Agenda — Avalon City Council, October 22, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

CEQA Guidelines Article 19, commencing with Section 15300 through Section 15333 identifies 33 classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment; as such, they are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents.

Based on the Exemption Review conducted for the Project consistent with CEQA Section 15061 (a), the Project could be consistent with Section 15061(2), or exempt pursuant to a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Article 19, commencing with Section 15300. Specifically, the elements of Project identified as a removing an existing multi-story structure and replacing it with a new multi-story structure of a similar height and footprint could qualify under Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32 “In-fill Development Projects.” This class of projects is generally characterized as consistent with the City’s zoning codes, is less than 5 acres, and where the site has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species, and can be serviced by existing utilities.

Exceptions to Exemptions. Guidelines Section 15300.2 also identifies exceptions in which a project that has been deemed to be consistent with Article 19, commencing with Section 15300 through Section 15333 would be barred under the exemption class. These exceptions include1 :
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located -- a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. 1 Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; References: Sections 21084 and 21084.1, Public Resources Code; Wildlife Alive v.

Chickering (1977) 18 Cal.3d 190; League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896; Citizens for Responsible Development in West Hollywood v. City of West Hollywood (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 925; City of Pasadena v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 810; Association for the Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720; and Baird v. County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1464 CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 28 ends

4 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
The elements of Project identified as the Proposed Cameron Hotel at 301 Beacon Street could apply to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32 “In-fill Development Projects.” This class of projects is generally characterized as consistent with the City’s zoning codes, is less than 5 acres, and where the site has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species, and can be serviced by existing utilities.

The text of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 applicable to this Project is as follows:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The following analysis identifies the Project’s consistency with Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32 “In-fill Development Projects:”
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

Consistent. The Project Site is zoned by the City of Avalon as Special Commercial (SC). City of Avalon Code Section 9-6 identifies that the SC zoning district is provide an area in which both small scale residents and neighborhood retail and services can coexist harmoniously. The SC area is defined by commercial areas easterly of Catalina Avenue (between Beacon and Third Streets); south side of Beacon (Catalina Avenue to Calle del Sol); and west side of Metropole (Beacon northerly to and including City Hall site). The SC zoning district is consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the City’s 2030 General Plan/Local Coastal Plan.

The Project Site is not within any airport zone.

The Project is consistent with all applicable general plan policies. The Proposed Project is not consistent with the City’s development code with respect to Maximum Permitted Height, Maximum Permitted Lot Coverage, and Maximum Permitted Floor Area. Project approvals would include a variance which would bring the Project into compliance with the Development Code thereby meeting the City’s requirements.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

Consistent. The Project site is approximately 0.08 acre. The Project Site is bounded on the north by Beacon Street and Avalon Community Church, on the east by Residential housing (duplex) and the CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 29 ends

Beacon Hill Senior Apartments, on the south by multi-family housing, and on the west Metropole Avenue and Hotel St. Lauren (a seven-story hotel).

Therefore, the Project occurs within city limits on a vacant parcel of no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

Consistent. The entire parcel contains the building and a parking lot. Only one Pepper Tree exists on site, which would be removed during demolition of the building. The applicant is required to follow all existing regulations, including abiding by the MBTA, which prohibits the take of nesting birds, during construction to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to various species. The applicant has proposed Best Management Practices that serve to comply with the MBTA, and which the City would include as Conditions of Approval to enforce compliance with these regulations. The applicantproposed measures include performing a pre-construction nesting bird survey that would ensure compliance with MBTA. These measures are further identified in Section 2.4.4 of this document.

Therefore, the Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

Consistent. The following discussion provides the analysis of these criteria:

TRAFFIC
The Project is a 37-room hotel with four employee suites. There would be one golf cart provided for use by the hotel staff. Patrons of the hotel would arrive either by walking or by rideshare/taxi that would drop off patrons at the curb adjacent to the Beacon Street entrance; Beacon Street is approximately 34 feet wide in this location. Additionally, access to other hotels in the City are also by drop-off by ride share/taxi or by walk-in patrons, with some taxis/rideshares carrying passengers to multiple hotels in one trip.

The Applicant’s workforce for Hamilton Cove would be shuttled from the hotel to the job site in various vehicles, depending on the number of crew members to be transported. The vehicles used to shuttle employees are stored at the Hamilton Cove job site.

Standard Trip Generation Estimate
The Project’s potential trip generation was calculated based on the Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition) for a Motel. The ITE Motel use is defined as a place of lodging that provides sleeping accommodations and often a restaurant. They generally offer free on-site parking and provide little or no meeting space and few (if any) supporting facilities. The Proposed Project does not offer parking or meeting spaces.

It should be noted that the Project is proposed as an “in-fill” in an environment that has access to transit and pedestrian convenience and that the existing building was at one time used for permanent and transient housing. And though access to the Proposed hotel will be 100 percent from transit and CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 30 ends

pedestrian usage, the ITE Motel classification assumes 100 percent car trips to the site and does not account for projects that are 100 percent reliant on other modes of transportation.

For calculation purposes using the ITE method, the total number of 41 rooms was used, which consists of 37 hotel rooms and four employee studio rooms. Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation per ITE is an estimate of potential traffic generation from the Proposed Project based on the ITE.

Table 3: Estimated Trip Generation per ITE
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use
Generation Units In Out Total In Out Total Daily
Trip Generation Rates Motel (ITE Code 320) 0.13 0.22 0.35 0.19 0.17 0.36 3.35 Trip Generation 41 Rooms 5.33 9.02 14.35 7.79 6.97 14.76 58.22 Total Trip Generation 5 9 14 8 7 15 58
Notes:

1. Trip generation based on rates for Land Use 320 - "Motel" from Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (11th Edition).

2. AM Peak Hour: 7 AM and 9 AM / PM Peak Hour: between 4 PM and 6 PM

3. Daily rate calculation includes AM and PM Peak hours Trip Reduction Calculation Due to Transportation Mode
Due to the growing number of urban in-fill projects where other modes of transportation could be used, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in 2009, commissioned a study of travel characteristics of in-fill development in California’s metropolitan areas(Study). 2 The Study noted that
during local land use review and development permitting processes, public agencies commonly require estimates of vehicle travel impacts associated with proposed land use projects, assessments of their potential contribution to traffic congestion, and identification of appropriate mitigation strategies. These strategies often include mitigation fees, private developer contributions, special tax assessment districts, and specific infrastructure improvements.

In preparing traffic and transportation impact analyses, professionals often rely on the ITE published trip-generation rates for various types of land uses. However, ITE data typically reflects isolated suburban development usually lacking availability and proximity of transit service, and the ITE study sites are located such that they are difficult to access by walking or bicycling. The Study indicated that the use of ITE trip-generation rates for proposed urban in-fill development projects served by transit and having good pedestrian access could significantly over- predict vehicular traffic impacts. The Study evaluated various land uses, such as high-rise apartments, retail, office, and several restaurant types.

A hotel/motel was not among the land uses studied. However, the result of the Study was that for all land uses studied, the ITE calculation rate was an average of 35 percent higher in the AM and 26 percent higher in the PM than what was actually observed. 2 Trip-Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California, Phase 2: Data Collection, FINAL REPORT, Prepared For: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Headquarters Divisions of Transportation Planning and Research & Innovation Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., June 15, 2009
CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 31 ends

Figure 6: ITE and In-Fill Study Excerpt represents an excerpt from the results of the 2009 study.

Figure 6: ITE and In-Fill Study Excerpt
CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 32 ends

For the Proposed Project, assuming the statistical average from the Study, the estimated Trip Generation is provided in Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation In-Fill Rates.

Table 4: Estimated Trip Generation In-Fill Rates
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Land Use /
Trip
Generation
Units Total
ITE
Study
Differential
Revised
Rate Difference Total
Study
Differential
Revised
Rate Difference
Trip Generation
Rates
Motel (ITE Code
320) 0.35 -35% 0.217 0.36 -26% 0.2612
Trip Generation 41 Rooms 14.35 8.897 14.76 10.7092
Total Trip
Generation 14 9 -5 15 11 -4
Based on both the ITE (Table 3), and an assumed reduced rate for an in-fill project (Table 4), the Project would not generate significant traffic.

The Project proposes the drop-off/pick-up to be the Beacon Street frontage/curb. Beacon Street is approximately 34 feet wide. Given that most taxies and rideshares throughout the City provide curbside surface, this practice would be the same as with other hotels, and there is adequate road width along Beacon where the temporary drop off/pick up would not impede the general flow of traffic.

Therefore, approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) criteria for traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality (emphasis added) because intersections and roadways would continue to operate at acceptable levels, and the Project would contribute to funding of future road improvements as deemed necessary by the City.

NOISE
A Noise Impact Study was prepared for the Project (Appendix B - 301 Beacon Street Hotel – Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment – Avalon, CA, MD Acoustics, July 26, 2024.

Regulatory Setting
Section 5-13.04 of the City's Municipal Code defines noise districts within the city as follows:

1. District 1. Predominately residential with other land use types also present.

2. District 2. Predominately commercial with other land use types also present.

3. District 3. Mixed land use types present including commercial and residential.

4. Waterside/Harbor District. Area includes Avalon Harbor, Descanso Bay and areas within 20 feet of the mean high tide.

According to the Noise District Map in Section 5-13.04, land uses to the northeast of the Project site are considered a Noise Sensitive Zone. The Project site and all other surrounding land uses are within the District 3 Noise Zone.

CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 33 ends

Key regulations include the following:

Per Section 5-13.05: it shall be unlawful for any person to create any noise adjacent to any school, institution of learning, or church while the same is in use or adjacent to any hospital at any time, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in a hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed on such street, sidewalk, or public place indicating the presence of a school, church, or hospital.

Per Section 5-13.06: construction within 500 feet ofresidentialzones, hotels, ormotelsis unlawful between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time on Sundays.

Per Section 5-13.08: any radio receiving set, musical instrument, sound amplifying equipment, television set, or other machine or device which produces or reproducessound is not allowed if it is plainly audible at the neighboring property line between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. for District 1 Noise Zones. The same is prohibited for Districts 2 and 3 at any time unless it is permitted by a Special Use Permit.

Study Methodology
Three 15-minute ambient noise measurements were conducted at the project site on May 1, 2024.

The sound level meter measured the Leq, Lmin, Lmax, and other statistical data (e.g., L2, L8…). The noise measurements were taken to determine the existing ambient noise levels. Noise data indicates that traffic is the primary source of noise impacting the site and the adjacent uses. This assessment utilizes the ambient noise data as a basis and compares project operational levels to said data.

The Project’s potential noise was modeled using SoundPLAN (SP) acoustical modeling software that is capable of evaluating multiple stationary noise source impacts at various receiver locations. SP’s software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law and reference equipment noise level data) to calculate noise level projections. The software allows the user to input specific noise sources, spectral content, sound barriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations.

Construction Noise
It is assumed that mostly hand tools and limited power equipment would be used during demolition and construction. However, construction is required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 5-13.06 which prohibits construction within 500 feet of residential zones, hotels, or motels between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time on Sundays.

As such, there would be a less than significant impact from construction noise.

Operational Noise
The Project’s future worst-case noise level projections were modeled using referenced sound level data for the various stationary on-site sources (rooftop mechanical equipment, crowd noise, speaker).

