Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of October 22, 2019 (continued from October 10, 2019)
Title
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 19-2 AND PARKING PLAN 19-2 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR A SIX-UNIT MOTEL PROJECT BY CONSTRUCTING A NEW THREE-STORY, DETACHED 2,744 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING CONTAINING FIVE UNITS AT 70 10TH STREET, TO BE CONSTRUCTED BEHIND THE EXISTING 1,841 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE CONVERTED TO AN ADDITIONAL UNIT AND A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE SIX-SPACE PARKING REQUIREMENT TO BE MET WITH FOUR ON-SITE SPACES (INCLUDING ONE TANDEM SPACE) PLUS PAYMENT OF FEES IN-LIEU OF PROVIDING THE TWO SPACES ON-SITE, ON A 4,023 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN THE C-2 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT AT 70 10th STREET; AND CONSIDERATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Continued from meeting of October 10, 2019)
(Community Development Director Ken Robertson)
Recommended Action:
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution, to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the project, and approve Precise Development Plan 19-2 and Parking Plan 19-2 to allow a six-unit motel project by constructing a new three-story, detached 2,744 square foot (sq. ft.) commercial building containing five units, to be constructed behind the existing 1,841 square foot single-family residence which will be converted to an additional unit, and Parking Plan 19-2 to allow the six-space parking requirement to be met with four onsite spaces (including one tandem space) plus payment of fees in-lieu of providing the two spaces onsite, on a 4,023 square foot lot in the C-2 (Restricted Commercial) zoning district at 70 10th Street; and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Body
Executive Summary:
The applicants request a Precise Development Plan (PDP) and Parking Plan to allow a six-unit motel project with the six-space parking requirement to be met with four onsite spaces (including one tandem space) plus payment of fees in-lieu of providing the two spaces on-site and requests the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. After conducting two public hearings, the Planning Commission denied this second iteration of a project at this site at its meeting of August 20, 2019. The City Council, at its August 27, 2019 meeting reviewed the Draft Action Minutes from the August 20, 2019 Planning Commission hearing and a request from the applicant for reconsideration. Pursuant to Section 2.52.040 of the Municipal Code, by two affirmative votes, initiated review and reconsideration of the Planning Commission decision. The City Council reconsideration of the matter was noticed in the same manner as the Planning Commission.
Background:
The subject site at 70 10th Street is located within the Downtown District, south of Pier Plaza, and on the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and 10th Street. The site is located within the Restricted Commercial (C-2) zoning district with a Community Commercial General Plan land use designation. The 4,023 sq. ft. lot houses an approximately 1,840 sq. ft. two-story single-family residence and contains one parking space, which is accessed from the alley to the south (10th Court). Two residential units are located immediately west of the subject property at 64 10th Street and 69 10th Court. The adjacent residences are located within the C-2 zoning district, and as such, are legal nonconforming uses. A mixture of commercial uses is located north (across 10th Street), east (across Hermosa Avenue) and south (across 10th Court) of the subject site. Commercial uses in the vicinity consist of general and medical office, retail and restaurant uses.
The project being requested is the second project requested by the applicant on this site. The first project reviewed and considered by the Commission at its July 17, 2018 meeting was a request for a new three-story, detached, 2,744 square foot commercial building with ground floor retail and second and third floor office space while preserving in place and converting the existing 1,841 square foot single-family use to a single-unit motel. The project required 12 parking spaces and provided four parking spaces on-site and requested payment of fees in-lieu of providing the eight spaces on-site. At its meeting of July 17, 2018 the Commission with a unanimous vote denied the project and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. At its meeting of August 21, 2018 the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution 18-23 ratifying their decision.
The applicants considered the Commission’s feedback and revised the project uses in a manner that reduced the amount of required parking spaces (from twelve down to six). At the June 18, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the current request for a six-unit motel project with ancillary registration office. To avoid adverse impacts to both the historic integrity of the existing structure as well as the ability of the collection of bungalows to maintain eligibility for designation as a historic district, no physical changes were proposed to the existing bungalow structure, and the structure was proposed to be adaptively re-used as one of the motel units.
