Planning Commission conditions approval of revised project at 3415 Palm Drive after applicant drops 50-foot plan

The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission on Sept. 16 approved a revised development plan for 3415 Palm Drive after the applicant withdrew an earlier 50.5-foot proposal and offered a lower-height alternative.

Staff had recommended approval of a precise development plan (PDP24-08) for a 50.5-foot, five-unit apartment building under Government Code section 65589.5 (commonly described as the builder’s-remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act) and determined the project qualified for a CEQA categorical exemption (Class 3). City staff’s analysis noted the site is a 2,553-square-foot interior lot currently developed with a legal nonconforming four-unit building (permitted in 1956) and that the proposed five-unit project would increase density from about 68 to 85 dwelling units per acre. Staff reported the project was inconsistent with several R-3 development standards (height, coverage, open space and parking) but that state law limits the city’s ability to deny a qualifying builder’s-remedy application unless the city makes a written finding of specific, objective public-health or safety impacts that cannot be mitigated.

The applicant told the commission that after the March hearings and significant neighborhood concern about scale and height, the owners commissioned redesigned plans. The applicant presented a refined alternative — reducing height and dropping one unit — that the project team said brings the proposal closer to neighborhood scale while maintaining the legal protections the applicant relied on when the application was initially filed. Counsel described the project as preserving existing unit count (under the applicant’s alternative iterations, the version presented to the commission maintained the site’s long-standing baseline of four units in some iterations or reduced the height while keeping unit count similar to existing conditions) and said the alternative would remain feasible while addressing many neighbors’ concerns.

Staff reported they had reviewed sewer capacity (Public Works confirmed capacity for the net increase of one unit in the five-unit proposal), obtained a shadow study from the applicant and consulted LA County Fire, which cleared the project to proceed to public hearing but supplied conditions the city incorporated into the draft resolution. Staff also noted public noticing (203 mailers within a 300-foot radius; legal ad Sept. 4; on-site notice posters) and that planning staff had received numerous written comments, mostly in opposition.

Public comment at the hearing was extensive: neighbors raised concerns about height, shade, views, emergency access and precedent if higher-than-code projects were permitted. Several residents thanked the applicant for returning with a lower-height alternative and urged the commission to accept the revised design.

Commissioners and city counsel discussed procedure and the intersection of local and state review. Staff and counsel explained that the builder’s-remedy protections are a matter of state law that limit the city’s discretion to deny qualifying housing projects, and that the city’s housing element had been certified in August 2024, which closed the window for further builder’s-remedy preliminary applications going forward in this housing element cycle. Counsel and staff also explained that because the property lies in the city’s coastal zone, the project will require a coastal development permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission if the city approves the entitlement; the Coastal Commission is a state body and is not bound by the same builder’s-remedy limitations as the city.

At the end of the hearing the applicant confirmed it would accept a revised proposal. The commission directed staff to update the draft resolution to incorporate the applicant’s alternative design (as submitted to staff on Sept. 15 and presented Sept. 16) and to add findings reflecting the applicant’s withdrawal of the 50.5-foot design and presentation of the alternative. The commission amended the resolution to set a maximum height of 35 feet for the approved alternative and to condition approval on the applicant obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. The revised motion also adopts the CEQA Class 3 exemption finding.

Vice Chair Izant moved and Commissioner Flaherty seconded the motion; the commission voted unanimously in favor with Commissioner Hoffman absent. The approval is conditioned on the terms in the updated resolution, incorporation of LA County Fire conditions, submittal of final civil plans and the applicant obtaining a CDP; if the Coastal Commission denies the CDP, the city-level approvals would not allow construction to proceed.