HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-11-6738 (SURFACE PUBLIC PARKING LOT)2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
RESOLUTION NO.11-6738
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO SUSTAIN THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT A SURFACE PUBLIC PARKING LOT AT 1429
HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 15
THROUGH 18, HERMOSA TRACT, HERMOSA BEACH.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. On March 17, 2011, Thomas Brodie, Managing Partner of Hermosa Beach
Parking Company filed an appeal to the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Precise
Development Plan for a surface parking lot at 1429 Hermosa Avenue (Planning Commission
Resolution 11-7, March 15, 2011). The letter of appeal indicates that the proposal will not
substantially increase impacts related to historical uses or the City's parking lots or on -street
parking; additional parking would benefit the City, businesses, visitors and residents and relieve
stress, traffic, and help reduce accidents and provide parking for residents during hours reserved for
street sweeping; and the City is applying a higher standard to the proposed development than has
been applied to public parking and other parking lots in the area, and the City is obstructing
competition with the City of Hermosa Beach's parking spaces.
SECTION 2. On April 12, 2011, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider said appeal at which time testimony and evidence, both oral and written, was presented to
and considered by the Council.
SECTION 3. Based on the staff report, testimony and evidence received, both written and
verbal, the City Council makes the following factual findings:
A. An application was filed by Hermosa Beach Parking Company, LLC seeking
approval for a Precise Development Plan to improve an 11,516 square foot lot located at the
intersections of Hermosa Avenue with 15th Street and 15th Court with a surface parking lot with 35
spaces. The applicant proposes landscaping, pay points or meters, drainage improvements,
surfacing, and signage.
1
11-6738
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
application for a Precise Development Plan (PDP 10-11) on December 1, 2010, and January 18
and February 15, 2011, at which time testimony and evidence, both oral and written, was
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. The Commission denied the project
and adopted Planning Commission Resolution 11-7 on March 15, 2011.
C. The site is zoned C-2, General Commercial, which permits parking lots by right
pursuant to H.B.M.C. Section 17.26.030 and 17.26.050(B). Pursuant to Section 17.58.020 the
project requires a Precise Development Plan compliant with Section 17.26.050 (standards in C-2
zone), Chapter 17.44 (parking lot design), Chapter 8.44 (SUSMP) and Chapters 8.56 and 8.60
(water efficient and conserving landscaping). The proposed parking lot exceeds 25 spaces and
therefore a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) per Municipal Code Chapter
8.44 is required. While a parking lot in the commercial zones is a permitted land use to provide
customers of commercial establishments parking opportunities, the development and operation of
the parcel as a commercially operated parking lot that is not associated with any particular
business requires a Precise Development Plan (PDP). PDPs, which are required for all uses of
land except single-family homes and additions of less than 1,500 square feet, are required to
achieve a reasonable level of quality, compatibility, and harmony with the community's social,
economic and environmental objectives, and to protect existing and potential developments and
uses on adjacent and surrounding property. Section 17.58.030(A) also provides that all
development shall be in compliance with minimum standards of the zoning ordinance. On a case
by case basis, the planning commission may impose standards above the minimums designated by
the zoning ordinance to improve the quality of development and to mitigate any environmental
impacts.
D. The site is bounded by Hermosa Avenue, 151h Street and 15th Court. The site is
adjacent to C-2 and R-3 zoning. A two-story apartment building is located immediately adjacent
to the rear of the site, and other multi -family units are located across 15`h Street and 151h Court
(alley) proximate to the two one-way driveways accessing the parking lot.
2
11-6738
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. The project record includes multiple letters and petition opposing the project on the
basis of increased noise and disturbances particularly in the late evening/early morning hours,
increased traffic and queuing on the adjoining streets and within the neighborhood, headlights and
lighting, and aesthetics and litter; and multiple letters and petition in support of the project
expressing the need for more parking.
