[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6630868,"mediaKeyId","2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4","parentId",2688609,"title","Hermosa Beach planning commission continues hearing on 50.5-foot, five‑unit project at 3415 Palm Drive","audioSeconds",3430,"startMs",2160000,"endMs",5590000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4&start=2160&end=5590","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4/thumbnail_2160000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6630868/Hermosa-Beach-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Hermosa-Beach-planning-commission-continues-hearing-on-505-foot-fiveunit-project-at-3415-Palm-Drive","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630868-0ba7317bf7f634fd1c0d12d15271b257/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154373&Signature=UYYANhlFcFzDseNmd04vqKje3MG6Xmdj8HLSuf4THuLGaQ30nrL2da~Jf~0cq2eduyQvY5LUjvVbe7~J4QQM52ptUsDT-~XO7-TqDYYm8Yuwd7y3b1ak-IIA1LMUnpYEfPLW2gtuGFmGc7iALydXCZkVJSxLC9~Bv10sYmTJYJZlR-B-jKiRIXUbeXDns~0DpS7etBeQQrPGEp64olMg-~bnS9laann9UwOi9vJNY0XTzFMjGojQSa49~gRdj10sKCKuBXw5FeqRKSPYZcfZlQ5ne2Xiu2FTp9xAC3pKCXjUAXWQE8v~z8-YTJ39Fv0ijeszlupD9inuIL8bILwp3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Hermosa Beach, CA","date","2025-03-19T06:19:51.29Z","article","The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission on March 18 continued the public hearing on a precise development plan for a proposed five‑unit apartment building at 3415 Palm Drive, asking staff for additional legal and technical analyses before the commission votes.

Associate Planner Jake Whitney told the commission the applicant seeks approval for a 50.5‑foot‑tall, five‑unit building under the state \"builder's remedy\" provisions in Government Code section 65589.5 after the city's housing element was out of compliance when the project was initially filed. Whitney said the project was submitted as a preliminary application on Feb. 7, 2024 and that state law freezes development standards and housing element status as of that filing date.

Why it matters: Residents said the proposed height and bulk would alter neighborhood character, block views and light, and could strain parking and utilities. Commissioners said those community concerns raised significant technical and legal questions that staff and outside counsel should study before the commission acts.

The applicant, represented by attorney Brian Fish, said the owners proposed a five‑unit building (one more unit than existing four units), that it would meet current building and safety codes, and that under Assembly Bill 1893 the project can qualify as a \"mixed income\" project even if it does not include deed‑restricted units. Fish urged the commission to approve, saying the state statute limits the city's ability to deny such projects absent specific, quantifiable public health or safety impacts.

Members of the public spoke at length in opposition. Public commenters cited loss of ocean views and sunlight, concerns about parking and traffic on Palm Drive, possible shadowing and mold in shaded yards, and questioned whether notices were posted correctly at the property. Sample remarks included:

- \"We are witnessing the blatant exploitation of California's housing laws,\" said Elka Warner, who urged postponement and legal review.
- \"It will disrupt the character of the neighborhood, limit parking and beach access, and forever change Hermosa Beach,\" Warner said.
- \"This is setting a precedent that is not good,\" said Gary Brown. \"Do we really want 50‑foot buildings in this little community?\"

Residents also raised a legal question often repeated in public comments: whether projects proceeding under the builder's remedy must still obtain coastal development permits from the California Coastal Commission because the property lies in the coastal zone.