The roof will include 16 rooftop air conditioning (AC) units in a designated mechanical area and a maximum of 70 to 90 people for rooftop events. As a worst-case scenario, the model assumes that the 16 rooftop AC units are operating simultaneously and continuously in the mechanical area and that the maximum crowd capacity (approximately 90 people) is gathered on the roof throughout the CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 34 ends

hour, and 50 percent of people talking at the same time. Each AC unit will have a sound power level of 68 dBA. The 16 rooftop units were modeled as four point sources. Each point source represents four AC units with a total sound power level of 74 dBA. The crowd of 90 people was modeled as an area source within SoundPLAN.

Per Section 5-13.08, sound-amplifying equipment is not allowed between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. if it is plainly audible at the neighboring property line. Thus, the Noise Impact Study in Appendix B evaluated what the maximum sound power level of a speaker could be without being plainly audible at the property line. It takes a change of 3 dB or more for the human ear to perceive a difference. If the rooftop speaker has a maximum sound power level of 73 dBA, then the ambient noise of surrounding land uses would increase by a maximum of 2 dB, which is not a perceptible change. Thus, the speaker was modeled as a point source with a sound power level of 73 dBA.

Figure 6: Projected Operational Noise Impacts shows the anticipated future noise level projections and contours based on the Proposed Project design. The model indicates that the Project-only noise level would be 42 to 52 dBA at the surrounding receptors. The Project plus ambient noise level is projected to be 51 to 60 dBA Leq. The Project would increase the existing ambient noise level by 0 dB at the northeast sensitive noise zone during rooftop usage and meets the standards set in Section 5-

13.05. The Project would increase the existing noise level by 1 to 2 dB at surrounding Special Commercial receptors. Table 5: Change in Noise Level Characteristics provides the characteristics associated with changes in noise levels. Table 6: Worst-Case Predicted Operational Noise Levels (dBA) identifies the potential operational noise.

Table 5: Change in Noise Level Characteristics
Changes in Intensity Level,
dBA
Changes in Apparent
Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm Table 6: Worst-Case Predicted Operational Noise Levels (dBA) Receptor1
Existing Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)3
Total Combined
Noise Level (dBA,
Leq)
Change in Noise
Level as Result of
Project
1 60 41 60 0
2 55 47 56 1
3 55 45 55 0
4 47 43 49 2
Notes:

1. Receptor 1 represents sensitive noise zones and Receptors 2 through 4 representspecial commercialzones. 2. See Appendix B for the ambient noise measurement. 3. See Exhibit B for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.

CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842 Figure 7: Projected Operational Noise Impacts
Source: MD Acoustics Not to Scale
Figure 7: Projected Operational Noise Impacts
CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 36 ends

Figure 6 shows the future noise level projections and contours based on the proposed project design.

The model indicates that the Project-only noise level will be 41 to 47 dBA at the surrounding receptors.

The Project ambient noise level is projected to be 49 to 60 dBA Leq. The Project will increase the existing ambient noise level by 0 dB at the northeast sensitive noise zone during rooftop events and meets the standards set in Section 5-13.05.

The Project would increase the existing noise level by 0 to 2 dB at surrounding Special Commercial receptors. As shown in Table 6, the change in noise level would be "Not Perceptible" at Receptors 1 through 4. Because of the unique frequencies of speech, it is more likely to be perceptible even if it only increases the ambient by 0 to 2 dB. However, there will not be a perceptible increase in general loudness. The City noise code does not specify a quantitative noise standard but instead prohibits unreasonably loud and disturbing noise. The total ambient noise level of 49 to 56 dBA Leq is approximately the same noise level as a typical residential neighborhood and would not be considered unreasonable. Additionally, full-capacity rooftop events will occur infrequently and for a few hours at a time. Thus, the change in noise level would be less than significant.

AIR QUALITY
An Air Quality assessment was prepared for this Project (Appendix C - 301 Beacon Street Hotel – Focused Air Quality Impact Study, City of Avalon, CA, MD Acoustics, May 8, 2024). The study in Appendix C utilized the latest version of CalEEMod (2022.1.1.14) to calculate both the construction and operational emissions from the Project Site. Project construction is modeled to commence no earlier than September 2024 and be completed by August 2025. Construction assumes demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. CalEEmod defaults were utilized. The study in Appendix C identified that construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD’s daily emission thresholds at the regional level.

Table 7: Regional Significance – Operational Emissions (lbs/day) identifies the Project operations emission impacts would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors, located adjacent to the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant Localized Operational emissions.

CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 37 ends

Table 7: Regional Significance – Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Activity
Pollutant Emissions(pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources2 1.99 0.02 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage3 0.03 0.51 0.43 0.00 0.04 0.04
Mobile Sources4 1.16 0.71 7.68 0.02 1.44 0.37
Total Emissions 3.18 1.24 10.89 0.02 1.48 0.41
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.14
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

Because the Air Quality Analysis determined that the Project emissions would not exceed thresholds, approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) criteria for traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality (emphasis added).

WATER QUALITY
During construction, the applicant is required by the RWQCB to address water quality and runoff during construction to ensure that stormwater would not runoff the property or cause excessive soil to run off the property. Therefore, there would be no to less than significant impacts on water quality during construction.

Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable regulations, approval of the Project would not result in any significant effects relating to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) criteria for traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality (emphasis added). (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Consistent. The site would be served by the following utilities which have readily available capacity:
• Water: Southern California Edison
• Electrical: Southern California Edison
• Gas: Southern California Edison
• Wastewater: City of Avalon
The Project would be served by existing electrical, gas and others such as cable. All Project utilities for gas, electric and water are served by Southern California Edison (SCE). Because the building was already served by SCE for gas and electric, utility connections exist. City applicants must obtain a “ water allotment” from SCE for their project. For this Project, SCE has determined that the applicant currently has 10 units for water service and 34 water units after SCE completes its capital improvements to the CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 38 ends

water system, scheduled for between the summer of 2024 end of 2025, although an exact schedule on when SCE would release the 34 additional credits is not known at this time. The Project would be developed in two phases to coincide with the SCE water allotments for the property. In accordance with SCE water allotment guidelines, the Project can currently only develop occupiable facilities that represent 10 water units until SCE develops additional capital improvements. With these capital improvements in place, SCE would be able to serve water to the additional 34 units.

Existing sewer infrastructure was supplied to the building and would be re-used Therefore, the Project Site can be adequately served by all utilities and public services.

CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 39 ends

5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION EXCEPTIONS ANALYSIS
As previously discussed, Guidelines Section 15300.2 also identifies exceptions in which a project that has been deemed to be consistent with a class of projects may not have an impact on the environment but would not qualify under the exemption class under certain criteria. The criteria as outlined in Guidelines Section 15300.2 are provided in italicized type, and the consistency evaluation response is provided in standard type.
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

Discussion. The Project qualifies as Class 32. Therefore, this exception criterion is not applicable. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

Discussion. The City of Avalon is a small community, mostly built out. Construction of various smaller projects are on-going throughout the City. There are no other proposed hotel or large projects on file with the City within the immediate Project vicinity. Therefore, Project construction and operations are anticipated to create a less than significant cumulative impact. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

Discussion. The Project would demolish an existing building that has been deemed not structurally sound. The demolition would be conducted primarily with hand tools and limited power equipment, as well as required to comply with all laws. Standard construction methods would be used. There are no unusual circumstances associated with this Project. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

Discussion. There are no scenic highways with resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway located along the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact. (e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Discussion. Section 65962.5(a)(1) requires that Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) “shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all the following: ....(1) [a]ll hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code (“HSC”).” The CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 40 ends

hazardous waste facilities identified in HSC § 25187.5 are those where DTSC has taken or contracted for corrective action because a facility owner/operator has failed to comply with a date for taking corrective action in an order issued under HSC § 25187, or because DTSC determined that immediate corrective action was necessary to abate an imminent or substantial endangerment. This is known as the “Cortese List.” This is a very small and specific subgroup of facilities and they are not separately posted on the DTSC or Cal/EPA’s website. The following databases that meet the “Cortese List” requirements were reviewed for this Project.

Envirostore Database. HSC § 25356(b)(1) requires “a listing of hazardous substance release sites selected for, and subject to, a response action under this chapter.” HSC § 25356(b)(2) requires DTSC to “update the list of sites at least annually to reflect new information regarding previously listed sites or the addition of new sites requiring response action.” The implementing regulations provide that sites may be listed pursuant to HSC § 25356 if (a) they are not owned by the Federal Government and (b) a release or threatened release of hazardous substances has been confirmed by on-site sampling. (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 67400.1). DTSC’s list of sites that meet those criteria as well as the criteria in HSC § 25356(c), is found in a report in DTSC’s “Envirostor” database. There are no sites listed on the EnviroStore database within the Project area.

Geotracker Database. Geotracker is the SWRCB’s database that manages potential hazardous sites to groundwater. There are no sites identified on the Project Site, or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not be located on any site that has been identified in accordance with Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Therefore, the Project is not located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, nor is there any indication of hazardous waste. (f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Discussion. Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines defines historical resources, which includes: A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).

Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(q) defines “Substantial adverse change” as the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 (b)(1) and (b)(2) clarify that the impairment must be material and states that material impairment of a historical resource would occur when the Project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.” CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842

Page 41 ends

A Historical Resources Assessment was prepared for this Project (Appendix D – 301 Beacon Street, Historic Resources Assessment, ESA, February 2024) to determine if the existing building is considered a historical resource and eligible for the California or Federal Register of Historic Places.

Through research, survey, and subsequent evaluation under the applicable Federal and State eligibility criteria, the survey in Appendix D identified that the building located at 301 Beacon Street does not retain historical or architectural significance and should be assigned a code 6Z meaning it is ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation.

Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because there are no historical resources on site.

CEQA Exemption Compliance Determination August 2024
301 Beacon Street (Beacon Hill Hotel) - Planning Commission Application No. 2842 6 DETERMINATION
I find that the Project titled, Proposed Cameron Hotel at 301 Beacon Street, Planning Commission Application No. 2842, is consistent with 14 CCR, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15332, Class 32 “In-Fill Development Projects” because: the Project Site is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning regulations; occurs within City limits on a site less than 5 acres; the site has no habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; approval of the Project would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the Project Site and can be serviced by existing utilities. I have evaluated the criteria for the exceptions to the exemptions as identified in Guidelines Section 14 CCR, Chapter 3, Article 19, Section 15300.2 and found that there are no exceptions to the use of an exemption for the Project. Therefore, no further analysis is required. A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County of Los Angeles Clerk of the Board.

PREPARED BY:

Name Mary E. Lanier
Title President, McKenna Lanier Group, Inc.
(Date) 8/19/24

CITY OF AVALON
Signed:

Date:

Categorical Exemption Justification
Proposed Cameron Hotel
301 Beacon Street
Planning Commission Application No. 2842
Appendix A
Architectural Plans

Applicant: Hamilton Pacific LLC
Project Data
APN: 7480-31-53, City of Avalon, Los
Angeles County
Address: 301 Beacon Street, Avalon CA
Gross: 3,325 SF Net: 3,325 SF
Zoning: Special Commercial
Proposed Use: Hotel
37 Hotel Rooms
4 Employee Suites
Off-Street Parking: one golf cart
Trash Enclosure: 1 per City Standards
Building Interior: Rooftop Deck:

First Floor: 3,020 SF Elevator: 70 SF
Second Floor: 2,992 SF Bathroom/Kitchen Pre/Bar: 480 SF Third Floor: 3,100 SF Mechanical Storage: 308 SF
Fourth Floor: 3,100 SF Open Seating Area: 1,800 SF
Total: 12, 212 SF Total: 2,658 SF
FAR: Permitted Existing Proposed
140% 177% 383%
Lot Coverage:

Permitted Existing Proposed
80% 80% 97%
E
well well
95' 0"
21' 0"
13' 8"
15' 0"
First/Ground Floor
1/8 " = 1 foot
Front Desk
Stairs
1 Managers Room
4 Hotel Rooms
ref
Kitchen
21' 4"
21' 0"
20' 0"
14' 4"
17 Beds

THE CAMERON HOTEL
3' 0"
5' 0"
Down
Desk
Powder bath
13' 4"
230
sq.ft
20' 6"
14' 2"
294
sq.ft
5' 6"
68 sq.ft
216
sq.ft 55
sq.ft
55 sq.ft
205
sq.ft
11' 8"
4' 0"
Managers
Room # 1
Room #2 Room #3
Lobby
Room # 4 Room # 5 Room # 6 Room #7 Room # 8
206
sq.ft
197
sq.ft
3 Workforce Rooms
4 beds per room
8 rooms
Luggage Storage
211
sq.ft
55 sq.ft
55 sq.ft
208
sq.ft Closet
E
210
sq.ft
Emergency Access

WELL WELL
Site:
9910 Administration Sq.