F. The January 18, 2011, staff report recommended closing the lot between 12:00
midnight and 7:00 a.m. together with installation of a barrier as methods for reducing impacts and
improving compatibility with the surroundings. The applicant objected to these proposals as being
financially infeasible and inconsistent with the manner in which the City operates its public
parking lots, among other reasons.
G. On January 18, 2011, the Commission expressed concern over the lack of a parking
management plan as a basis for evaluating and controlling the impacts of a parking lot on the
surroundings and environment. The applicant supplied a parking management plan set forth in the
February 15, 2011, staff report, providing an open, non -attended parking lot offering 24-hour
parking on an hourly, daily, overnight and monthly basis as determined by the management; valet
parking may be provided only if the lot is rented for events; no onsite attendant or management
will be provided; litter control will be provided monthly or as needed; and other details. The
applicant's revised site plan provided a masonry wall along the rear property line per Section
17.26.050(B), nine evergreen trees along the rear wall to increase privacy, a tree in the planter
along Hermosa Avenue, the westerly row of parking spaces to be limited to `permit parking' only,
central light standards to be eliminated in favor of low level lighting, and other minor changes.
H. On February 15, 2011, the Commission considered a draft Resolution for approval,
but determined that the proposed development would interfere with the enjoyment of property in
the area, is not harmonious with adjoining high density residential development, is inconsistent
with the intent of the commercial zones, and would have significant adverse impacts and
mitigation to restrict and control hours, operations and project design are not acceptable to the
applicant, and the advantages of a net increase of 33 parking spaces in this location does not
outweigh the adverse impacts to neighboring residents from potential noise and disturbances. The
3
11-6738
Commission directed staff to return with a Resolution for denial which was adopted on March 15,
2 2011.
3 SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the
4 following findings pertaining to the application for a Precise Development Plan to construct a
5 parking lot pursuant to Subsection C of Section 17.58.030 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code:
6 A. The proposed development would interfere with the use or enjoyment of property
7 in such area, because of inappropriateness of design in relation to the surrounding vicinity, and the
s property owner objects to conditions of approval which can be imposed to resolve such problems.
9 The project as designed is not harmonious with adjoining high density residential development
10 and is inconsistent with the intent of the commercial zones.
I The project will create a concentration of parking spaces adjacent to high density
2 residential use
and will result in adverse impacts to residents of those dwellings and nearby
13 residences, including, but not limited to, noise and disturbances generated by vehicles accessing
14 and leaving the site and car doors closing, patrons returning to the lot alone or in groups, typically
15 from downtown ("Lower Pier") entertainment venues late at night, and to a lesser degree vehicle
16 emissions and headlamps, and litter. In addition, a 24-hour unattended public use parking lot not
17 operated by a corresponding commercial business may have greater impacts than a small lot that is
is accessory to such business. Operation and design of the proposed lot will be inconsistent with the
19 City's Noise Ordinance which prohibits continuous, repeated or sustained noise from commercial
20 establishments between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. that is plainly audible from a
21 residential dwelling unit's property line. Written comment and testimony at the public hearing
22 indicated problems are already caused by vehicles parked on the street along Hermosa Avenue and
23 side streets and the parking lot would exacerbate problems and cause other adverse impacts as
24 follows.
25 The proposed concentration of parking spaces close to high density residential uses would
26 increase problems already caused by people and their vehicles parked on the street along Hermosa
27 Avenue and side streets, such as noise and disturbances as people walk late at night to and from
28 downtown bars, restaurants and nightclubs to their vehicles thereby causing disturbances from
4
I7-6738
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
congregating, loud talking, socializing, and behavior associated with over -intoxication (public
urination, etc.) late at night and in the early morning hours; noise associated with starting car
engines and vehicle security systems cause disturbances late at night; intoxicated drivers from the
bars using the lot increases risk of accidents; vehicles drive through the residential areas to avoid''
queuing or look for parking; increased traffic and noise on 15`h Court (a narrow alley) will occur;
and intoxicated drivers from the bars using the lot increases risk of accidents. The lots' proximity
to the Lower Pier area makes it an attractive parking option for patrons heading to the restaurants and
bars at night. Based on the staggered closing times of the restaurants and bars in the area, the City
experiences a majority of nighttime patrons leaving the establishments and heading to their cars
between midnight and 2:00 a.m. and taking into account socializing, walking time and other factors,
increased impacts could be expected nightly until 3:00 a.m. Further, light from headlamps shining
into windows may disturb residents as people pull into and out of the lot; increased traffic poses a
safety hazard for children living nearby throughout the day; a parking lot attracts loiterers and
generates litter; property values near the parking lot may decrease; and more parking attracts more
traffic to the area.