During the hearing, the Planning Commission heard from the applicant and three members of the public, who were opposed to the project due to anticipated parking impacts. The City also received eight letters opposed to the project primarily due to anticipated parking impacts. After hearing public comments and deliberation, the Commission expressed continued concerns with the proposed project’s lack of sufficient on-site parking for the motel use and ancillary registration office. The Commission continued the item to a later date and requested the applicant work on a design solution that would provide additional parking spaces or reduce the number of units, thereby reducing the number of parking spaces required.
After considering and discussing options and alternatives with staff, the applicants decided to maintain the previously proposed site layout, physical building design and number of motel units but removed the registration office. The applicants proposed supplemental operational adjustments and parking/vehicle reduction strategies as detailed later in the report.
On August 20, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project with supplemental operational adjustments and parking/vehicle reduction strategies. During the hearing, the applicants addressed the Planning Commission along with nine members of the public who were all opposed to the project due to anticipated parking impacts. The City also received six letters opposed to the project primarily due to anticipated parking impacts. During the deliberations on the project, the Planning Commission noted that they could not support the project based on there being too many motel units with not enough on-site parking and that nearby public parking supply is already strained and would not provide sufficient parking capacity for the project. At the conclusion of the hearing and after considering all oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission voted 4-1, to deny the project (Aye: 4-Commissioner Flaherty, Commissioner Rice, Commissioner Saemann, and Chair No: 1-Vice Chair Hoffman). Attached is the resolution denying the PDP and Parking Plan (P.C. Resolution No. 19-14).
Discussion:
After the Commission continued the public hearing, the applicants met with staff to discuss options and alternatives and assessed the site for ways to provide additional parking spaces on-site. After extensive efforts, it was determined that no additional parking spaces could be added to the site without involving:
1. Loss of the 1st floor motel unit thereby gaining one additional tandem parking space and reducing the number of units to five, requiring payment of fees in-lieu of providing one space on-site and architectural and building/access plan revisions, re-review by the historic consultant and revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; or
2. Removal of a portion of or a full demolition of the existing front bungalow building, which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) due to resulting significant unavoidable impacts to the historic structure and an amendment to the Historical Resources Report; or
3. Providing an additional driveway to the site, which would result in loss of public metered street parking spaces.
Vehicle lifts were considered but are not a City code recognized method of providing required parking. The property is also not large enough to provide a driveway ramp leading to underground parking. The project site is also a corner lot surrounded by public metered street parking spaces and in the Coastal Zone making vehicle access options limited.
Due to limited site area and maintaining the existing front historic structure, the maximum number of parking spaces the site can accommodate is five (two standard, two tandem, and one ADA space). In order to gain the one additional on-site parking space, the 1st floor pedestrian-oriented motel unit must be removed, thereby reducing the number of units to five, requiring payment of fees in-lieu of providing one space on-site. The project would then require architectural and building/access plan revisions, re-review by the historic consultant, and revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; that is after two significant project revisions and three and a half years in the process of trying to get the project entitled.
Staff and the applicant also analyzed the option of converting the existing 1,841 square foot front structure to any general commercial uses with the lowest parking requirements such as retail or general office (requiring 1 parking space per 250 square feet) with no new building at the rear of the lot. Seven parking spaces would be required to simply convert the existing structure to retail or office. As noted, only five parking spaces can physically be provided on-site. Therefore, to convert the existing structure to a general commercial use with the lowest parking requirements would require payment of fees in-lieu of providing the two spaces on-site and tandem parking which both require approval of a Parking Plan. The constraints of this site, including size, location, and historic structure, significantly limit the viable use of this property without consideration of in-lieu parking and/or tandem parking.
The applicants agree that there is a benefit in preserving the historic structure, which contributes to maintaining the charm and scale of the 10th Street frontage, as opposed to construction of a new 30-foot high commercial building covering the entire lot.
After considering and discussing options and alternatives with staff, the applicants have decided to maintain the previously proposed site layout and physical building design and number of motel units. The applicants proposed the following supplemental operational adjustments and parking/vehicle reduction strategies due to site constraints:
• Provide two on-site neighborhood electric vehicles,
• Require that two vehicle-free units be provided whenever the property is more than 65% occupied,
• Provide discounts for all occupants that are vehicle-free,
• Remove the ancillary registration office/concierge room,
• Contract with a local real estate broker and property management firm and local cleaning service offering drop-off and pick-up of cleaning staff, and
• Require keyless entry for all rooms, which reduces the need for 24-hour on-site registration staffing.