Drawing:
801506
Project:
0000416
Drawn:

Name
Notes: Acme Builders Corp
1234 Oak Road
Yorktown, NY 10598 Title:
1 st Floor Office Remodel
Scale:
1/4":1'0"
Date:
01/30/2017
Rev:

A
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
13' 6"
SH
SH
1/8 " = 1 Foot
15' 0"
13' 0"
14' 10 11/16"
6' 0"
13' 0"
5' 2"
6' 0"
13' 0"
5' 2"
5' 2"
6' 0" 13' 0"
13' 0"
13' 1 5/16"
6' 0"
13' 0"
6' 0"
13' 0"
SH
13' 8"
9' 0"
9' 0"
Second Floor

PARKING
Housekeeper
11 Rooms
10 Hotel Rooms
1 Workforce Room
94' 10 11/16"
3' 0"
SH
Set
Back
6' 4"
SH
3' 0"
The Cameron Hotel
Stair
ROOM # 9 ROOM # 10 ROOM # 11 ROOM # 12 ROOM # 13
ROOM # 14
ROOM # 15 ROOM # 16 ROOM # 17 ROOM # 18 ROOM # 19
E E
CL
CL
SH
SH
CL
SH
SH
SH
SH
CL SH
CL
SH
1/8 " = 1 Foot
CL
5' 0"
5' 0"
CL
CL
CL
SH
CL
SH
Housekeeper
10 Hotel Rooms
1 Workforce Room
CL

THE CAMERON HOTEL
Third Floor
11 Rooms
E E
98' 0"
7' 0"
Laundry
Storage
ROOM # 20
35' 0"
ROOM # 21 ROOM # 22 ROOM # 23 ROOM # 24
ROOM # 25
ROOM # 26 ROOM # 27 ROOM # 28 ROOM # 29 ROOM # 30
CL
CL
SH
SH
CL
SH
SH
SH
SH
CL SH
CL
SH
CL
5' 0"
5' 0"
CL
CL
CL
SH
Laundry
8' 0"
CL
SH
11 Rooms
10 Hotel Rooms
1 Workforce Room
Beacon Hotel
Fourth Floor
35' 0"
Storage
ROOM # 31 ROOM #32 ROOM # 33 ROOM # 34 ROOM # 35
ROOM # 36
ROOM # 37 ROOM # 38 ROOM # 39 ROOM # 40 ROOM # 41
Stairs
98' 0" 2' 8"
Elevator
8 FT x 9 FT
70 SF
Existing Grade
45 ft
12 ft
45 ft
33 ft

THE CAMERON HOTEL
Metropole
Beacon
28 ft
10 ft
40 ft
10 ft 52 ft
44 ft
Measured
from flow
line of curb
Beacon Street
front Elevation
Occupancy Phase 1
First Floor
8 Rooms: • 1 Managers • 7 hotel rooms
(standard
double
occupancy)
Final Planned
Occupancy
Upon Water
Allotment
First Floor
8 Rooms:
• 1 Managers • 4 hotel rooms
(standard
occupancy)
• 3 hotel rooms
multiple
occupancy
Categorical Exemption Justification
Proposed Cameron Hotel
301 Beacon Street
Planning Commission Application No. 2842
Appendix B
301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
MD Acoustics
July 26, 2024

AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256 Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
July 26, 2024
Ms. Julie Gilbert
Compass Consulting Enterprises, Inc.

PO Box 2627
Avalon, CA 90704
Subject: 301 Beacon Street Hotel – Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment – Avalon, CA Dear Ms. Gilbert:

MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a noise impact assessment for the proposed hotel project located at 301 Beacon Street in the City of Avalon, CA. The Project has filed for a Categorical 32 Exemption (Cat32) in which an “Infill” Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332) exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain criteria. The class consists of environmentally benign infill projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and Zoning requirements. This class is not intended for projects that would result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. It may apply to residential, commercial, industrial, and/or mixed-use projects.

This noise assessment intends to demonstrate the Project’s compliance with applicable noise regulations and lack of significant noise impacts. A list of definitions and terminology is located in Appendix A.

1.0 Project Description and Assessment Overview
The Project site is located at 301 Beacon Street within the City of Avalon, California, as shown in Exhibit A.

The site is currently zoned as Special Commercial. Land zoning surrounding the site includes Special Commercial to the north, south, southeast, and west, and Commercial to the northeast. Metropole Avenue is to the northwest, and Beacon Street is to the northeast. The Catalina Airport is located approximately 6 miles northwest of the Project site.

The Project proposes a four (4) story hotel with multiple uses consisting of 34 hotel rooms, four (4) hotel employee studio units, six (6) workforce/bunkrooms, and a rooftop deck for guests. The rooftop deck will include a kitchen, bar, and restrooms, and will have a maximum capacity of 70 to 90 people. Weddings and events may occur on the rooftop deck, but a special permit is required for each event. Amplified speech and music is not allowed unless a special permit is granted. The rooftop operational hours will be 8 AM to 10 PM for events and typical operations. The hotel will also include a lobby, front desk, and laundry/storage facilities. See Appendix B for the architectural plans.

2.0 Fundamentals of Noise
The following provides basic information about noise and presents some of the terms used within the report.
301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524

2.1 Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels
In general, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz (Aweighted scale), and it perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. For purposes of this report, as well as with most environmental documents, the A-scale weighting is typically reported in terms of A-weighted decibel (dBA). Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB. A change in 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change in 10 dB is perceived as being twice or half as loud. As previously discussed, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.

Table 1: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1
Changes in Intensity Level,
dBA
Changes in Apparent
Loudness
1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud 1
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm Because of the unique frequencies of speech and music, it is more likely to be perceptible even if it increases the ambient by 0 to 2 dB. However, there will not be a perceptible increase in general loudness.

2.2 Noise Descriptors
Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, others are random. Some noise levels are constant, while others are sporadic. Noise descriptors were created to describe the different time-varying noise levels.

A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Ambient Noise Level: The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. In this context, the ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after the addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals. 301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).

Equivalent Sound Level (LEQ): The sound level corresponding to a steady noise level over a given sample period with the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying noise level. The energy average noise level during the sample period.

Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, and similar spaces.

L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90 and L99, etc.

Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound that is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing, is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as "...excessive undesirable sound...".

Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc., associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas, and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).

Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

3.0 Local Acoustical Requirements and CEQA Guidelines
The City of Avalon has outlined the following within the Avalon Municipal Code as it relates to noise regulation:

Section 5-13.04 defines noise districts within the city as follows:

1. District 1. Predominately residential with other land use types also present. 301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524

2. District 2. Predominately commercial with other land use types also present.

3. District 3. Mixed land use types present including commercial and residential.

4. Waterside/Harbor District. Area includes Avalon Harbor, Descanso Bay and areas within 20 feet of the mean high tide.

Per Section 5-13.05, it shall be unlawful for any person to create any noise adjacent to any school, institution of learning, or church while the same is in use or adjacent to any hospital at any time, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in a hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed on such street, sidewalk, or public place indicating the presence of a school, church, or hospital.

Per Section 5-13.06, construction within 500 feet of residential zones, hotels, or motels is unlawful between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time on Sundays.

Per Section 5-13.08, any radio receiving set, musical instrument, sound amplifying equipment, television set, or other machine or device which produces or reproduces sound is not allowed if it is plainly audible at the neighboring property line between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. for District 1 Noise Zones. The same is prohibited for Districts 2 and 3 at any time unless it is permitted by a Special Use Permit.

According to CEQA guidelines, the Project would have a potential impact if it resulted in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.0 Study Method and Procedure

4.1 Ambient Noise Measurements
Three (3) 15-minute ambient noise measurements were conducted at the project site on May 1, 2024. The sound level meter measured the Leq, Lmin, Lmax, and other statistical data (e.g., L2, L8…). The noise measurements were taken to determine the existing ambient noise levels. Noise data indicates that traffic is the primary source of noise impacting the site and the adjacent uses. This assessment utilizes the ambient noise data as a basis and compares project operational levels to said data. 301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
The results of the short-term noise data are presented in Table 2. NM1 was taken at the southeast corner of the site. NM2 was taken at the southwest corner of the site and represents the noise level of Metropole Avenue traffic at 20 feet from the centerline. NM3 was taken at the northwest corner of the site and represents the noise level of combined traffic from Metropole Avenue and Beacon Street at 10 feet from the centerline of Metropole Avenue and 20 feet from the centerline of Beacon Street. See Appendix C for noise monitoring locations.

Table 2: Short-Term Measurement Summary, dBA
Location Start Time Stop Time Leq Lmax Lmin L(2) L(8) L(25) L(50) L(90) NM1 7:54 AM 8:09 AM 47.2 61.5 36.5 54.6 51.8 47.2 43.7 39.2 NM2 8:14 AM 8:29 AM 55.0 68.6 42.9 59.8 57.1 55.5 54.7 49.3 NM3 8:30 AM 8:45 AM 63.7 74.3 51.0 71.6 68.6 63.5 59.5 54.8 Notes:

1. Short-term noise monitoring locations are illustrated in Appenedix C.

Noise data indicates the ambient noise level is 47 to 64 dBA Leq at the project site and surrounding area, as outlined in the previous paragraph. Additional field notes and photographs are provided in Appendix C.

For this evaluation, MD has compared the Project’s projected noise levels to the existing ambient level.

4.2 SoundPLAN Acoustic Model
SoundPLAN (SP) acoustical modeling software was utilized to model future worst-case stationary noise impacts to the adjacent land uses. SP is capable of evaluating multiple stationary noise source impacts at various receiver locations. SP’s software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law and reference equipment noise level data) to calculate noise level projections. The software allows the user to input specific noise sources, spectral content, sound barriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations.

The future worst-case noise level projections were modeled using referenced sound level data for the various stationary on-site sources (rooftop mechanical equipment, crowd noise). The roof will include 16 rooftop AC units in a designated mechanical area and a maximum of 70 to 90 people for rooftop events. As a worst-case scenario, the model assumes that the 16 rooftop AC units are operating simultaneously and continuously in the mechanical area and that the maximum crowd capacity (approximately 90 people) is gathered on the roof throughout the hour, and 50% of people talking at the same time. Each AC unit will have a sound power level of 68 dBA. The 16 rooftop units were modeled as four (4) point sources. Each point source represents four (4) AC units with a total sound power level of 74 dBA. The crowd of 90 people was modeled as an area source within SoundPLAN. Appendix E provides the SoundPLAN inputs and outputs.

