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

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.