed to occupants and property owners of properties within a 300-foot radius on May 9, 2024. A legal ad was published on May 9, 2024 in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC Section 17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as Attachment 7 As of the writing of the report, staff has received no public comments.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution #24-06
2. Project Plans
3. Request Narrative
4. Zoning Map
5. R-3 Lot Size Analysis
6. Historical Resource Report
7. Public Notification Package
8. SUPPLEMENTAL - Maddie O'Connor eComment 5/19/24
9. SUPPLEMENTAL - Kris Kimble eComment 5/21/24
10. SUPPLEMENTAL - Lacy Kuester eComment 5/21/24
11. SUPPLEMENTAL - Mason Schuler eComment 5/21/24
12. SUPPLEMENTAL - Debi Aggers eComment 5/21/24
13. SUPPLEMENTAL - Erika Langetieg-Newman eComment 5/21/24
14. SUPPLEMENTAL - Dave Fulton eComment 5/21/24
Respectfully Submitted by: Johnathon Masi, Assistant Planner
Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager
Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Approved: Carrie Tai, AICP, Community Development Director