4.3 FHWA Traffic Noise Model
The traffic noise analysis utilizes the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model, together with several key construction parameters. Key input speed, site conditions, trip generation, and vehicle mix data. The modeling does not take into account any existing barriers, structures, and/or topographical features that may further reduce noise levels.
301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 6
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
The FHWA Traffic Noise Model was used for Project-only traffic noise; however, existing Avalon traffic counts were unavailable for this analysis. Thus, MD utilized the ambient noise measurements to predict the existing noise levels due to traffic. The noise level at NM3 represents the noise level of combined traffic from Metropole Avenue and Beacon Street at 10 feet from the centerline of Metropole Avenue and 20 feet from the centerline of Beacon Street. NM2 represents the noise level of Metropole Avenue traffic at 20 feet from the centerline. MD thus calculated the existing traffic noise level to be 55 dBA Leq due to Metropole Avenue traffic and 60 dBA Leq due to Beacon Street traffic at the nearest residences. See Appendix B for traffic noise calculations.

4.4 FHWA Construction Noise Model
The construction noise analysis utilizes the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) methodology, together with several key construction parameters. Key inputs include distance to the sensitive receiver, equipment usage, % usage factor, and baseline parameters for the project site. The Project was analyzed based on the different construction phases. The FHWA has compiled data regarding the noise-generated characteristics of typical construction activities, which is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: RCNM Measured Noise Emission Reference Levels1 Type Typical Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA)
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Grader 85
Tractor 84
Roller 80
Crane 81
Man Lift 75
Concrete Mixer Truck 79
Air Compressor 78
Notes: 1 Referenced Noise Levels from the FHWA RCNM.

4.5 Construction Vibration Model
Construction activities can produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent land uses. The construction of the proposed Project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary vibration source during construction may be from a large bulldozer. A bulldozer has a vibration impact of 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet which is likely perceptible but below any risk of architectural damage.

The fundamental equation used to calculate vibration propagation through average soil conditions and distance is as follows:

PPVequipment = PPVref (25/Drec)
n
301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 7
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
Where: PPVref = reference PPV at 25ft.

Drec = distance from equipment to receiver in ft.
n = 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) The thresholds from the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Induced Vibration Guidance Manual provide general thresholds and guidelines as to the vibration damage potential from vibratory impacts.

5.0 Traffic Noise Level Projections
Traffic noise along Metropole Avenue and Beacon Street will be the main source of noise impacting the project site and the surrounding area. The Project projects 368 daily trips per CalEEMod. MD understands that many of the vehicles in the City of Avalon are gas golf carts, which are often louder than typical automobiles, as noted during the field visit. Thus, MD adjusted the vehicle distribution to 33% automobiles and 67% medium trucks to account for the louder golf carts. The model assumes that one-third (92) of the trips occur along Metropole Avenue and that two-thirds (276) occur along Beacon Street. Project-only traffic noise levels are anticipated to be 51 dBA Leq along Metropole Avenue and 56 dBA Leq along Beacon Street during daytime hours (see Appendix D). The project will thus increase the existing traffic noise level by a maximum of 2 dB. It takes a change of 3 dB or more for the human ear to perceive a difference. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

6.0 Project Operational Noise Level Projections
Typical Project operations will consist of rooftop mechanical equipment surrounded by a parapet wall and will have little to no impact on surrounding receptors. Worst-case operational noise includes the occasional rooftop event in addition to the rooftop mechanical equipment.

Sensitive receptors affected by the project operational noise include Special Commercial zoning to the south, east, and west, and a church to the northeast considered a Noise Sensitive Zone. A total of four (4) receptors were modeled to accurately evaluate the future operational noise levels at the surrounding receptors. A yellow dot denotes a receptor. R1 represents the noise level at the northeast noise-sensitive zone, and R2 through R4 represent the noise level at the Special Commercial zones surrounding the Project site. All yellow dots represent either a property line or a sensitive receptor, such as a sensitive outdoor area or building façade (see Exhibit B).

Table 4 presents the measured ambient noise level, the project’s noise level, and the combined project plus ambient noise level condition.
<Table 4, next page>
301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 8
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
Table 4: Worst-Case Predicted Operational Noise Levels (dBA)1 Receptor1
Existing Ambient
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)2
Project
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)3
Total Combined
Noise Level
(dBA, Leq)
Change in Noise
Level as Result
of Project
1 60 41 60 0
2 55 47 56 1
3 55 45 55 0
4 47 43 49 2
Notes:

1. Receptor 1 represents sensitive noise zones and Receptors 2 through 4 represent special commercial zones. 2. See Appendix A for the ambient noise measurement. 3. See Exhibit B for the operational noise level projections at said receptors.

Exhibit B shows the future noise level projections and contours based on the proposed project design. The model indicates that the project-only noise level will be 41 to 47 dBA at the surrounding receptors. The project plus ambient noise level is projected to be 49 to 60 dBA Leq. The project will increase the existing ambient noise level by 0 dB at the northeast sensitive noise zone during rooftop events and meets the standards set in Section 5-13.05.

The project will increase the existing noise level by 0 to 2 dB at surrounding Special Commercial receptors.

As shown in Table 1, the change in noise level would be "Not Perceptible" at Receptors 1 through 4. Because of the unique frequencies of speech, it is more likely to be perceptible even if it only increases the ambient by 0 to 2 dB. However, there will not be a perceptible increase in general loudness. The noise code does not specify a quantitative noise standard but instead prohibits unreasonably loud and disturbing noise. The total ambient noise level of 49 to 56 dBA Leq is approximately the same noise level as a typical residential neighborhood and would not be considered unreasonable. Additionally, full-capacity rooftop events will occur infrequently and for a few hours at a time. Thus, the change in noise level will be less than significant.

7.0 Construction Noise Impact

7.1 Construction Noise Projections
The degree of construction noise may vary for different areas of the project site and also vary depending on the construction activities. Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different phases of construction. Due to the proximity of surrounding receptors, all construction equipment should be equipped with mufflers to minimize impact. Table 5 presents the construction noise levels at sensitive receptors, assuming equipment includes the implementation of 15 dB mufflers. A likely worst-case construction noise scenario assumes equipment is operating as close as 10 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor and an average of 25 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor through an hour time period. See Appendix F for calculations.
301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 9
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
Table 5: Projected Construction Noise Levels (dBA, Leq)1 Location Phase Construction Noise Level (Lmax) Construction Noise Level (Leq) Adjacent Eastern Properties
Demo 88 74
Grade 84 74
Build 83 71
Arch Coat 77 64
The project construction activities must follow the Municipal Code restriction of using equipment within 500 feet of residences, hotels, and motels outside of the permitted times. Construction noise will, therefore, comply with the local ordinances, and the impact will be less than significant when abiding by the best management practices listed in Section 7.3.

7.2 Construction Vibration Projections
Large equipment should not get closer than 10 feet to the nearest residential buildings surrounding the Project site. At a distance of 10 feet, a large bulldozer would yield a worst-case 0.244 PPV (in/sec), which will be perceptible but below any risk of damage (0.3 in/sec PPV is the threshold of old residential structures). The impact is less than significant if the noise reduction best management practices in Section

7.3 are taken. See Appendix F for calculations.

7.3 Construction Noise and Vibration Reduction Best Management Practices Construction operations must follow the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states that construction, repair, or excavation work performed must occur within the permissible hours. To further ensure that construction activities do not disrupt the adjacent land uses, the following best management practices are recommended:

1. Ensure construction occurs during the hours of 8AM to 7PM on weekdays and Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, in accordance with the City of Avalon’s Noise Ordinance.

2. Equip all construction equipment with 15 dB mufflers.

3. Locate equipment staging areas as far away as possible from the sensitive receptors.

4. Utilize heavy equipment no less than 10’ away from existing buildings.

5. Turn off idling equipment when not in use.

6. Maintain equipment so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.

8.0 Conclusions
The Project will be compliant with the City’s noise ordinance and CEQA guidelines with the implementation of the noise reduction best management practices listed in Section 7.3. In addition, the Project will not generate a noise impact during operation. The Project is not within 2 miles of an airport. MD is pleased to 301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 10
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
provide this noise assessment for the proposed Project. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please call our office at (805) 426-4477.

Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC

Rachel Edelman Claire Pincock, INCE-USA
Acoustical Consultant Acoustical Consultant
301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 11
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
Exhibit A
Location Map
Site

301 Beacon Street Hotel
Cat32 Exemption Noise Impact Assessment
Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 12
JN: 08052405_Letter Report_072524
Exhibit B
Operational Noise Levels

Appendix A
Glossary of Acoustical Terms

Glossary of Terms
A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): The average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of five (5) decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 PM and after the addition of ten (10) decibels to sound levels in the night before 7:00 AM and after 10:00 PM.

Decibel (dB): A unit for measuring the amplitude of a sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micro-pascals.
dB(A): A-weighted sound level (see definition above).

L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly L50, L90, L99, etc.

Noise: Any unwanted sound or sound which is undesirable because it interferes with speech and hearing or is intense enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. The State Noise Control Act defines noise as “...excessive undesirable sound...”.

Noise Criteria (NC) Method: This metric plots octave band sound levels against a family of reference curves, with the number rating equal to the highest tangent line value as demonstrated in Figure

1. Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Room Criterion (RC) Method: When sound quality
in the space is important, the RC metric provides a
diagnostic tool to quantify both the speech
interference level and spectral imbalance.

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound
pressure level obtained by use of a sound level
meter having a standard frequency filter for
attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a
microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and
frequency weighting networks for the
measurement and determination of noise and
sound levels.

Sound Transmission Class (STC): To quantify STC, a Transmission Loss (TL) measurement is performed in a laboratory over a range of 16 third-octave bands between 125 – 4,000 Hertz (Hz).

The average human voice creates sound within the 125 – 4,000 Hz 1/3rd octave bands.

STC is a single-number rating given to a particular material or assembly. The STC rating measures the ability of a material or an assembly to resist airborne sound transfer over the specified frequencies (see ASTM International Classification E413 and E90). In general, a higher STC rating corresponds with a greater reduction of noise transmitting through a partition.

STC is highly dependent on the construction of the partition. The STC of a partition can be increased by: adding mass, increasing or adding air space, and adding absorptive materials within the assembly. The STC rating does not assess low-frequency sound transfer (e.g. sounds less than 125 Hz). Special consideration must be given to spaces where the noise transfer concern has lower frequencies than speech, such as mechanical equipment and or/or music. The STC rating is a lab test that does not take into consideration weak points, penetrations, or flanking paths.

Even with a high STC rating, any penetration, air-gap, or “flanking path can seriously degrade the isolation quality of a wall. Flanking paths are the means for sound to transfer from one space to another other than through the wall. Sound can flank over, under, or around a wall. Sound can also travel through common ductwork, plumbing, or corridors. Noise will travel between spaces at the weakest points. Typically, there is no reason to spend money or effort to improve the walls until all weak points are controlled first.

FIGURE 1: Sample NC Curves and
Sample Spectrum Levels
Outdoor Living Area: Outdoor spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise-sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc. associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise-sensitive activities; and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usually not included in this definition are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, maintenance areas and storage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short-term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yard areas).

Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum.

Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event.

Appendix B
Architectural Plans

PROPOSED

PROPOSED
VONS
CHURCH
Museum
Hotel
Dumpsters
Trash
Text
3 ft rear set back
33 ft - 45 ft

INTERIOR FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE
LOT SIZE: 3,325 SQ. FT.

