|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 07-24-01
SUBJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 01-3 & PARKING
PLAN
Recommendation Alternatives:
Project History:
Proposed Project : The Planning Commission denied a slightly larger project, which included an 8,400 square foot office mezzanine and 7,000 square feet of additional health and fitness center. The proposed project submitted on appeal is based upon a similar plan but has 106,000 square feet or total floor area. Overall, the gross floor area will increase by 33,140 square feet over the original plan approval in 1986 but is 2,597 square feet smaller than the previously approved plan in 1999. The current owner of the building does not intend to implement the project, but is proposing the changes in order to attract a new buyer for the building. The changes are summarized below:
Background: The Hermosa Pavilion was constructed in 1987. At that time, the building was constructed in compliance with zoning requirements in effect at that time, which included a height limit of 45 feet. The proposed use was a mix of theatre, restaurant and retail uses, however, only the theatre use has been fully occupied. The building has been vacant for the last three years and the source of code enforcement problems including deferred maintenance, vandalism and vagrants. At their meeting of April 19, 2001, the Staff Environmental Review Committee recommended a mitigated negative declaration for the project based upon the supplemental parking and traffic studies which addressed the project changes. The proposed mitigation measure requires implementation of a valet assisted parking program on a daily basis as previously recommended for the 1999 project and the original project in 1986. Analysis The proposed plan revision involves interior alterations and additions to remove restaurant and theaters uses and replace them with the health and fitness club, offices, and a small amount of retail. The building frontage will be extended to the street edge at the ground level and the upper floor will be enclosed. Since the Planning Commission hearing of May 15 th , the owner has submitted a revised plan which reduces the amount of gym and office by 16,000 square feet in order to reduce the amount of valet assisted parking which was a primary concern of the Commission. However, the operation and management of the parking is significantly changed under both plans from the 1999 project, since the peak parking times will be every weekday, requiring the daily use of valet parking to accommodate employees or tenants of the primary office uses. PARKING Parking is projected to be satisfied within the parking structure due to the proposed new mix of uses with varying times of peak parking demand. The applicant has submitted a revised Shared Parking Analysis (dated June 27, 2001), prepared by Linscott Law and Greenspan (updating a February 8, 2001 study which supplemented the 1998 analysis) The shared parking analysis is intended to demonstrate that the existing parking supply will be sufficient for the proposed mix of uses based upon peak and off-peak usage. The parking structure contains 504 spaces which are to be reconfigured and restriped to include 440 first access spaces, 31 tandem (second access) spaces and 33 parallel aisle-parking spaces. Valet assistance will be provided for the tandem spaces and the parallel aisle spaces. The analysis shows that based on the City’s parking requirements the proposed mix of uses results in a total parking requirement of 694 spaces (Table B). This calculation is based on net floor area, and excludes common areas/internal circulation within the office area. This calculation, however, does not take into account the peak parking requirements and hourly variation in parking demand for each individual use in a mixed-use project. Therefore, the study includes a shared demand parking analysis based on the methodology and hourly parking adjustment factors developed by the Urban Land Institute (Table C and D). The parking demand rates used for the health club are based on a study of a 24-hour fitness facility in Santa Monica conducted in 1998, (6.75 spaces required per 1000 square feet at peak times) and the parking rates for the office uses are based on the parking requirements in the Zoning Code (4 spaces per 1,000 square feet). The study does not explain whether the attributes of this location are similar enough to justify comparison to the Santa Monica facility. The City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed this parking study, and found the premise of the shared parking analysis acceptable, but questions the transferability of the parking rates found in Santa Monica for the health club analyzed, which are less than the City’s parking requirements. His conclusion is that the study is valid only if it can be confirmed that the Santa Monica facility used for comparison has similar membership and patronage, and is in a similar type of location where most of the patrons will drive to the facility. Parking Tabulation:
* Based on assumed parking rate of 6.75 spaces per 1000 square feet. The analysis concludes that the highest shared parking demand occurs weekdays at 11:00 A.M. for the combination of uses and is projected at 460 spaces (11 space surplus). Saturday peak shared parking demand occurs at mid-day and is projected at 339 spaces (132 space surplus). The on-site supply is 471 spaces, with the tandem parking included. The supply can be increased to 504 spaces with valet assisted parallel parking behind the standard stalls. Therefore, only with valet assisted tandem parking is the parking supply sufficient to meet projected demand, according to the study. Since the overall peak demand would be reached every weekday, the second access or "valet" spaces will have to be used on a regular basis. The previous approved mix of uses reached peak usage only on Saturdays and would have required use of valet parking only on Saturdays. The current proposal therefore places a higher burden on daily parking operation and management. This brings up the question whether the proposed intensity and mix of uses is appropriate for valet assistance, since office employees or customers of the health clubs are not necessarily accustomed to using valet parking. In the revised parking study, the applicant is proposing to have discount priced monthly parking passes to encourage office employees to use the tandem parking. PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT/ S.P.A. 8 ZONE COMPLIANCE The Specific Plan Area zone includes two sets of development standards. This two tier approach was established to allow development that complies with the first tier standards as a matter of right without a Precise Development Plan. In this case, the project exceeds first tier standards for bulk (greater than 1:1 F.A.R.), and maximum size (greater than 10,000 square feet). Thus, the Precise Development Plan review is required for the project to exceed these first tier standards. Also, the plans require implementation of the Variance previously granted for building height. Pursuant to the specific standards of the S.P.A. 8 zone and the underlying C-3 zoning, other than the need for approval of a Parking Plan to comply with parking requirements and a Variance to comply with height, the project conforms with the S.P.A. 8 zoning requirements. As described in the previous PDP for this project, the proposed revised expansion is generally within the existing building footprint (a portion of the building entry will be reconfigured and is achieved by remodeling within the building, and enclosing some outdoor deck areas). The remodeling includes converting a large portion of existing retail and restaurant spaces for use as a office or the health and fitness club, converting the existing service loading and storage areas to a pool and basketball court, and adding internal stairways to internally connect the three level health and fitness club. On the most visible elevations on P.C.H. and 6th Street, the building façade is proposed to be completely remodeled. A contemporary design is proposed to replace an existing eclectic mix of rooflines and materials. The proposed design includes curved architectural features, storefront glass and standing seam arched metal roof to help articulate the building facade. These improvements are carried to the south and east building elevations. The proposed plan revisions are consistent with the previously approved project design. The new proposed plan revisions will eliminate the central retail corridor/arcade and escalators, converting that space for the health club. The second floor retail corridor/arcade would also be eliminated to convert that space for office purposes. These changes result in a total of 33,140 square feet more of interior space than the 1987 plan . No additional building coverage, reduction of landscaping, or changes to building setbacks are proposed. The building contains only nominal landscaping on the P.C.H. frontage which is nonconforming to landscape standards of S.P.A. 8. Existing building setbacks adjacent to residential uses are 14 feet from the rear property line and 12 feet from the north side property line. The parking structure is proposed to be maintained with respect to overall parking supplies but will be improved and made more attractive with new lighting, paint, directional signing and new striping under the revised plans. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||