Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Convex Slope And Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves rehab of 102‑year‑old Hermosa Avenue building after agreeing process for affordability verification
Summary
Planning commissioners approved a convex slope determination and precise development plan for a structural rehabilitation at 3232 Hermosa Ave., and added a condition requiring a covenant reserving two lower‑income rentals if staff cannot verify that the existing units are not protected under state law.
The Planning Commission approved a convex slope determination (CSD 25‑01) and Precise Development Plan 25‑04 for a structural rehabilitation and minor addition to a four‑unit apartment at 3232 Hermosa Avenue. Staff said the building is legal nonconforming for density, parking and open space, and recommended using alternate spot elevations — excluding shallow fill identified in a geotechnical report — to determine natural grade so that the existing building height complies with the 30‑foot maximum.
Jake Whitney, the associate planner, explained the applicant supplied a geotechnical report showing half‑foot to 1.5‑foot zones of fill and recommended using alternate points to reflect the natural grade for height calculations. Staff recommended CEQA Class II (replacement/reconstruction) exemption and supported the convex slope determination as consistent with Hermosa Beach practice.
A central point of debate was the statute that can require affordability restrictions when redevelopment involves demolition or loss of protected units. Applicant counsel explained that this project does not constitute demolition and that prior‑occupant income verification can raise privacy concerns; counsel proposed bifurcating entitlement and verification so the PDP could be approved while the applicant and staff work out a confidential means to rebut the statutory presumption. The commission adopted a modified condition: before building permit issuance, if the owner does not provide evidence that none of the existing units are protected under state law, the owner must execute a covenant satisfactory to the Community Development Director to make two units available to lower‑income households as defined by state health and safety code.
Neighbors and community commenters supported the redevelopment and urged attention to encroachment and historic access issues. The commission voted in favor of the staff recommendation as amended to allow staff and the applicant to verify affordability status outside the public process and require a covenant if verification fails.