FIRST/GROUND FLOOR = 3,020 SQ.FT.

SECOND FLOOR = 2,992 SQ.FT.

THIRD FLOOR = 3,100 SQ.FT.

FOURTH FLOOR = 3,100 SQ.FT.

ROOF TOP = 600 SQ.FT.

TOTAL = 12,812 SQ.FT.

ELEV
+12 = 45 ft - 49 ft
3 Minute Loading Zone
3 ft rear set back STAIRS
3,020 SQ.FT.
2,992 SQ.FT.
3,100 SQ.FT.
3,100 SQ.FT.
600 SQ.FT.
12,812 SQ.FT.

SITE AREA - 3,325 SQ. FT.
12,812 S.F.
71% 97%
Parking
TOTAL BUILDING AREA:

OFF STREET TRASH ENCLOSURE
140% 177% 385%
S.F.
%
%

LOT COVERAGE
80%

1 Managers Room
4 Hotel Rooms
6 Workforce Rooms
2 beds per room
17 Beds

THE CAMERON HOTEL
First/Ground Floor
A-2

PLOT DATE

REVISIONS

06.25.2024 301 BEACON STREET AVALON, CA 90704
APN: 7480-031-040
415 ALTA VISTA
AVALON, CA. 90704
(619) 933-7750
STAIR/FIRST/GROUND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0"

FIRST/GROUND FLOOR DATA
GROSS LOT SIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE = 3325 SQUARE FEET
GROUND/FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE = 3,020 SQUARE FEET LOBBY/COMMON - 715 SQUARE FEET
ROOM 1 - 336 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES APPROX.
50 SQ.FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 2 - 223 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES APPROX.
48 SQ.FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 3 - 302 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES APPROX.
50 SQ.FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 4 - 300 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES APPROX.
50 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 5 - 287 SQUARE FEET/ INCLUDES APPROX.
50 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH

WORKFORCE HOUSING -
COMMON DINING/COOKING - 379 SQUARE FEET
COMMON LAVATORY/SHOWER - 366 SQUARE FEET
PRIVATE BEDROOMS SINGLE/DOUBLE OCCUPANCY6 PRIVATE BEDROOMS - UP TO 12 BEDS APPROXIMATELY 84 SQUARE FEET EACH
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE = 504 SQUARE FEET
N
4 ft
Outside
11 Rooms
OUTSIDE DINING/PATIO/STAIRWAY/3 FT. REAR SETBACK = 305 SQUARE FEET

THE CAMERON HOTEL
Second Floor
A-2.1

PLOT DATE

REVISIONS

06.25.2024 301 BEACON STREET AVALON, CA 90704
APN: 7480-031-040
415 ALTA VISTA
AVALON, CA. 90704
(619) 933-7750

SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR DATA
N
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE LOT SIZE - 3,325 SQUARE FEET
SECOND FLOOR INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE = 2992 SQUARE FEET ONE HOTEL VEHICLE PARKING SPACE - 180 SQ.FT.

DUMPSTER/TRASH CANS - 48 SQ.FT.

ROOM 12 - 246 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 13 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 14 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 15 - 240 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 16 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 17 - (WORK FORCE) 166 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
38 SQ. FT. BATH
ROOM 18 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 19 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 20 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 21 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 22 - 249 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
Stairs 4 feet wide
UP
Trash
11 Rooms
10 Hotel Rooms
1 Workforce Room

OUTSIDE

PARKING
ADA

COMPLIANT

THE CAMERON HOTEL
Third Floor
A-2.2 THIRD FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0"

PLOT DATE

REVISIONS

06.25.2024 301 BEACON STREET AVALON, CA 90704
APN: 7480-031-040
415 ALTA VISTA
AVALON, CA. 90704
(619) 933-7750
N
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE LOT SIZE - 3,325 SQUARE FEET
THIRD FLOOR INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE AREA =
3100 SQUARE FEET
OUTSIDE STAIRWAY/3 ft SETBACK = 225 SQUARE FEET
ROOM 12 - 246 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 13 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 14 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 15 - 240 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 16 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 17 - (WORK FORCE) 166 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
38 SQ. FT. BATH
ROOM 18 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 19 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 20 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 21 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 22 - 249 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH

THIRD FLOOR DATA
4 foot
Stair
UP
8 feet 20 feet
Outside
Outside
11 Rooms
10 Hotel Rooms
1 Workforce Room

THE CAMERON HOTEL
Fourth Floor
11 Rooms
10 Hotel Rooms
1 Workforce Room
A-2.3

PLOT DATE

REVISIONS

06.25.2024 301 BEACON STREET AVALON, CA 90704
APN: 7480-031-040
415 ALTA VISTA
AVALON, CA. 90704
(619) 933-7750

FOURTH FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1' - 0"
N
GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE LOT SIZE - 3,325 SQUARE FEET
FOURTH FLOOR INTERIOR SQUARE FOOTAGE =
3,100 SQUARE FEET
OUTSIDE STAIRWAY/3 FOOT REAR SETBACK =
225 SQUARE FEET
ROOM 34 - 246 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 35 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 36 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 37 - 240 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 38 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 39 - (WORK FORCE) 166 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES 38
SQ. FT. BATH
ROOM 40 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 41 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 42 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 43 - 238 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH
ROOM 44 - 249 SQUARE FEET/INCLUDES
44 SQ. FT. PRIVATE BATH

FOURTH FLOOR DATA
UP
Outside
Outside

A-2.4

PLOT DATE

REVISIONS

06.25.2024 301 BEACON STREET AVALON, CA 90704
APN: 7480-031-040
415 ALTA VISTA
AVALON, CA. 90704
(619) 933-7750
stair
Mechanical/
Area
Glass Panel
Wall Metal roof
Outside wall
of building
roof floor
ROOF TOP DECK Down light
Storage
11 x 28
Bar
Kitchen
Bathrooms
Elevator
Roof Roof
R
o
o
f
Roo Roof f
R
o
o
f
R
o
o
f
Down
3 ft
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
B
uildin
g lin
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y lin
e
Property line
Property line Property line
Property line
24 ft. x 25 ft.
600
308 sq. x ft.
sq. x ft.

Patio
56 ft x 30 ft
5 f
o
o
t
100 Maximum Seating
95 feet Property Line
92 feet Building length
3 5
f
e
e
t
P
r
o
p
e
rt
y
Lin
e
1680 sq ft
12 ft Maximum Height to any Building Structure, Landscaping 6 ft Maximum Height for any fencing associated Storage area 48 inch Maximum Height for perimeter Glass Railing
The Cameron Hotel
2 ft
2 ft
A-A
Metropole Ave B-B
Beacon Street

Existing Grade
45 ft
12 ft
45 ft
33 ft
7’-0”
5’-0”
2’-0”
12’-0”
4 4
Rail Wall
Roof Top Deck Food Prep/Bar
Bathroom

Appendix C
Field Sheet

Appendix D
Traffic

FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: 301 BEACON ST HOTEL JOB #: 0805-2024-005
ROADWAY: METROPOLE AVE DATE: 3-May-24
LOCATION: NEAREST RESIDENCES ENGINEER:R.Edelman
ADT = 92 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 20
SPEED = 20 DIST C/L TO WALL = 20
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 10 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.5
GRADE = 1.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 9 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE EVENING NIGHT DAILY VEHICLE TYPE HEIGHT SLE DISTANCE AUTOMOBILES 0.129 0.096 0.3300 AUTOMOBILES 2.0 19.68
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.049 0.103 0.6700 MEDIUM TRUCKS 4.0 19.42 HEAVY TRUCKS 0.027 0.108 0.0001 HEAVY TRUCKS 8.0 19.53

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 36.2 34.3 32.5 26.4 35.1 35.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.2 50.7 44.4 42.8 51.3 51.5
HEAVY TRUCKS 20.7 19.3 10.3 11.5 19.9 20.0
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 52.3 50.8 44.6 42.9 51.4 51.6

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)
- -

0.00 0.848

0.865

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO

0.775 - -

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

NOISE INPUT DATA - PROJECT-ONLY

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
PROJECT: 301 BEACON ST HOTEL JOB #: 0805-2024-005
ROADWAY: BEACON ST DATE: 3-May-24
LOCATION: NEAREST RESIDENCES ENGINEER:R.Edelman
ADT = 276 RECEIVER DISTANCE = 20
SPEED = 20 DIST C/L TO WALL = 20
PK HR % = 10 RECEIVER HEIGHT = 5.0
NEAR LANE/FAR LANE DIST = 10 WALL DISTANCE FROM RECEIVER = 0 ROAD ELEVATION = 0.0 PAD ELEVATION = 0.5
GRADE = 1.0 % ROADWAY VIEW: LF ANGLE= -90
PK HR VOL = 28 RT ANGLE= 90
DF ANGLE= 180
AUTOMOBILES = 10 HTH WALL= 0.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS = 10 (10 = HARD SITE, 15 = SOFT SITE) AMBIENT= 0.0 HEAVY TRUCKS = 10 BARRIER = 0 (0 = WALL, 1 = BERM)

VEHICLE TYPE PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVEN LEQ NIGHT LEQ LDN CNEL AUTOMOBILES 40.9 39.0 37.3 31.2 39.8 40.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 57.0 55.5 49.1 47.6 56.0 56.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 25.5 24.1 15.0 16.3 24.6 24.8
NOISE LEVELS (dBA) 57.1 55.6 49.4 47.7 56.2 56.4

0.865 0.00

NOISE OUTPUT DATA

NOISE IMPACTS (WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE IMPACTS (WITH TOPO AND BARRIER SHIELDING)

NOISE CONTOUR (FT)

DAY GRADE ADJUSTMENT

0.775 - -

0.848 - -

NOISE INPUT DATA - PROJECT-ONLY

ROADWAY CONDITIONS RECEIVER INPUT DATA

SITE CONDITIONS WALL INFORMATION
VEHICLE MIX DATA MISC. VEHICLE INFO
Appendix E
SoundPLAN Inputs/Outputs