The applicants requested the Planning Commission approve the project with conditions and operational procedures as set forth above. Based on the above parking demand reduction strategies proposed, in addition to payment of fees in-lieu of providing the two parking spaces on-site, staff recommended approval of the project considering that the items outlined above would enhance the project and would help manage parking, incentivize use of ride share options (Uber, Lyft) and active transportation options such as bicycles, and that the project would result in sufficient parking with less potential to result in parking impacts.
As previously noted, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2019, in which staff recommended approval of the project. Staff’s complete analysis of the project, including the required Precise Development Plan findings, is attached to this report. Public comment letters have been consolidated from the June 18th and August 20th Planning Commission meetings and are also attached to this report.
Precise Development Plan:
A Precise Development Plan (PDP) is required for this project due to the construction of a new building on commercially zoned property. The purpose and intent of requiring precise development plan review for development projects is to achieve a reasonable level of quality, compatibility, in harmony with the community’s social, economic and environmental objectives, and to protect existing and potential developments, and uses on adjacent and surrounding property. Staff proposes new conditions of approval 4a.-d. and 5 in the draft City Council approval resolution, which were not presented to or considered by the Planning Commission, requiring a business management plan to minimize neighborhood impacts. Due to the project being denied twice by Planning Commission and due to findings of lack of sufficient on-site parking, Staff has focused the discussion for Council on parking. However, Staff’s complete analysis of the project, including the required Precise Development Plan findings, is attached to this report. This proposal balances many of the competing interests at issue. The proposal retains and adaptively reuses the historic structure on the site, which in turn maintains the scale and harmony of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal also redevelops an underutilized and dilapidated property. The proposal has been reduced in size while still providing these other land use benefits. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the PDP and Parking Plan.
Parking Plan:
A Parking Plan is requested to allow the six-space parking requirement to be met with four on-site spaces, including one tandem space, plus payment of fees in-lieu of providing two parking spaces on-site.
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.44.210 provides that a Parking Plan may be approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on reconsideration, to allow for a reduction in the number of spaces required. The proposal is to allow this reduction both through payment of fees in-lieu of providing all required spaces on-site and for use of a tandem parking space to count towards required parking. Pursuant to HBMC Section 17.44.210 “The applicant shall provide the information necessary to show that adequate parking will be provided for customers, clients, visitors and employees or when located in a vehicle parking district, the applicant shall propose an in-lieu fee according to requirements of this chapter.” Factors such as the following shall be taken into consideration: van pools, bicycle and foot traffic, common parking facilities, varied work shifts, valet parking, unique features of the proposed uses, peak hours of the proposed use as compared with other uses sharing the same parking facilities especially in the case of small restaurants or snack shops in the downtown area or in multi-tenant buildings, and other methods of reducing parking demand.
HBMC Section 17.44.040(E) pertaining to in-lieu parking explicitly states, “When the City Council provides for contributions to an improvement fund for a vehicle parking district in lieu of parking spaces so required, said in-lieu fee contributions shall be considered to satisfy the requirements of this chapter.” This reflects an agreement with the Coastal Commission as part of the City’s certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP), certified in 1981 and amended as recently as 2004, establishing an approved program for payment of fees in-lieu of providing all required parking on-site. The basic concept is to allow for the development of smaller properties in the downtown where it is not possible or not practical to provide all required parking on-site. Currently, the fee amount is $28,900 per required parking space not provided on-site. The fee was established by resolution of the City Council and was based on an appraisal completed in July 2006. The in-lieu funds are used to mitigate increased parking demand. The threshold limit was established at 100 parking spaces in 1982 and the City has not yet reached this threshold. To date, the City has approved and collected payment of fees in-lieu for 66 parking spaces. If the applicant’s request to pay fees in-lieu of providing the two parking spaces on-site is approved, then the City’s inventory of available in-lieu spaces would be reduced to 32. Once the City reaches the 100 space threshold additional parking must be constructed or, no additional in-lieu parking may be authorized.
