Commission approves 13‑unit condominium subdivision at 911 First Street with traffic‑plan requirement

Hermosa Beach Planning Commission approved, 5–0, a conditional use permit, precise development plan and tentative tract map on July 28 to allow consolidation of three lots at 911 First Street into a single ground lot and construction of four buildings with 13 condominiums and a small commercial unit, subject to conditions including a requirement that the applicant submit a traffic/haul plan for staff review.

Staff contract planner Kanika Pompey presented the proposal, describing the site as three contiguous interior lots totaling roughly 20,213 square feet east of Pacific Coast Highway. The project would create 12 residential condominium units plus one small commercial unit (about 245 square feet). Each residential unit includes an attached two‑car garage; staff reported a total of 31 off‑street parking spaces (24 garage spaces and seven guest/ADA spaces). Pompey said the project was evaluated against objective RP (multifamily residential) standards and the city's general plan policies encouraging a variety of housing types and proximity to daily services; staff recommended the commission determine the project categorically exempt under CEQA Guideline section 15332 (infill) and adopt Resolution 25‑10 approving the entitlements.

Applicant Lorenzo Schiapa, who identified himself as a Hermosa Beach resident and co‑applicant with his father, said the design intentionally keeps density below the specific‑plan maximum (12 units vs. allowed 15), provides center‑drive access to eliminate one curb cut and gain parking, and includes larger setbacks and open space to reduce bulk and maintain light between buildings. He estimated on‑site construction would take about 12–14 months after building permits are issued; grading and haul operations could be staged separately.

Public commenters raised concerns about density, traffic, and construction staging. Neighbors described First Street as an already congested corridor and asked how construction staging, worker parking, and haul routes would be managed. One commenter asked whether construction workers could use an adjacent, largely unused parking lot and voiced skepticism about multiple concurrent nearby projects. Applicants said they plan to try to arrange off‑site worker parking and suggested talking to the neighboring property owner about temporary parking; they also committed to staging most materials on site and to provide a hauling/traffic plan.

During commission deliberations, members said the project complies with applicable development standards and provides more on‑site parking than some recent infill projects. Several commissioners emphasized mitigations or permit conditions to reduce construction impacts: they asked staff to require a hauling/traffic control plan to limit construction ingress/egress impacts on First Street (for example, preferring truck access from PCH for heavy hauling operations) and to avoid unnecessary curb cuts. Commissioner Flaherty asked that the applicant pursue use of the adjacent parking lot for staging or worker parking during construction.

The motion to adopt Resolution 25‑10 approving CUP 24‑09, PDP 24‑09 and Tentative Tract Map No. 83011 carried 5–0. The commission's approval included the staff‑requested technical corrections to section 4 of the resolution (to correct application numbers and hearing date) and a condition requiring the applicant to submit a traffic/haul plan for staff review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits (exact timing to be coordinated with staff). No affordable housing units were identified as part of this development; staff noted the site was included in the city's housing element inventory and thus contributes to RHNA targets.

Commissioners asked staff to verify screening and location of trash and transformer enclosures during plan review and to ensure the project's landscape/open‑space dimensions meet code prior to permit issuance. Staff noted the project had been the subject of prior applications and a 2022 council denial of a related amendment; the current application proceeded under preliminary application timing consistent with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and the applicant's 2024 formal filings.