Beacon Hotel Catalina Noise
Contribution spectra - 001 - Beacon Hotel Catalina: Outdoor SP 23 Time
slice
Sum
dB(A)
400Hz
dB(A)
500Hz
dB(A)
630Hz
dB(A)
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 40.6 dB(A)
Leq,d 40.6 35.8 35.8 35.8
Leq,d 14.8 10.0 10.0 10.0
Leq,d 15.5 10.7 10.7 10.7
Leq,d 14.8 10.1 10.1 10.1
Leq,d 15.1 10.4 10.4 10.4
Receiver R2 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 47.3 dB(A)
Leq,d 47.1 42.3 42.3 42.3
Leq,d 25.6 20.8 20.8 20.8
Leq,d 26.6 21.8 21.8 21.8
Leq,d 27.8 23.0 23.0 23.0
Leq,d 29.8 25.0 25.0 25.0
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 44.8 dB(A)
Leq,d 44.3 39.6 39.6 39.6
Leq,d 28.5 23.7 23.7 23.7
Leq,d 29.4 24.6 24.6 24.6
Leq,d 28.4 23.6 23.6 23.6
Leq,d 28.6 23.8 23.8 23.8
Receiver R4 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 43.1 dB(A)
Leq,d 41.7 36.9 36.9 36.9
Leq,d 32.8 28.0 28.0 28.0
Leq,d 32.5 27.7 27.7 27.7
Leq,d 29.7 24.9 24.9 24.9
Leq,d 29.8 25.0 25.0 25.0
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 Beacon Hotel Catalina Noise
Contribution level - 001 - Beacon Hotel Catalina: Outdoor SP 9 Source Source typeLeq,d
dB(A)
Receiver R1 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 40.6 dB(A)
Machanical Equipment Point 15.1
Machanical Equipment Point 14.8
Machanical Equipment Point 15.5
Machanical Equipment Point 14.8
Area 40.6
Receiver R2 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 47.3 dB(A)
Machanical Equipment Point 29.8
Machanical Equipment Point 27.8
Machanical Equipment Point 26.6
Machanical Equipment Point 25.6
Area 47.1
Receiver R3 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 44.8 dB(A)
Machanical Equipment Point 28.6
Machanical Equipment Point 28.4
Machanical Equipment Point 29.4
Machanical Equipment Point 28.5
Area 44.3
Receiver R4 Fl G Lr,lim dB(A) Leq,d 43.1 dB(A)
Machanical Equipment Point 29.8
Machanical Equipment Point 29.7
Machanical Equipment Point 32.5
Machanical Equipment Point 32.8
Area 41.7
SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1 Beacon Hotel Catalina Noise
Octave spectra of the sources in dB(A) - 001 - Beacon Hotel Catalina: Outdoor SP 3 Name Source type l or A
m,m²
Li
dB(A)
Rw
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
KI
dB
KT
dB
LwMax
dB(A)
DO-Wall
dB
Day histogram Emission spectrum 500Hz
dB(A)
Area 165.15 67.5 89.7 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h Beer garden, large 89.7 Machanical Equipment Point 74.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h 74.0 Machanical Equipment Point 74.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h 74.0 Machanical Equipment Point 74.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h 74.0 Machanical Equipment Point 74.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%/24h 74.0 SoundPLAN 9.0
MD Acoustics 1197 E Los Angeles Ave,Unit C 256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 USA 1

Appendix F
Construction Noise and Vibration Calculations
Construction Phase Equipment
Item
# of Items
Item Lmax at 50
feet, dBA1
Edge of Site to
Receptor, feet
Center of Site to
Receptor, feet
Item Usage
Percent1 Ground Factor2 Usage Factor
Receptor Item
Lmax, dBA
Recptor. Item
Leq, dBA
DEMO
Backhoe 1 78 10 30 40 0 0.40 92.0 78.5
Concrete Saw 1 90 10 30 20 0 0.20 104.0 87.4
Front End Loader 1 79 10 30 40 0 0.40 93.0 79.5
Log Sum 104.0 88.0
GRADE
Tractor 1 84 10 30 40 0 0.40 98.0 84.5
Grader 1 85 10 30 40 0 0.40 99.0 85.5
Dozer 1 82 10 30 40 0 0.40 96.0 82.5

99.0 89.1
BUILD
Crane 1 81 10 30 16 0 0.16 95.0 77.5
Man lift 1 75 10 30 20 0 0.20 89.0 72.4
Tractor 1 84 10 30 40 0 0.40 98.0 84.5
Welder/Torch 3 74 10 30 40 0 0.40 88.0 74.5

98.0 86.4

ARCH COAT
Compressor (air) 1 78 10 30 40 0 0.40 92.0 78.5

92.0 78.5
1 FHWA Construction Noise Handbook: Table 9.1 RCNM Default Noise Emission Reference Levels and Usage Factors Receptor - Residential Uses to the East
Project: 301 Beacon St Hotel Date: 5/3/24
Source: Vibratory Roller
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 301 Beacon St
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment = INPUT SECTION IN BLUE
Type
PPVref = 0.21 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 20.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.10 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.268 IN/SEC OUTPUT IN RED

DATA OUT RESULTS
1 Vibratory Roller
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2006, pgs 38-43.

VIBRATION LEVEL IMPACT
Adjacent residences

DATA INPUT
Project: 301 Beacon St Hotel Date: 5/3/24
Source: Large Bulldozer
Scenario: Unmitigated
Location:

Address: 301 Beacon St
PPV = PPVref(25/D)^n (in/sec)
Equipment = INPUT SECTION IN BLUE
Type
PPVref = 0.089 Reference PPV (in/sec) at 25 ft.

D = 10.00 Distance from Equipment to Receiver (ft)
n = 1.10 Vibration attenuation rate through the ground
PPV = 0.244 IN/SEC OUTPUT IN RED

DATA OUT RESULTS

VIBRATION LEVEL IMPACT
Adjacent residences

DATA INPUT
2 Large Bulldozer
Note: Based on reference equations from Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2006, pgs 38-43.

Categorical Exemption Justification
Proposed Cameron Hotel
301 Beacon Street
Planning Commission Application No. 2842
Appendix C
301 Beacon Street Hotel
Focused Air Quality Impact Study
MD Acoustics
May 28, 2024

AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256 Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: 08052406_Report
May 8, 2024
Michael Flynn
Hamilton Pacific LLC
2002 Jimmy Durante Blvd, Suite 116
Del Mar, CA 92014
Subject:
301 Beacon Street Hotel – Focused Air Quality Impact Study, City of Avalon, CA Dear Michael:

MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a focused Air Quality Impact Evaluation for the proposed hotel project located at 301 Beacon Street in the City of Avalon, CA. The purpose of this focused study is to evaluate the air quality construction and operational emissions generated by the proposed project and to compare the project emissions to South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance as it relates to residential and commercial uses and consistency to the City’s General Plan. A list of definitions and terminology is located in Appendix A.

1.0 Project Description
The Project site is located at 301 Beacon Street within the City of Avalon, California, as shown in Exhibit A. The site is currently zoned as Special Commercial. Land zoning surrounding the site includes Special Commercial to the north, south, southeast, and west, and Commercial to the northeast.

Metropole Avenue is to the northwest, and Beacon Street is to the northeast. The Catalina Airport is located approximately 6 miles northwest of the Project site.

The Project proposes a four (4) story hotel with multiple uses consisting of 35 hotel rooms, three (3) onsite studio apartments (manager and two housekeepers), six (6) rooms with a separate entrance for 6-12 workers, and a rooftop deck for guests. The hotel will also include a lobby, front desk, and laundry/storage facilities. See Appendix B for the architectural plans.

2.0 Thresholds of Significance
Project emissions were compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for construction and operational emissions1,2.

3.0 Evaluation Procedure/Methodology
MD utilized the latest version of CalEEMod (2022.1.1.14) to calculate both the construction and operational emissions from the project site3. Project construction is modeled to commence no earlier than September 2024 and be completed by August 2025. Construction assumes demolition, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. CalEEmod defaults were utilized.

Assumptions and output calculations are provided in Appendix C. 1 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf 2 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds 3 https://www.caleemod.com/
Beacon Street Hotel
Focused Air Quality Impact Study
City of Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: 08052406_Report

4.0 Local Ambient Conditions
The project site is located in South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the South Los Angeles County Coastal Source Receptor Area (SRA) 4
4 . Historical air quality data for the vicinity can be found both at CARB and SCAQMD’s websites
5,6
. Temperature and historical precipitation data can be found at the WRCC7.

5.0 Findings
The following outlines the emissions for the project:

5.1 Regional Construction Emissions
The construction emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily emission thresholds at the regional level as indicated in Table 1, and therefore the impact would be considered less than significant.

Table 1: Regional Significance – Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Demolition
On-Site2 1.61 15.60 16.00 0.02 1.03 0.67
Off-Site3 0.06 0.34 0.80 0.00 0.18 0.08
Total 1.67 15.94 16.80 0.02 1.21 0.75
Grading
On-Site2 1.65 15.90 15.40 0.02 3.53 2.02
Off-Site3 0.09 2.90 1.53 0.01 0.70 0.21
Total 1.74 18.80 16.93 0.03 4.23 2.23
Building Construction
On-Site2 1.13 9.44 10.10 0.02 0.37 0.34
Off-Site3 0.12 0.45 1.42 0.00 0.31 0.08
Total 1.25 9.89 11.52 0.02 0.68 0.42
Paving
On-Site2 0.49 4.63 6.50 0.01 0.20 0.19
Off-Site3 0.05 0.04 0.62 0.00 0.11 0.03
Total 0.54 4.67 7.12 0.01 0.31 0.22
Architectural Coating
On-Site2 59.33 0.88 1.14 0.00 0.03 0.03
Off-Site3 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.05 0.01
Total 59.35 0.90 1.41 0.00 0.08 0.04
Total of overlapping phases4 59.89 5.57 8.53 0.01 0.39 0.26 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Thresholds No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.14
2 On-site emissions from equipment operated on-site that is not operated on public roads. 3 Off-site emissions from equipment operated on public roads. 4 Architectural coatings and paving phases may overlap. 4 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf?sfvrsn=6 5 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year 6 https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
7 https://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html
Beacon Street Hotel
Focused Air Quality Impact Study
City of Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: 08052406_Report

5.2 Localized Construction Emissions
Utilizing the construction equipment list and associated acreages per 8-hour day provided in the SCAQMD “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds” (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2011b), the maximum number of acres disturbed in a day would be 2.0 acres during grading (as shown in Table 2 below); however, as the project is less than one acre, the project emissions have been compared to the 1-acre per day localized significance threshold.

Table 2: Maximum Number of Acres Disturbed Per Day1
Activity Equipment Number Acres/8hr-day Total Acres
Grading
Graders 1 0.5 0.5
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 0.5 0.5
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.5 1.0
Total Per Phase 2.0
Notes:

1. Source: CalEEMod output and South Coast AQMD, Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=2 None of the analyzed criteria pollutants would exceed the LST emission thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors as shown in Table 3. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant from construction.

Table 3: Localized Significance – Construction Emissions (lbs/day) Phase
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 15.60 16.00 1.03 0.67
Grading 15.90 15.40 3.53 2.02
Building Construction 9.44 10.10 0.37 0.34
Paving 4.63 6.50 0.20 0.19
Architectural Coating 0.88 1.14 0.03 0.03
Total for overlapping construction phases 14.95 17.74 0.60 0.56 SCAQMD Threshold2 103 221 5 3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for one-acre (see Table 2), to be conservative, in Northwest Los Angeles County Coastal Source Receptor Area (SRA 2).
2 The nearest sensitive receptors are the multi-family residential uses located 3 meters to the northeast and southwest of the project site; therefore, the 25- meter threshold was utilized.

5.3 Regional Operational Emissions
The operating emissions were based on year 2025, which is the anticipated opening year for the project.

The CalEEMod default project trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) were used.

The summer and winter emissions created by the proposed project’s long-term operations were calculated and the highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 4. The data in Table 3 shows that the operational emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds.

Beacon Street Hotel
Focused Air Quality Impact Study
City of Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: 08052406_Report
Table 4: Regional Significance – Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources2 1.99 0.02 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Usage3 0.03 0.51 0.43 0.00 0.04 0.04
Mobile Sources4 1.16 0.71 7.68 0.02 1.44 0.37
Total Emissions 3.18 1.24 10.89 0.02 1.48 0.41
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.14
2 Area sources consist of emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 3 Energy usage consists of emissions from on-site natural gas usage. 4 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

5.4 Localized Operational Emissions
Project-related air emissions from on-site sources such as architectural coatings, landscaping equipment, on-site usage of natural gas appliances as well as the operation of vehicles on-site may have the potential to exceed the State and Federal air quality standards in the project vicinity, even though these pollutant emissions may not be significant enough to create a regional impact to the Air Basin. However, it should be noted that the project would most likely not bring additional vehicle trips to the area due to the limits on vehicles on Catalina Island. Trips would primarily be generated by taking workers and guests to and from transportation to the island, such as a ferry, and would not occur on the island.