Commission deliberations focused on the statute's timing and scope, the definition of \"mixed income\" under AB 1893, and whether staff had sufficient technical evidence to judge if there were \"specific adverse impacts\" to public health or safety that would legally justify denial. Commissioners asked for more information on several subjects before taking a final vote:

- Recheck CEQA: Commissioners asked staff to reexamine the staff CEQA conclusion (a Class 3 categorical exemption was cited) given multiple public comments and legal letters suggesting a full CEQA review may be required.
- Fire/public‑safety review: Commissioners asked staff to obtain a formal review from LA County Fire to determine whether firefighting access or equipment requirements change for a 50‑foot structure and whether mutual aid or ladder‑truck response times pose an issue.
- Height/visual comparison and shadow study: Commissioners requested a diagrammatic study showing the proposed building height and massing relative to adjacent properties and to the city's height limits, plus a shadow analysis for neighboring yards and units.
- Legal analysis: Commissioners directed staff to obtain or review legal analyses about when a jurisdiction can impose objective, quantifiable development standards on a builder's remedy project without rendering it infeasible (the commission noted a recent legal memorandum from outside counsel had been submitted by residents).
- Notice/administrative items: Staff was asked to confirm noticing to properties across the city boundary (addresses in Manhattan Beach) and to verify on‑site posting evidence.

Decision: Commissioner Isant moved (date corrected to May 20, 2025) and the commission voted to continue the public hearing to May 20, 2025, with a list of follow‑up items for staff. The motion carried 5 yes, 0 no.

Next steps: The commission asked staff to return with a targeted package addressing the items above (CEQA reconsideration, LA County Fire review, diagrammatic height comparison and shadow study, the legal questions about builders' remedy versus local objective standards, and a full check of noticing records) for the May 20, 2025 date‑certain hearing. The commission explicitly reserved the option to call an earlier hearing if a new, urgent enforcement or public‑safety issue arises.

Context and background: Associate Planner Whitney summarized that the site is a legal nonconforming lot currently developed with a four‑unit building built in 1956; the proposed development would increase density under state law; because the applicant filed a preliminary application before the city's housing element was certified the project benefits from builder's remedy protections. Staff said they did not identify objective, written public health or safety standards that would justify denial under the Housing Accountability Act.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission on March 18 continued the public hearing on a proposed 50.5‑foot, five‑unit apartment at 3415 Palm Drive and directed staff to return with CEQA, fire, shadow/height and legal analyses before a final decision.","taxTitle","Hermosa Beach City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",71860,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":46,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6630852,"Votes at a glance: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, March 18, 2025",3495,2095000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4&start=2095&end=5590","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4/thumbnail_2095000.jpg","/articles/6630852/Hermosa-Beach-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-Hermosa-Beach-Planning-Commission-March-18-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630852-64c5c09b7d79e6645cd8505512a7dc02/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154373&Signature=fnWIYndh5akfKeVJi0XCbLR6jGjXTRxDbx7jhz-YriayCeATlR6a~yR7hpEir8AXchsynBdugmtK-tFxkLsXF2JM63b5SBAGob2x7hna~nltus4b3NBSj5E843QNqx7upj91tyxdpUJAcX3QEI7tsQgEJdjehf~99Tp9W171~WIMmY~8p47PH7lFt0wAaeViRESLz~nqIVeRair0fhy8gpuDIzlZOPgp~z3kd8TeoQ494FglI4YY7xt-eUVHXwMv9-Pj3LRumc2c7DlFp5M5c9hKJH7WjzeAUyOphoopnpsyhY2azhL3BvV19UpdtFpZeLDB60u9KnYP~yBnaKRLkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission recorded the following formal actions and votes on March 18, 2025:

- Consent calendar (item 6A): Approved as presented. Vote: 5‑0. (Consent calendar items typically include minutes and ministerial items; no controversy recorded.)

- Item 7C (PDP‑24‑8, 3415 Palm Drive): Motion to continue the public hearing to May 20, 2025 for additional CEQA, fire, legal and shadow/height analyses. Vote: 5‑0 (motion carried). Next step: staff to return with requested analyses on May 20, 2025.

- Item 7A (Triannual CUP report for 07/01/2024–12/31/2024): Receive and file; forward staff recommendation to revise CUP review procedure (move to annual reporting and eliminate mandatory two‑step public hearing) to City Council with clarifying language about overcrowding/life‑safety triggers and staff notification. Vote: carried (see minutes).