Motels require one space for each unit. The proposed project would consist of six motel units which requires a total of six parking spaces. HBMC Section 17.44.040 (E) 2.b. requires building sites, where buildings will exceed a 1:1 gross floor area to building site area ratio, to provide a minimum of 25% of the required parking on-site with the remaining required parking authorized to be paid through fee in-lieu contributions with approval of a Parking Plan. In addition, a minimum of two parking spaces (25% of six spaces) must be provided on-site, and the proposal is that four parking spaces (66.67%) be provided on-site. As discussed in greater detail in Section 2 of the June 18, 2019 staff report attached, the proposed parking should be sufficient to satisfy parking demand during peak periods especially with the proposed parking reduction strategies. The applicant also requests the use of one tandem parking space as a method to provide required parking that is planned to be managed through discount pricing for the tandem space and coordination with off-site management.
The City’s Parking and Traffic consultant provided that peak parking demand for motel uses typically occurs during overnight hours from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. daily. Motel uses have peak times which coincide with times of the week where public parking is more available when compared to general retail and office uses. The nearest public surface parking lot is Lot A, located approximately one block (300 feet) away at 1101 Hermosa Avenue, contains 130 parking spaces. Lot B, located north of 13th Court, between Hermosa Avenue and Beach Drive, approximately two and a half blocks (750 feet) away, contains 37 parking spaces. Lot C, a public parking structure located approximately three blocks (900 feet) away at 13th Street and Hermosa Avenue, contains 261 parking spaces. The overall public parking lot occupancy for Lots A, B, and C is between 79% to 95% during weekday evenings and weekend afternoons. Public parking spaces are provided throughout the Downtown, which is located within Zone 2 of the Coastal Zone public parking supply, between 16th Street and 8th Street and as far east as Ardmore Avenue. In Zone 2, through a combination of public parking lots and metered street parking spaces, occupancy rates range between 51% and 62% during weekday evenings and weekend afternoons.
Alternative transportation options for motel occupants, which may provide parking relief, include ride sharing services (Uber and Lyft) and bus lines 130 and 109, which have stops along Hermosa Avenue. The Parking Analysis conducted for the proposed Strand and Pier Hotel project (11 and 19 Pier Ave., 1250 and 1272 The Strand, and 20, 30, and 32 13th St.), indicated through traffic counts for the Beach House Hotel (containing 96 rooms) that during the Friday evening peak hour (June 23, 2017), there were 12 Uber/Lyft trips (approximately 35% of the total trips) which suggests that a large portion of motel guests may arrive via Uber/Lyft. Additionally, the applicant has proposed special rates for carless visitors and the location is ideal for guests to walk to many local amenities, including the beach, restaurants and other activities.
Staff believes that given the site constraints, fees in-lieu of parking are appropriate and parking reduction measures offered by the applicant further support that the project is adequately parked and the parking plan should be approved.
Environmental Determination:
As part of the environmental review process, the initial study identified the potential for excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels to occur. This potential impact was determined to be less than significant with mitigation, as discussed in greater detail in the PDP Criteria Item 7 of the attached June 18, 2019 staff report. To ensure that vibration levels do not exceed damaging levels at the property line of the adjacent residence, a detailed monitoring program is required that would ensure vibration is reduced if it reaches certain levels. The City prepared a revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA for the revised project. No comments were received. The project would not have a significant impact on the environment with adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and implementation of the mitigation measure.
General Plan Consistency:
PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, was adopted by the City Council in August 2017. The project supports several PLAN Hermosa goals and policies that are listed below.
Land Use Policies
• 1.5 Balance resident and visitor needs. Ensure land uses and businesses provide for the needs of residents as well as visitors.
• 1.6 Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing.
• 1.7 Compatibility of uses. Ensure the placement of new uses does not create or exacerbate nuisances between different types of land uses.
• 1.9 Retain commercial land area. Discourage the conversion of commercial land to residential uses.1.10 Transition between uses. Encourage new projects in non-residential areas to employ architectural transitions to adjoining residential properties to ensure compatibility of scale and a sense of privacy for existing residences. Such transitions could include setbacks, gradations and transitions in building height and appropriate landscaping.