While the applicant proposes to plant a row of evergreen trees in the landscape planter at
the rear of the lot and to restrict the westerly row of parking spaces to `permit parking' only, the
Council finds that vegetation and limiting the westerly row of spaces to permit parking
(undefined) are not adequate to control noise and disturbances, light from headlamps, vehicle
emissions, and impacts relating to traffic and queuing. Leasing these spaces to individuals will not
mitigate potential noise after midnight because there are no restrictions to prevent the lessees from
coming and going at any hour without restriction. Further, the applicant opposes any conditions
that limit hours of operation, require onsite management, or require any type of physical gate or
barrier as a means of reducing space turnover or controlling activity and behavior on the lot, which
would assist in reducing the secondary impacts identified above, particularly in the late
evening/early morning hours.
The proposed project is inconsistent with the intent of the commercial zone as set forth in
subsection AA of Section 17.26.020 because the project cannot be modified in a manner
5
11-6738
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
acceptable to the applicant that will "minimize the impact of commercial development on adjacent
residential districts" as stated above. The proposed project is inconsistent with subsection
17.26.020.A.5 because the effects of the proposed use are not harmonious with the character of the
area in which it is located as stated above due to adverse effects of an unattended parking lot
lacking controls in this particular location adjacent to residential uses.
B. The proposed development would have significant environmental adverse impacts
that are not mitigable and a finding of overriding considerations cannot be made. The proposed
parking lot will create a concentration of parking spaces in a location that is currently vacant due
to demolition of a small retail business. Noise and disturbance impacts, and other impacts
identified under paragraph 1 above, cannot be adequately mitigated without restricting and
controlling hours, operations and project design. Such controls as necessary to reduce noise and
disturbances could secondarily assist in reducing impacts relating to queuing, traffic congestion
and circulation issues, idling and emissions, headlamps, loitering and litter. The applicant opposes
and states that limits on hours of operation, controls to limit space turnover, physical barriers or
gates, onsite/active oversight, and similar measures that would control noise and disturbance are
unacceptable, beyond limiting one row of parking to `permit parking' (undefined). Therefore
impacts cannot be mitigated. While the demand for parking spaces serving locals, tourists and
persons visiting the entertainment venues in the downtown area is high especially during the
summer months and in the evenings year around, the advantages of a net increase of 33 parking
spaces in this location does not outweigh the adverse impacts to neighboring residents from
potential noise and disturbances.
C. The project has been evaluated for consistency with current required standards in
the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, rather than comparing the project to other existing parking
lots some of which may be nonconforming, and whether the project is compatible with the
neighborhood and would cause adverse effects as required by the Precise Development Plan
process. On a case by case basis, the Planning Commission may impose standards above the
minimums designated by the zoning ordinance to improve the quality of development and to
mitigate any environmental impacts pursuant to H.B.M.C. Section 17.58.030(A). The Planning
6
11-6738
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
Commission and City Council evaluated modifications and controls that would be acceptable to
the applicant and would conform the project to standards and reduce impacts resulting from this
project; however, controls to reduce adverse impacts acceptable to the applicant could not be
identified.
The property owner alleges that the City is applying a higher standard of development to the
proposed development than has been applied to public parking and other parking lots in the area, and
on this basis the City is obstructing competition with the City of Hermosa Beach's parking spaces.
The City Council finds, however, that the applicant's project was evaluated in conformance with the
City's codes and requirements to reduce effects on the surrounding neighborhood as required by a
Precise Development Plan.
1. The project was evaluated in accordance with the adopted codes applicable to
a parking lot and Precise Development Plans.
2. Typically, private parking lots are developed as an integral part of a
development project and are operated by a corresponding commercial business, and the development
and operation of the parking lot is considered and regulated within the context of the development on
the site. In any case, new parking lots are governed by H.B.M.C. Sections 17.44.100, 17.44.120, and
17.44.130 and 17.44.160 which set forth standards for the improvement and maintenance of
parking areas, addressing lot design, surfacing, screening and landscaping, lighting, entrances and
exits, and circulation. Development, including parking lots, is governed by Section 17.26.050.1,
addressing requirements adjacent to residential zoning and Chapter 8.56 addressing landscaping.
In addition, the duty to provide solid waste facilities and control storm water discharges are
addressed by Chapter 8.12 and 8.44. These regulations provided the basis for the project
evaluation and recommended project conditions.
3. Rather than comparing the project to other existing parking lots, the
Planning Commission correctly evaluated the project for consistency with current required
standards and whether the project is compatible with the neighborhood and would cause adverse
effects, as is required by the Precise Development Plan process, including the ability on a case-by-
7
11-6738
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
case basis to impose standards above the minimums designated by the zoning ordinance to
improve the quality of development and to mitigate any environmental impacts.
4. The applicant alleges that the proposed parking lot is not substantially
different than the City's public parking lots and parking structure with respect to its proximity to
residences. However, most of the City's parking lots have been in existence for at least 30 years
as indicated in the City's Coastal Land Use Plan, and the parking structure (Lot C) occupies
property that was formerly a parking lot, meaning that even these lots may not have been approved
under today's standards.
Of the City's four paid public parking lots in the downtown area, three are located west
of Hermosa Avenue, are surrounded by C-2 zoning, and residentially zoned property is not located
closer than 160 feet from these lots (Lot C, parking structure, R-3 zoning is 280 feet from the site;
Lot B, surface parking, R-3 zoning is 440 feet from the site; Lot A, surface parking, R-3 zoning is
160 feet to the south). The fourth (Lot S, also known as Lot D) is located adjacent to C-2 and R-3
zoning. These lots have been in existence in some form for at least 30 years. There are
approximately six public parking locations adjacent to or across from residentially zoned lots;
however these spaces are located at a park or City facility such as the Community Center or Civic
Center; six other public parking locations are adjacent to commercial zoning, and one is located in
and surrounded by the M-1 zone adjacent to City Yard. The downtown lots and most others have
been in existence for more than 30 years, are typically not located near residences and would not
create the types of impacts on residences that would be created by the applicant's proposal, and
were developed prior to the current codes. Those spaces at a City facility such as a park, are
generally located outside the downtown area where it is less likely that people will be returning to
their vehicles at night from the restaurants, bars and nightclubs in the downtown (e.g., parking at
Valley Park or east of Pacific Coast Highway).
5. The City has considered and mitigated adverse impacts associated with its
parking facilities. Construction of the parking structure (Beach Hotel project and Parking
Structure) on Lot C incorporated a list of development standards to reduce impacts to the
downtown and abutting nonconforming residential uses, including techniques to minimize noise,
8
11-6738
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lighting, visual impacts (modifying setbacks, vine and landscaping property walls, limiting
openings in the structure walls) (Condition 81, City Council Resolution 96-5841). The City
approved this structure only after preparation and certification of an Environmental Impact Report
as required by CEQA.
D. The property owner alleges that the City is acting in an anti -competitive way; i.e.,
that it is abusing its police power by denying his proposal in order to protect the City's financial
interests. The City Council, however, finds that this allegation is contradicted by evidence that the
City has an acute shortage of parking citywide and specifically in the downtown seasonally and at
certain peak times of the day, and solutions to alleviate the parking shortage, public or private,
have been pursued and continue to be encouraged. The existing shortage of parking results in
more people driving around the downtown and residential neighborhoods looking for spaces,
illegal parking, and congestion generally. This phenomenon serves to increase traffic and noise in
residential zones, increases vehicle emissions, wastes energy and generates air pollution and
adverse health impacts, creates a negative image of the City, decreases the desire of visitors to
attend events and access the beach, and generally creates frustration on the part of residents and
visitors alike.
1. The Planning Commission did not consider potential impacts to City revenues
that might occur should the project be approved, nor could it, as the applicant did not provide parking
lot operational specifics by which the fiscal impacts of the proposal on the City's financial interests
could be evaluated with any certainty. In fact, it appears the applicant may offer parking programs
that provide alternatives to or are complementary to the City's parking system, such as monthly or
permit parking, employer programs, valet parking, etc.
2. The City encourages the creation of parking spaces and has no incentive to
discourage parking opportunities. The proposed parking lot would be located within the Coastal
Zone, two blocks from the beach on the outskirts of the City's small, compact downtown. It is
well documented that the shortage of parking is an ongoing and significant issue in Hermosa
Beach. As a coastal beach city, Hermosa attracts people from the region, state and beyond in the
summer months, on weekends and holidays, and to its many special community events. In
7
11-6738
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
recognition of the unmet parking demand, the City contracts with a franchised taxi service to
address parking demand, the City requires some special events to provide shuttle or valet services,
and the City has partnered with private and public entities upon occasion, such as with the School
District, to utilize underused private lots for valet parking or with a private developer as it did with
the Beach House to construct the City's only parking structure.
3. To ensure that new development/redevelopment meets its own needs, and
Iaccordingly to reduce the use of public parking by private development that has been
nonconforming to parking (including public metered and time limited spaces which provide
revenues to the City), the City has adopted and enforces strict parking standards, requiring 3
spaces per dwelling unit and applies commercial parking standards to gross floor area. The City
has also denied projects that lacked adequate parking notwithstanding that doing so would
I arguably reduce the number of potential customers in City parking facilities. For example, in
12010, the City denied a Parking Plan to convert space at the Bijou Building (1221-1227 Hermosa
Avenue) due in part to parking impacts on the weekends and evenings when parking demand in
the downtown is at its peak, and the City denied a request to pay in -lieu fees to satisfy all of the
parking deficiency for a new building at 205 Pier Avenue so that each new development
contributes a fair share of parking onsite when possible.
4. The City enacted a downtown parking district wherein development that
cannot comply with onsite parking requirements may if approved by the Planning Commission
contribute to a parking in -lieu fund with a cap of 100 spaces, at which time the City must proceed
to construct the required parking. The fund currently has collected fees in -lieu of 45 spaces, with
fees for 19 spaces obligated but not yet paid until the development is constructed, and 36 spaces
available. Therefore parking demand associated with constructed development is currently unmet
for 45 spaces.
5. The acute shortage of parking to accommodate residents within and near the
downtown area is evidenced by the Preferential Parking and Remote Beach Parking Program
approved by the Coastal Commission and City and implemented in 1982. The program allows
residents and employees to purchase permits to park at 12-hour meters or in one hour zones in
10
11-6738
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
residential areas for an unlimited amount of time (not more than 72 hours on the public street).
Without a preferential permit, the time limit is one hour within 1 to 4 blocks of the beach. Parking
demand is also demonstrated by the number of parking permits sold in the metered or time
restricted areas. The City sold 5,180 resident permits and 4,223 guest permits, or 9,597 total
permits in 2009/10.
6. The City lacks land and financial resources to unilaterally resolve the
parking problem, and has welcomed joint ventures and other solutions to increase parking, taking
into account effects on the surrounding area and the City's financial constraints imposed by the
Coastal Land Use Plan.
7. A parking structure approved in 1996 and subsequently constructed has not
resolved the downtown parking problems. City Council Resolution 96-5841 approving the Beach
Hotel project and Parking Structure on surface parking Lot C supplied 100 spaces for the new use
(versus 92 spaces to meet parking standards) and an additional 380 spaces for public use. The City
of Hermosa Beach Downtown Circulation and Parking Initial Study, Korve Engineering and
Walker Parking Consultants (1996) indicated that the 400 space parking structure will only
partially alleviate peak hour parking shortage; without the structure, the deficit is 493 spaces, with
the structure the deficit is 254 effective spaces. While a comprehensive analysis of parking has
not been undertaken since this time, parking for existing development has not increased and the
attractiveness of the City's beach and other attributes have not decreased. In fact, the City's Pier
Plaza renovation in 2000 and the Pier Avenue streetscape project in 2010 serve to attract more
people to the downtown area.
8. The parking shortage is demonstrated by the high number of parking
citations. Lieutenant Garth Gaines, Hermosa Beach Police Department, oversees parking
enforcement and states that parking is an extreme problem within the City and downtown. Public
parking lots, especially Lot A and the parking structure are overflowing on weekends and many
evenings, and people driving around looking for parking creates congestion. The City's high
number of parking tickets is indicative of the problem because people would rather pay the ticket
than pass up parking. The City issued 55,692 parking tickets in 2010 and 49,016 parking tickets in
11
11-6738
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2009; 2,044 calls for service were related to parking in 2009 with 1,923 calls in 2010; and 818
vehicles were impounded in 2009, and 784 in 2010.
9. The City cannot accommodate more parked cars, as its parking facilities are
being fully utilized at peak times. As evidenced, there is more demand for parking than the City
can accommodate with its lots and the City does not currently have the ability to create more
public spaces.
10. The City is not motivated to deny the project due to financial considerations
as alleged by the applicant because, even if City revenues were reduced, the reduction would be
negligible. The City of Hermosa Beach Preliminary Budget and Capital Improvement Program,
2010-2011 indicates that total parking related revenues accounted for $2,071,261 in 2008/09.
Parking meters generated annual revenues of $1,594,658, or $996.66 per meter based on 1600
meters. In a worst case scenario where revenues equivalent to 35 meters were not collected, a total
of $34,883 would have been unrealized in 2008/09. If revenues equivalent to 35 meters decreased
by 50%, the decreased revenue in 2008/09 would have been $17,441. Although the City disagrees
that a 35 new parking spaces (actually a net increase of 33 spaces) will have any discernable effect
on revenues, the City has various options for increasing revenues to make up the lost revenues; for
example increase of $0.03 per hour. (Assuming all meters are $1.25 per hour; each meter was
occupied an average of 797 hours per year, which equates to $21 per year per meter. Keeping all
factors constant, the City would only need to increase the rate from $1.25 per hour to $1.28 per
hour to recoup lost revenues.) However, parking demand in Hermosa Beach is high only at
certain times, and at those times (summer days/weekends, weekend evenings) there is a large
unmet demand that cannot be filled by 35 parking spaces. Given that parking revenues fluctuate
annually, the hypothetical decrease in parking fees discussed above would be within the range of
normal fluctuations; for example, the 2010-2011 Preliminary Budget estimates 2009/10 parking
meters revenues were $1,757,952 which represents a $163,294 increase over 2008/09. Further,
visitors come to Hermosa Beach to patronize local restaurants and retail establishments, which
helps support the City's economy. If parking is not available, the visitors will travel to another
12
11-6738
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
city. In other words, the City welcomes and encourages parking opportunities for visitors who
will help support local businesses and the local economy.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the 'Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the
project is not subject to CEQA because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency
rejects or disapproves.
SECTION 6. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby sustains the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny the Precise Development Plan (PDP 10-11) without prejudice.
SECTION 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge
to the decision City Council must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City
Council.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2011.
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of4be City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
0
13
11-6738
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
I, Elaine Doerfling, City Clerk of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.11-6738 as duly and regularly passed,
approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular
Meeting of said Council at the regular place thereof on April 12, 2011.
The vote was as follows
AYES:
DiVirgilio, Duclos, Fishman, Mayor Tucker
NOES:
Bobko
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Dated: April 26, 2011
Elaine Doerfling, City C k