- Item 7D (Parking plan amendment Park_2501, 1601 Pacific Coast Highway): Approved to consolidate four retail tenant units into two and activate 1,203 sq ft of common area as leasable space without adding parking, subject to conditions (maintain validated two‑hour program, operational measures). Vote: 5‑0.

- Staff item 8A (Update process/procedures for review of on‑sale alcoholic beverage CUPs): Planning Commission approved staff's proposed changes and added clarifying language (overcrowding/life‑safety remain triggers; community development director may request interim hearings; staff to note dismissed incidents in annual report). Vote: carried.

The March 18 meeting also included public comment and staff presentations; many speakers urged the commission to deny or continue the 3415 Palm Drive proposal. The commission set May 20, 2025 as the date‑certain return for that item and requested a focused set of follow‑up analyses.","Summary of formal actions taken at the March 18 Planning Commission meeting and immediate next steps.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6630858,"Planning commission approves parking plan amendment for 1601 Pacific Coast Highway to consolidate retail units",628,6642000,7270000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4&start=6642&end=7270","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4/thumbnail_6642000.jpg","/articles/6630858/Hermosa-Beach-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Planning-commission-approves-parking-plan-amendment-for-1601-Pacific-Coast-Highway-to-consolidate-retail-units","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630858-5aca3ce1810001aa7e545617ea3e1494/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154373&Signature=U0gh76rVtqxveN0JLeoiXktvQL5A9ov1y3~iQakqnbhpuJLQCltQbTwOX1NAwfhRqPbtMIKelIINBj~II~J0B68TIf~64O4oYSF2pS9WJMXOvLKLfcu6jEBXumeEntrovjhsfU5ip3-67TaNDnK2AW1ZyfdYcoKPWUepPyLWvjOUQiE21Xkgafk7fnBIm2XsV3bOaNt4ZKnzwrBtk10eMakD0u2yfLU6tcaLi35hsNFe254N5CpxcaYn4EyVD7Fbvf3LkS33ZAOX65SSgTdyagyxqyiy8Li6QrHOkjZMZxv7oqVn3yEZJnu1lVNybIMMDmtkrGYKH8VMnw8XKg63AQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission on March 18 approved a parking plan amendment for 1601 Pacific Coast Highway that consolidates four retail tenant spaces into two units and activates 1,203 square feet of previously non‑leased common area as leasable retail or office space without adding on‑site parking.

Associate Planner Jake Whitney summarized the site: a 28,069 square‑foot retail complex with a six‑level parking structure that holds 496 spaces. The applicant submitted an updated parking study (Miniger & Associates) with 24‑hour monitoring that found peak utilization at 10 a.m. on a Saturday reached about 88% (438 of 496 spaces). The study projected a potential one‑hour, one‑space deficit under a conservative future occupancy scenario but concluded the site's typical use patterns and existing vacancies support the amendment.

The city code (Hermosa Beach Municipal Code section 17.44.015.d.2) requires additional parking when floor area increases by more than 500 square feet; by code that would equate to five new parking spaces in this case. But the parking plan statute (HBMC 17.44.210) lets the commission approve a reduced parking requirement supported by a parking study. Staff found the proposed shared parking arrangement met the municipal code criteria and recommended approval with conditions (including continued two‑hour validation and operational requirements).

Applicant representatives said the reconfiguration makes small, hard‑to‑lease spaces more marketable and will support activation in front of the 24 Hour Fitness entrance. The property owner said exterior improvements, updated landscaping and lighting are planned to improve the facility's appearance.