• 3.1 Unique districts. Encourage the development of local and city-wide districts and centers that address different community needs and market sectors and complement surrounding neighborhoods.
• 5.1 Scale and massing. Consider the scale of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing.
• 5.2 High quality materials. Require high quality and long lasting building materials on all new development projects in the city.
• 5.5 Preservation and adaptive reuse. Provide incentives for the preservation or adaptive reuse of historic structures and iconic landmarks.
• 5.6 Eclectic and diverse architecture. Seek to maintain and enhance neighborhood character through eclectic and diverse architectural styles.
• 6.6 Human-scale buildings. Encourage buildings and design to include human-scale details such as windows on the street, awnings and architectural features that create a visually interesting pedestrian environment.
• 6.7 Pedestrian oriented design. Eliminate urban form conditions that reduce walkability by discouraging surface parking and parking structures along walkways, long blank walls along walkways, and garage-dominated building facades.
• 6.8 Balance pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Require vehicle parking design to consider pedestrian circulation. Require the following of all new development along corridors:
o Where parking lots front the street, the City will work with existing property owners to add landscaping between the parking lot and the street.
o Parking lots should be landscaped to create an attractive pedestrian environment and reduce the impact of heat islands.
o The number of curb cuts and other intrusions of vehicles across sidewalks should be minimized.
o When shared parking supply options are not available, encourage connections between parking lots on adjacent sites.
o Above-ground parking structures should be designed according to the same urban design principles as other buildings.
o Encourage the use of systems to increase parking lot efficiency, such as mechanical lift systems or occupancy sensors.
• 8.3 Land use regulations. Encourage for coastal-dependent and coastal-related commercial uses in the Recreational Commercial and Community Commercial land use designations. Prioritize such uses in the Recreational Commercial designation. Provide for and prioritize coastal-related industrial uses in the Creative Industrial land use designation.
• 8.5 New accommodations. Encourage visitor-serving accommodations in the Recreational Commercial land use designation, and encourage new hotel/motel development throughout commercially zoned portions of the planning area to provide a range of room types, sizes, and prices that serve a variety of income ranges.
• 10.5 Adaptive reuse and sustainable development. Promote historic preservation as sustainable development and encourage adaptive reuse of historic or older properties.
Mobility Polices
• 3.3 Active transportation. Require commercial development or redevelopment projects and residential projects with four or more units to accommodate active transportation by providing on-site amenities, necessary connections to adjacent existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle networks, and incorporate people-oriented design practices.
• 3.5 Incentivize other modes. Incentivize local shuttle/trolley services, rideshare and car share programs, and developing infrastructure that support low carbon (e.g. electric) vehicles.
• 4.3 Reduce impacts. Reduce spillover parking impacts due to employee parking and seasonal and event-based demands.
• 4.5 Sufficient bicycle parking. Require a sufficient supply of bicycle parking to be provided in conjunction with new vehicle parking facilities by both public and private developments.
• 4.6 Priority parking. Provide priority parking and charging stations to accommodate the use of Electric Vehicles (EV’s), including smaller short-distance neighborhood electric vehicles.
• 4.8 Ensure commercial parking. Ensure that prime commercial parking spaces are available for customers and other short-term users throughout the day.
• 8.4 Utilize alleys. Encourage alleys for access for parking, delivery loading/unloading and trash collection and, where possible, provide additional green space and pedestrian amenities.
Sustainability and Conservation Policy
• 4.1 Renewable energy generation. Support or facilitate the installation of renewable energy projects on homes and businesses.
The site is located within the Community Commercial (CC) General Plan land use area and the purpose is to provide opportunities and locations for uses designed to serve the shopping, dining, and employment desires of the entire community. Residential uses are not allowed in this designation as its intent is to promote and protect retail, office, and service uses that diversify the City’s tax base. The appropriate intensity range is between a Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 to 1.25.
