Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 10-08 - (102 PCH, Verizon)RESOLUTION NO. 10-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOCATE 15 SPACES FOR AN AUTOMATED SWITCHING FACILITY ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF A 58,813 SQ. FT. BUILDING AND TO ALLOCATE 49 SPACES TO SATISFY PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL USES ON THE SECOND FLOOR PROVIDED THAT ANY EXCESS SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SECOND FLOOR WILL BE SEGREGATED AS UNOCCUPIED SPACE, SUCH AS STORAGE OR SIMILAR NON-HABITABLE USES THAT CREATE NO PARKING DEMAND AT 102 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, AND 911-1st STREET LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 39 THROUGH 51, TRAFTON HEIGHTS AND LOTS 40 THROUGH 42, HOME BUILDERS’ PLACE, HERMOSA BEACH The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Lonnie Ellisor, agent, for Parking Plan 10-1 to allocate 15 parking spaces for the operation of an automated switching facility on the first floor of the 58, 813 sq. ft. building occupied by Verizon California, Inc. and to allocate 49 spaces to satisfy parking requirements for future commercial uses on the second floor based on net floor area, wherein any excess square footage will be segregated as unusable/ unoccupied space, such as storage or similar non-habitable uses that create no parking demand. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Parking Plan on February 16, April 20 and May 18, 2010 at which time testimony and evidence, both oral and written, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. Use of the building at 102 Pacific Coast Highway and its associated parking is subject to a Parking Plan approved on November 7, 1991 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 91-70, allowing less than required parking at 102 Pacific Coast Highway, and the leasing of the excess parking spaces for the storage of new cars and/or public parking, subject to conditions of approval. Said excess parking is designated on the site plan as Lot “A” with 35 spaces and Lot “B” with 28 parking spaces. Since the 1991 Parking Plan was approved, Lots “A” and “B” have been sold, and are now under separate ownership. Lots “A” and “B” are currently addressed as 911 – 1st Street and are located to the east of the subject property that is designated on the site plan as Lot “C” with 20 parking spaces and Lot “D” with 48 spaces. The site plan is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The proposal would address Condition 12 of 1991 Parking Plan, which required that, “Any more intensive use of the building shall require amendment and approval of the parking plan prior to such more intensive use.” 1 3. The subject property (102 Pacific Coast Highway and Lots “C” and “D”) and the adjoining excess parking (Lots “A” and “B”) are zoned SPA-7. The properties along 1st Street to the east, south and southwest of the subject property are zoned R-P (Residential Professional) and are developed with multiple family residential projects. The properties along 2nd Street to the east and north are zoned R-1 and developed with primarily single- family units, and two single-family homes are located west of the site on property zoned SPA-7. 4. The applicant submitted one parking study, a traffic plan and supplemental letter on parking plan reaffirming prior evaluation of the parking demand of the switching facility on the first floor of the building, and parking impacts of future general office uses with a total parking demand of 49 spaces. 5. Public testimony received by the Planning Commission from people in the surrounding area address the inability to enforce the limitation on 15 employees commensurate with requested parking and the limited use of the second floor area, lack of compliance with conditions of the 1991 Parking Plan by renting spaces within the parking area adjacent to 2nd Street and sale of the parking areas declared excess to parking needs, existing congestion on 1st and 2nd Streets, lack of enforcement of existing laws prohibiting parking on sidewalks, inability to enforce uses in the building and parking plan, and precedent set by approving a parking plan in the absence of facts about the future uses and design of internal space, among other issues. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings and pursuant to H.B.M.C. Section 17.44.210, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: 1. The future use and full occupancy of the 58,813 sq. ft. building was crippled in 1991 when the current property owner leased and then later sold parking that the 1991 Parking Plan determined to be “excess.” Information substantiating that viable alternatives to provide required parking has not been presented, such as repurchase of land to the east, constructing a parking structure, survey of other sites that could be used for parking or shared parking, conversion of a portion of the first floor to parking, or reduction of floor area. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the General Plan which aims to create and maintain usable commercial sites with adequate facilities and parking. While this building represents an asset that should not be underutilized, provision of adequate parking is necessary to serve occupants of the building and to reduce impacts to the adjoining neighborhood, which is currently impacted by lack of parking. 3. The proposal is not consistent with other situations in which the City has approved Parking Plans for less than required parking. While the applicant presented supplemental information on April 20, 2010 with regard to the existing operation, existing allocation of space in the building, and communications infrastructure and technology, the proposal lacks plans and information detailing the proposed future use, size, location, or design of the second floor, including occupied and excess unparked space, so that parking demand, impacts and potential mitigations can be thoroughly evaluated as a basis for determining whether parking demand will be satisfied before approving the Plan. 2