Decision: The commission approved the parking plan amendment, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution. Commissioners noted past concerns about overflow parking into surrounding neighborhoods but indicated current gate/validation measures and the study support the amendment. The vote carried (motion approved).","The Planning Commission approved a parking plan amendment allowing consolidation of four retail tenant spaces and activation of 1,203 square feet of previously non‑leased common area at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway without additional parking, based on a parking study showing available capacity in the site'wide garage.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6630863,"Commission backs changes to on‑sale alcohol CUP review schedule; annual report finds no referrals this period",450,5880000,6330000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4&start=5880&end=6330","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2688609-84abb4809ac65a89f86922c432d6c4a4/thumbnail_5880000.jpg","/articles/6630863/Hermosa-Beach-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Commission-backs-changes-to-onsale-alcohol-CUP-review-schedule-annual-report-finds-no-referrals-this-period","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6630863-3d0fe78a0c98ace841541abecdd61412/orig.mp4?Expires=1771154373&Signature=PiDvU6jgXLoBwa~5T8Up2WtI9fJ9CDbvJfyyimW-dKzIQAr59Yi4iKLWtqiuUNPpCQXACkjSRPc4210987P9XWUG53BCUQHXj6xtT5Cmx5lvYlL5Zp2KA2AOAsE77clYp4rInkA1AXYxILcmYaI9112qWEYSrDBlBuRoCdCY1auZtkMaeHaVVm3fDVVd9A9f5jkE9mlfFudiCg~XT4id17QtWpxdFFgz0dJZdwVf62bJVFfgHEz2BeWNc9NNkUiHNl8gSOa-ub6srhC7hw07mA1VDO5RhxbyeOEcblGrch~OB8P6ohm0eOYrZGycB20GLNVWLvHNohmPquuFVOPchQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission on March 18 received the report that reviews on‑sale alcoholic beverage conditional use permits (CUPs) for July 1–Dec. 31, 2024 and voted to change the review process to reduce staff workload while preserving the commission's authority to call hearings for urgent violations.

Johnny Case, assistant planner, presented the triannual report. He said the report compiles data from the Hermosa Beach Police Department, the city's code enforcement unit, Los Angeles County Fire and State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). For the reporting period the staff analysis found no establishment met the city's threshold for referral to a Planning Commission‑level CUP review; however, staff noted that Ramen and Sushi (1121 Aviation Boulevard) reached the threshold outside the reporting window and the commission revoked that establishment's CUP at a January hearing.

After discussion, staff proposed revisions to the review process. Planning staff recommended shifting from the current triannual review (which results in two hearing appearances per reporting cycle) to a single annual report timed after summer tourism season, eliminating the automatic second hearing when no CUPs are under referral, and removing certain data requests that do not materially inform enforcement decisions (staff specifically recommended reducing reliance on some fire calls that are protected or nondisclosable under privacy rules). Staff emphasized the change would not limit the commission's ability to call follow‑up hearings: the police chief or community development director could still request a hearing at any time if incident thresholds or public‑safety issues arise.

Commissioners discussed frequency and content. Several commissioners said they supported fewer routine hearings but asked that the record clearly show any dismissed or withdrawn incidents so operator reputations are not unduly harmed by an item that later proved unfounded. Commissioners also asked staff to maintain an accessible, up‑to‑date matrix of CUP conditions and operating hours so police and code enforcement can enforce conditions consistently.

The commission approved the staff recommendation with amendments to clarify that (1) overcrowding citations and life‑safety violations remain a trigger for immediate review; (2) the community development director, like the police chief, can request an interim hearing where warranted; and (3) staff will note in the annual submission any previously reported incidents that were subsequently dismissed.

Outcome: The commission voted to receive the triannual (informational) report and forwarded the proposed process changes (move to annual reporting, eliminate mandatory two‑step) to City Council with the commission's clarifying language. The motion carried (vote recorded in minutes).","Commission received the triannual report on on‑sale alcoholic beverage conditional use permits and agreed to staff recommendations to streamline the review process to annual reporting, removing the mandatory two‑step hearing requirement and asking staff to keep the commission informed of any urgent enforcement needs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Hermosa Beach planning commission continues hearing on 50.5-foot, five‑unit project at 3415 Palm Drive

Votes at a glance: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, March 18, 2025

Planning commission approves parking plan amendment for 1601 Pacific Coast Highway to consolidate retail units

Commission backs changes to on‑sale alcohol CUP review schedule; annual report finds no referrals this period