The site is also located within the Downtown District Character Area where the types of uses are to provide services and activities associated with the local beach culture to residents as well as visitors to the city. The intent of the Downtown District is to enhance the building form and orientation while specifically transforming the realm on Hermosa Avenue. Any new buildings should pay close attention to and contribute to the high quality pedestrian environment provided throughout Downtown. First floor street front businesses should include sales tax-generating commercial uses to promote lively pedestrian activity on Downtown streets. Development along Hermosa Avenue should conform to recommendations of the Downtown Revitalization Strategy to realize a town-scale Main Street environment that supports pedestrian activity and local serving commerce. Many of the unique buildings, streetscape features, and public spaces are iconic or historic in nature, and new buildings should be carefully integrated to retain the town’s eclectic charm. In addition, buildings should be two to three stories in height, cover most or all of the parcel, and may abut neighboring structures. Development should enhance the area’s role as a visitor destination by facilitating the development of boutique hotels (and motels) that provide specific benefits to the community. Once Downtown, walking and bicycling are the primary means for traveling around Downtown while vehicles are accommodated through consolidated parking lots and metered street parking. Downtown parking should be provided off-site through public or private shared parking facilities, with any on-site parking situated to the rear of the buildings and/or hidden and screened.
The project would have a total Floor Area Ratio of 1.14, and the motel use is an appropriate use within the CC General Plan land use area and Downtown District and would provide overnight accommodations and employment opportunities for the entire community and visitors. The project is pedestrian-oriented with two of the six motel units provided on the ground floor level. The existing single-family residential structure would be retained, and the new building would be carefully integrated to retain the town’s eclectic charm. The new building would be three stories in height and would directly abut the neighboring residences at 64 10th Street and 69 10th Court. Required parking is provided through a mixture of four on-site tuck-under spaces, with payment of fees in-lieu of providing the two parking spaces on-site. The project is conditioned to require a bicycle rack for at least eight bicycles to be maintained on-site at all times, that a minimum of four shared bicycles be provided on-site for motel guests, and that the motel promote their availability when making reservations online. The project incorporates an electric vehicle charging station and designates an area on the roof for future solar panels. Additionally, the project would comply with the current edition of the California Building Codes, including the Green Code (Title 24 Part 11) and Energy Code (Title 24 Part 6) as adopted by the City of Hermosa Beach (HBMC Title 15).
As noted above, this proposal balances many of the competing interests at issue. The proposal retains and adaptively reuses the historic structure on the site, which in turn maintains the scale and harmony of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal also redevelops an underutilized and dilapidated property. The proposal has been reduced in size, while still providing these other land use benefits. Therefore, the project is consistent with and implements the City’s long-term vision provided in the General Plan and the project allows the City to meet many of its goals. Denying the project would seem inconsistent with PLAN Hermosa as the property would likely be returned as a residential use.
Fiscal Impact:
The recommended action would require the payment of fees in-lieu of providing two parking spaces on-site at the current fee of $28,900 per parking space. This action would also have a positive fiscal impact as the proposed motel use would generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) for the City, whereas other general commercial uses such as retail and office uses, as previously proposed by the applicants, would not generate this source of revenue.
Summary:
Based on the analysis above, staff supports the proposed Precise Development Plan 19-2 and Parking Plan 19-2, and the project as conditioned is consistent with applicable sections of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and PLAN Hermosa. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution, overturning the Planning Commission’s denial of the project; approving the PDP and Parking Plan and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Attachments:
1. Draft PDP and Parking Plan Approval Resolution
2. Proposed Plans
3. Exhibit of Site Parking and Vehicle Access Constraints
4. Planning Commission Denial Resolution No. 19-14 PDP and PARK
5. Planning Commission Denial Resolution No. 18-23 PDP and PARK
6. Planning Commission Action Minutes of August 20, 2019
7. Link to Planning Commission August 20, 2019 Staff Report
8. Planning Commission Action Minutes of June 18, 2019
9. Link to Planning Commission June 18, 2019 Staff Report
10. Public Notice Posters
11. Correspondence from June 18th and August 20th Planning Commission Meetings
12. Correspondence from October 10, 2019 City Council Meeting
13. Link to October 10, 2019 City Council Public Hearing
14. Correspondence from Dean Thomas dated October 16-17, 2019
15. Correspondence from Patricia Miller dated October 17, 2019
Respectfully Submitted by: Nicole Ellis, Associate Planner
Concur: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director
Legal Review: Lauren Langer, Assistant City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager