Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 09-24 - (1601 PCH, Hermosa Pavilion)P.C. RESOLUTION 09-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND PARKING PLAN TO ELIMINATE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO-HOUR FREE VALIDATED PARKING RELATED TO PARKING AT HERMOSA PAVILION AND FOR THE BUSINESSES THEREIN AT 1601 TO 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, 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 Gene Shook, Shook Development Company, seeking approval to amend conditions imposed on a Parking Plan for Hermosa Pavilion and Conditional Use Permits for the businesses therein, by eliminating the requirement to provide two hours of free validated parking within the parking structure. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for Amendments to Parking Plan 09-7 and Conditional Use Permit 09-5 on August 18, 2009, at which time testimony and evidence, both oral and written, was 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 with regard to the application to amend the Parking Plan and Conditional Use Permits to eliminate the prohibition on charging for the first two hours of parking within the parking structure required by Condition 15 set forth in City Council Resolution 06-6513 (to allow on -sale alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway #170), and Condition 1 set forth in City Council Resolution 06-6482 (for a Parking Plan to allow shared parking for a new allocation of uses): 1. The site is zoned S.P.A. 8. The requirement to provide two hours of free parking imposed on the discretionary approvals beginning in April 2006 was the result of a revocation/modification proceeding over these permits to resolve significant spillover parking problems affecting nearby businesses and residential areas that occurred when customers and employees of Hermosa Pavilion were charged for parking since at least 2003. A Parking Report prepared in 2006 to assess whether the parking validation program alleviated spillover parking concluded that a parking demand of 420 spaces would occur at the peak demand time of 6:00 P.M. on weekdays, that a surplus of 76 spaces (not including valet stalls) existed in the parking structure to accommodate the demand, and that the significant spillover problems (shown empirically to be caused by members of the fitness club) were largely resolved by the two hour free parking within the Pavilion parking structure. 2. City Council Resolution 06-6513 adopted December 12, 2006 required a 6-month review of the two-hour free parking validation program and requirement for sign posting for the Brix@1601 restaurant, at which time staff found the site to be in compliance with the Conditions of Approval and found that the free validated parking program was effective in encouraging patrons of Hermosa Pavilion to park inside the parking structure and in mitigating offsite spillover parking. Section 4. The Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application to amend a Parking Plan and Conditional Use Permits pertaining to the requirement to provide two hours of free validated parking within the parking structure, pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 17.40.020 and 17.44.030.E: 1. The requirement to provide two hours of free parking was imposed at a revocation/modification hearing following preparation of a parking study by an independent consultant that concluded that Hermosa Pavilion patrons were routinely parking in the residential neighborhood nearby in order to avoid paying for parking, and the condition was imposed to resolve the spillover parking problem. 2. While building occupancy is currently estimated to be no more than 65 percent, which means that parking supply exceeds demand even at peak hour, spillover parking was the result of a charge for parking rather than the lack of available spaces in the parking structure. Therefore, it is expected that instituting a charge for parking will likely have the same effect. 3. The tenant in the building which empirically exhibits the greatest parking demand remains located within the building. No evidence has been presented and there is no reason to believe that spillover parking problems within the neighborhood associated with the uses in the building will not recur if the owner is allowed to resume charging for parking, unless other mitigations are imposed. 4. Other parking mitigations providing a similar degree of effectiveness and certainty without imposing a burden on others have not been presented. For example, a preferential residential parking district imposes a fee and other administrative burdens on residents, where none currently exist, even if the owner contributes to the program. 5. The condition to require free validated parking is not arbitrary and has been applied to the parking structure at 338-400 Pier Avenue. The City has imposed a requirement that all parking shall be free to customers and employees served by the new building under construction at 338-400 Pier Avenue. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that the subject conditions are necessary to assure compatibility with surrounding uses and hereby denies the request for an Amendment to Parking Plan 09-7 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 09-5; therefore, two hours of free validated parking within the parking structure and display of signage per Condition 15 set forth in City Council Resolution 06-6513 and Condition 1 set forth in City Council Resolution 06-6482 shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. VOTE: AYES: Comms.Allen,Darcy,Hoffman,Perrotti,Chmn.Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 09-24 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of August 18, 2009. Ron Pizer, Chairman i . n rtson, Secretary September 15, 2009 Date