According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources (such as heavy-duty trucks) that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site; such as industrial warehouse/transfer facilities. The proposed project is a hotel and does not include such uses. Therefore, due to the lack of stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is warranted.

5.6 Consistency with Applicable Plans
Consistency with the City’s General Plan
The project site is located in the City of Avalon. The project site has a current land use classification of Special Commercial according to the City. The proposed project is a hotel. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the City’s plans.

The project will be subject to the policies and ordinances pertaining to air quality in the City’s General Plan. Project emissions have demonstrated that they will be below any significant thresholds as outlined by SCAQMD.

6.0 Conclusions
Construction and operational project emissions were evaluated and compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Project emissions are anticipated to be below SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance with no mitigation. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Beacon Street Hotel
Focused Air Quality Impact Study
City of Avalon, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: 08052406_Report
MD is pleased to provide this focused Air Quality Impact Evaluation. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please don’t hesitate to call us at (805) 426-4477.

Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
Air Quality Specialist

Appendix A
Glossary of Terms

AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SRA Source/Receptor Area
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

Appendix B
Site Plan

PROPOSED

PROPOSED
VONS
CHURCH
Museum
Hotel
Dumpsters
Trash
Text
3 ft rear set back
33 ft - 45 ft

INTERIOR FLOOR SQUARE FOOTAGE
LOT SIZE: 3,325 SQ. FT.

FIRST/GROUND FLOOR = 3,020 SQ.FT.

SECOND FLOOR = 2,992 SQ.FT.

THIRD FLOOR = 3,100 SQ.FT.

FOURTH FLOOR = 3,100 SQ.FT.

ROOF TOP = 600 SQ.FT.

TOTAL = 12,812 SQ.FT.

ELEV
+12 = 45 ft - 49 ft
3 Minute Loading Zone
3 ft rear set back STAIRS
3,020 SQ.FT.
2,992 SQ.FT.
3,100 SQ.FT.
3,100 SQ.FT.
600 SQ.FT.
12,812 SQ.FT.

SITE AREA - 3,325 SQ. FT.
12,812 S.F.
71% 97%
Parking
TOTAL BUILDING AREA:

OFF STREET TRASH ENCLOSURE
140% 177% 385%
S.F.
%
%

LOT COVERAGE
80%
Appendix C
CalEEMod Output

Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
1 / 43
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
2 / 43

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
3 / 43

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
4 / 43

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
5 / 43

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
6 / 43

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
7 / 43

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Beacon Hotel Catalina
Construction Start Date 9/1/2024
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency City of Avalon
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 8.20
Precipitation (days) 25.0
Location ,
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City —
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 1126
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.22

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
8 / 43
Hotel 44.0 Room 1.47 63,888 1,000 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 59.4 15.9 16.8 0.03 0.67 0.53 1.21 0.62 0.10 0.72 — 2,854 2,854 0.12 0.06 1.62 2,877 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.74 18.8 16.9 0.04 0.77 3.45 4.23 0.71 1.52 2.23 — 4,750 4,750 0.22 0.38 0.14 4,868 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.10 3.77 4.63 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.26 0.12 0.03 0.15 — 922 922 0.04 0.02 0.28 931 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.38 0.69 0.84 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 154

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
9 / 43
Daily - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
2024 1.67 15.9 16.8 0.03 0.67 0.53 1.21 0.62 0.10 0.72 — 2,854 2,854 0.12 0.06 1.03 2,877 2025 59.4 9.34 11.5 0.02 0.33 0.31 0.64 0.30 0.07 0.38 — 2,311 2,311 0.10 0.06 1.62 2,333 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.74 18.8 16.9 0.04 0.77 3.45 4.23 0.71 1.52 2.23 — 4,750 4,750 0.22 0.38 0.14 4,868 2025 1.18 9.36 11.4 0.02 0.33 0.31 0.64 0.30 0.07 0.38 — 2,298 2,298 0.10 0.06 0.04 2,318 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.32 2.71 3.01 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.22 0.10 0.03 0.13 — 588 588 0.03 0.02 0.17 594 2025 2.10 3.77 4.63 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.26 0.12 0.03 0.15 — 922 922 0.04 0.02 0.28 931 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.06 0.49 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 — 97.4 97.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 98.4 2025 0.38 0.69 0.84 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 153 153 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 154

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.18 1.24 10.9 0.02 0.05 1.42 1.48 0.05 0.36 0.41 15.1 3,772 3,787 1.76 0.09 106 3,964 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.70 1.28 7.72 0.02 0.05 1.42 1.47 0.05 0.36 0.41 15.1 3,693 3,708 1.77 0.09 100 3,881 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
10 / 43
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 2.96 1.27 9.44 0.02 0.05 1.34 1.39 0.05 0.34 0.39 15.1 3,649 3,664 1.76 0.09 102 3,838 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.54 0.23 1.72 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.06 0.07 2.50 604 607 0.29 0.02 16.9 635

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.16 0.71 7.68 0.02 0.01 1.42 1.44 0.01 0.36 0.37 — 1,637 1,637 0.10 0.07 5.94 1,668 Area 1.99 0.02 2.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 Energy 0.03 0.51 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,112 2,112 0.15 0.01 — 2,119 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 11.2 13.3 0.22 0.01 — 20.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 0.00 13.0 1.30 0.00 — 45.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 99.9 99.9
Total 3.18 1.24 10.9 0.02 0.05 1.42 1.48 0.05 0.36 0.41 15.1 3,772 3,787 1.76 0.09 106 3,964 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.15 0.77 7.29 0.02 0.01 1.42 1.44 0.01 0.36 0.37 — 1,570 1,570 0.10 0.08 0.15 1,596 Area 1.53 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.03 0.51 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,112 2,112 0.15 0.01 — 2,119 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 11.2 13.3 0.22 0.01 — 20.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 0.00 13.0 1.30 0.00 — 45.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 99.9 99.9
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
11 / 43
Total 2.70 1.28 7.72 0.02 0.05 1.42 1.47 0.05 0.36 0.41 15.1 3,693 3,708 1.77 0.09 100 3,881 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.09 0.74 7.10 0.01 0.01 1.34 1.35 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,518 1,518 0.10 0.07 2.45 1,545 Area 1.84 0.02 1.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.83 7.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.85 Energy 0.03 0.51 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 2,112 2,112 0.15 0.01 — 2,119 Water — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 11.2 13.3 0.22 0.01 — 20.4 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 0.00 13.0 1.30 0.00 — 45.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 99.9 99.9
Total 2.96 1.27 9.44 0.02 0.05 1.34 1.39 0.05 0.34 0.39 15.1 3,649 3,664 1.76 0.09 102 3,838 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.20 0.14 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 0.25 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 0.02 0.01 0.41 256 Area 0.34 < 0.005 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.30 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30 Energy 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 350 350 0.02 < 0.005 — 351 Water — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 1.85 2.21 0.04 < 0.005 — 3.38 Waste — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 0.00 2.15 0.21 0.00 — 7.52 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.5 16.5
Total 0.54 0.23 1.72 < 0.005 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.06 0.07 2.50 604 607 0.29 0.02 16.9 635

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
12 / 43
Off-Road
Equipment

1.61 15.6 16.0 0.02 0.67 — 0.67 0.62 — 0.62 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.36 0.36 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.85 0.88 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demolitio
n
— — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.16 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 121 121 0.01 < 0.005 0.47 123 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.30 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 240 240 0.01 0.04 0.55 252 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
13 / 43
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.38 6.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.48 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.06 1.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.07 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.17 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.28

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.65 15.9 15.4 0.02 0.74 — 0.74 0.68 — 0.68 — 2,454 2,454 0.10 0.02 — 2,462 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 2.79 2.79 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
14 / 43
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.9 26.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.45 4.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.47 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 91.9 91.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 93.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.05 2.86 1.06 0.01 0.03 0.58 0.61 0.03 0.16 0.19 — 2,204 2,204 0.12 0.35 0.13 2,312 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.02 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
15 / 43
Hauling < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 24.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 25.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.00 4.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.20

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.13 9.44 10.1 0.02 0.37 — 0.37 0.34 — 0.34 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 1.55 1.66 < 0.005 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 296 296 0.01 < 0.005 — 297 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.28 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 49.0 49.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
16 / 43
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.11 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 246 246 0.01 0.01 0.03 250 Vendor 0.01 0.34 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.01 0.04 0.02 271 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 41.1 41.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 41.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.6 42.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 44.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.81 6.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.91 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.06 7.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.37 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
17 / 43
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.41 3.45 3.87 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 694 694 0.03 0.01 — 697 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.63 0.71 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 115 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 115 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.08 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 255 255 0.01 0.01 0.93 259 Vendor 0.01 0.31 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 255 255 0.01 0.04 0.69 267 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 241 241 0.01 0.01 0.02 245 Vendor 0.01 0.32 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 255 255 0.01 0.04 0.02 266 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
18 / 43
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.4 94.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 95.8 Vendor < 0.005 0.13 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 98.4 98.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 103 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.6 15.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 15.9 Vendor < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.3 16.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 17.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.49 4.63 6.50 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.01 0.13 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 27.2 27.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 27.3 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
19 / 43
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.50 4.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.51 Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 119 119 0.01 < 0.005 0.43 120 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.13 3.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.52 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.52 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
20 / 43
Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architectu
ral
Coatings

59.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.66 3.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.67 Architectu
ral
Coatings

1.62 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.61 0.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.61 Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
21 / 43
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 50.9 50.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 51.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.34 1.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.22 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 1.16 0.71 7.68 0.02 0.01 1.42 1.44 0.01 0.36 0.37 — 1,637 1,637 0.10 0.07 5.94 1,668 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
22 / 43
Total 1.16 0.71 7.68 0.02 0.01 1.42 1.44 0.01 0.36 0.37 — 1,637 1,637 0.10 0.07 5.94 1,668 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 1.15 0.77 7.29 0.02 0.01 1.42 1.44 0.01 0.36 0.37 — 1,570 1,570 0.10 0.08 0.15 1,596 Total 1.15 0.77 7.29 0.02 0.01 1.42 1.44 0.01 0.36 0.37 — 1,570 1,570 0.10 0.08 0.15 1,596 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.20 0.14 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 0.25 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 0.02 0.01 0.41 256 Total 0.20 0.14 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.24 0.25 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 251 251 0.02 0.01 0.41 256

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 1,500 1,500 0.09 0.01 — 1,506 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,500 1,500 0.09 0.01 — 1,506 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 1,500 1,500 0.09 0.01 — 1,506 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,500 1,500 0.09 0.01 — 1,506 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — 248 248 0.02 < 0.005 — 249
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 248 248 0.02 < 0.005 — 249
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
23 / 43

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.03 0.51 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 612 612 0.05 < 0.005 — 614 Total 0.03 0.51 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 612 612 0.05 < 0.005 — 614 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.03 0.51 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 612 612 0.05 < 0.005 — 614 Total 0.03 0.51 0.43 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 612 612 0.05 < 0.005 — 614 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 101 101 0.01 < 0.005 — 102 Total 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 101 101 0.01 < 0.005 — 102

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

1.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
24 / 43
Landscap
Equipment

0.46 0.02 2.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 Total 1.99 0.02 2.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.4 11.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

1.37 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.53 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consume
r
Products

0.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architectu
ral
Coatings

0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landscap
e
Equipme
nt

0.06 < 0.005 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.30 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30 Total 0.34 < 0.005 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.30 1.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.30

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
25 / 43
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 11.2 13.3 0.22 0.01 — 20.4 Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 11.2 13.3 0.22 0.01 — 20.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 11.2 13.3 0.22 0.01 — 20.4 Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.14 11.2 13.3 0.22 0.01 — 20.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 1.85 2.21 0.04 < 0.005 — 3.38 Total — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 1.85 2.21 0.04 < 0.005 — 3.38

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 0.00 13.0 1.30 0.00 — 45.4 Total — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 0.00 13.0 1.30 0.00 — 45.4 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 0.00 13.0 1.30 0.00 — 45.4 Total — — — — — — — — — — 13.0 0.00 13.0 1.30 0.00 — 45.4 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
26 / 43
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 0.00 2.15 0.21 0.00 — 7.52 Total — — — — — — — — — — 2.15 0.00 2.15 0.21 0.00 — 7.52

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 99.9 99.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 99.9 99.9
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 99.9 99.9
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 99.9 99.9
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hotel — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.5 16.5
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16.5 16.5

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
27 / 43
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
28 / 43

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
29 / 43
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
30 / 43
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequeste
red
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 9/1/2024 9/29/2024 5.00 20.0 —
Grading Grading 10/3/2024 10/8/2024 5.00 4.00 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/9/2024 7/16/2025 5.00 200 — Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
31 / 43
Paving Paving 7/17/2025 7/31/2025 5.00 10.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/1/2025 8/15/2025 5.00 10.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
32 / 43

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 12.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 7.75 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 3.40 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 12.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 7.75 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 31.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 26.8 12.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 10.5 7.75 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 12.5 12.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 7.75 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 5.37 12.6 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 7.75 HHDT,MHDT
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
33 / 43
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 95,832 31,944 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,882 —
Grading — 1,000 4.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
34 / 43
Hotel 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Hotel 368 360 262 128,342 2,009 1,968 1,430 701,073

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 95,832 31,944 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
35 / 43
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Hotel 1,029,267 532 0.0330 0.0040 1,909,206

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Hotel 1,116,138 14,025

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Hotel 24.1 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Hotel Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.00 0.60 0.00 1.00
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
36 / 43
Hotel Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 1.80 4.00 4.00 18.0
Hotel Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
37 / 43

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat — annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation — annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire — annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
38 / 43

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
39 / 43
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone —
AQ-PM —
AQ-DPM —
Drinking Water —
Lead Risk Housing —
Pesticides —
Toxic Releases —
Traffic —
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites —
Groundwater —
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators —
Impaired Water Bodies —
Solid Waste —
Sensitive Population —
Asthma —
Cardio-vascular —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
40 / 43
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment —

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
41 / 43
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis —
Asthma ER Admissions —
High Blood Pressure —
Cancer (excluding skin) —
Asthma —
Coronary Heart Disease —
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease —
Diagnosed Diabetes —
Life Expectancy at Birth —
Cognitively Disabled —
Physically Disabled —
Heart Attack ER Admissions —
Mental Health Not Good —
Chronic Kidney Disease —
Obesity —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
42 / 43
Pedestrian Injuries —
Physical Health Not Good —
Stroke —
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking —
Current Smoker —
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity —
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk —
SLR Inundation Area —
Children —
Elderly —
English Speaking —
Foreign-born —
Outdoor Workers —
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover —
Traffic Density —
Traffic Access —
Other Indices —
Hardship —
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting —

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) —
Beacon Hotel Catalina Detailed Report, 5/2/2024
43 / 43
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) —
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) — Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) — Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) — a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases No site preparation required Categorical Exemption Justification
Proposed Cameron Hotel
301 Beacon Street
Planning Commission Application No. 2842
Appendix D
301 Beacon Street
Historic Resources Assessment
ESA
February 2024

301 BEACON STREET
Historic Resources Assessment
Prepared for February 2024
Christopherhill Development, Inc.

301 BEACON STREET
Historic Resources Assessment
Prepared for February 2024
Christopherhill Development, Inc.
133 Via De La Valle
Del Mar, CA 92014
626 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.599.4300
www.esassoc.com
Bend
Camarillo
Delray Beach
Destin
Irvine
Los Angeles
Miami
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Sarasota
Seattle
Sunrise
Tampa
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper. 301 Beacon Street i ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Historic Resource Assessment
Page
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary and Project Location...................................................................... 1 Research and Field Methodology .................................................................................. 4 Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................... 4 Federal Eligibility Criteria and Integrity Aspects ............................................................. 5 State Register and Eligibility Criteria.............................................................................. 7 Identification of Potential Historical Resources within the Subject Property and Surrounding Area ........................................................................................................ 9 Previous Evaluations of the Subject Properties ............................................................. 9 Archival Research.......................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Setting........................................................................................................ 10 Catalina Island and the Development of Avalon .......................................................... 10 Lot Development.......................................................................................................... 19 Construction History .......................................................................................................... 22 Occupancy History ............................................................................................................. 23 Original Owners .................................................................................................................. 25 Cameron Family........................................................................................................... 25 Architectural Description ................................................................................................... 26 Historic Context .................................................................................................................. 33 Apartment Houses (1895-1970)................................................................................... 33 Vernacular Architecture................................................................................................ 35 Mediterranean Revival Style (1887-1942).................................................................... 36 Significance Evaluation...................................................................................................... 39 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 41 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 42 Appendices
A Professional Qualifications
B Tract Map
C Sanborn Maps
D Permits
List of Figures
Figure 1 .............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 .............................................................................................................................. 3 301 Beacon Street ii ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Figure 3 View of the Congregational Church under construction. Tents can be seen in the foreground and adjacent to the future Subject Property site to the south, c. 1889. .............................................................................................. 15 Figure 4 View of the Congregational Church completed in 1888 and located to the northeast of the Subject Property. ...................................................................... 15 Figure 5 A view of the Congregational Church from Metropole Avenue, c. 1930.............. 16 Figure 6 The Avalon Inn was located on a large lot shared with the future subject parcel; circa 1880s.............................................................................................. 16 Figure 7 A view of tents scattered around the neighborhood near the future Subject Property in 1892. The Congregational Church is visible to the right..................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 8 Island Villa, a collection of canvas tents for visitor lodging located near the subject parcel, c. 1915........................................................................................ 17 Figure 9 Map with the future site of the Subject Property at the red arrow, c. 1915.......... 18 Figure 10 An advertisement for rental cottages and bungalows on the blocks to the east of the Subject Property, 1922...................................................................... 18 Figure 11 Detail of a souvenir map depicting the area around the Subject Property, 1947.................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 12 1894 map showing the future parcel of the Subject Property outlined in red. ..................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 13 1898 map showing the future parcel of the Subject Property outlined in red. ..................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14 1902 map showing the Subject Property outlined in red..................................... 21 Figure 15 1919 map showing the future parcel of the Subject Property outlined in red. ..................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 16 1924 map showing the future parcel of the Subject Property outlined in red. ..................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 17 A symmetrical northeast elevation showing with arched doorways along a central bay, view facing southwest ..................................................................... 27 Figure 18 301 Beacon Street, northeast and northwest elevation, view facing south......... 27 Figure 19 301 Beacon Street, northwest elevation, view facing east.................................. 28 Figure 20 Detail of the rear southwest elevation, view facing east ..................................... 28 Figure 21 Detail of the projecting wing on the southeast elevation, view facing northeast. ............................................................................................................ 29 Figure 22 301 Beacon Street, northwest elevation, view facing east.................................. 29 Figure 23 301 Beacon Street, detail on northwest elevation, view facing southeast........... 30 Figure 24 Detail of arched doorway and concrete steps on northwest elevation at 301 Beacon Street, view facing southwest ......................................................... 30 Figure 25 Detail of the entrance on the northeast elevation of 301 Beacon Street, view facing southwest......................................................................................... 31 Figure 26 Detail of the concrete steps and original wood landing, northeast elevation, view facing southwest......................................................................... 31 Figure 27 Detail of the projecting wing on the southeast elevation with three-panel door, view facing southwest. ............................................................................... 32 Figure 28 Detail of the projecting wing on the southeast elevation and metal canopy, view facing northeast ............................................................................ 32 Figure 29 Detail of the windows on the rear southwest elevation, view facing northeast............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 30 The Mediterranean Revival style of the St. Catherine Hotel may have served as inspiration for elements found on the Subject Property, particularly the wing outlined in red..................................................................... 37 Figure 31 The design of the old schoolhouse is another example of a vernacular style design in Avalon with a hipped roof tower and Mediterranean 301 Beacon Street iii ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Revival-style archways. This building design may have also inspired elements of the Subject Property........................................................................ 38 Figure 32 The Villard Houses at 451-457 Madison Avenue inspired served as inspiration for the Mediterranean Revival style. A vernacular interpretation of the archways, hipped roof, and projecting wings can be seen in the design of the Subject Property. ........................................................ 38 List of Tables
Table 1 Nearby Historical Resources Recorded Within 0.25 Miles of the Project Site ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 Construction History ........................................................................................... 23 Table 3 Occupancy History for 301 Beacon Street ............................................................... 24 Table of Contents
301 Beacon Street iv ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
This page intentionally left blank
301 Beacon Street 1 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
301 BEACON STREET
Historic Resources Assessment
Introduction
Executive Summary and Project Location
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by Christopherhill Development, Inc. to prepare a Historic Resources Assessment Report (Report) for the building located at 301 Beacon Street, Avalon, Catalina Island (Subject Property). The Subject Property is located on Lot 53, Block 22, assessor parcel number 7480-031-040 within the City of Avalon, as shown in Figure 1, Regional and Project Vicinity Map. The parcel is currently developed with a multi-family apartment building constructed in 1923, as shown in Figure 2, Aerial Map. The project site is situated on a steep hill in the southwest part of Avalon, at the southeast corner of Metropole Avenue and Beacon Street. The building is in a vernacular style although elements of the Mediterranean style are evident.

The Subject Property was evaluated in this Report for the potential eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The Report includes a discussion of the survey methods used, an overview of the history of the surrounding area, and a description and evaluation of the Subject Property. Through research, survey, and subsequent evaluation under the applicable Federal and State eligibility criteria, ESA finds that the 301 Beacon Street does not retain historical or architectural significance and should be assigned a code 6Z meaning it is ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation.

301 Beacon Street 4 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Research and Field Methodology
This Report was prepared by a team of ESA’s architectural historians—including Shannon L. Papin, M.A., Historic Services Manager, and Valerie Smith, M.S., Architectural Historian—both of whom meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in history and architectural history. Professional qualifications are provided in Appendix A.

Shannon Papin and Valerie Smith conducted a site survey of the property site on August 18, 2023. This survey documented the existing conditions of the Subject Property and vicinity. As part of the survey, the Subject Property was documented with digital photography. ESA also conducted research on the construction and occupancy history of the Subject Property and analyzed the history within the context of the development of the Avalon, Catalina Island (see tract maps and Sanborn maps in Appendix B and Appendix C.

Preparation of the Report also involved a review of the California Built Environment Resources Database (BERD) maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The source was utilized to identify previously recorded properties within or near the Subject Property. An intensive-level pedestrian survey was also undertaken to document the existing conditions of the Subject Property and its vicinity. In addition, other tasks performed for the study included:
• Field inspections of the Subject Property utilizing the survey methodology of the State OHP. • Photography of the Subject Property and associated landscape features and examination of other properties in the vicinity that exhibited potential architectural and/or historical associations. • Site‐specific research on the property utilizing building permits from the Avalon Department of Building, City Directories, historical photographs, the Online Archive of California, Calisphere, the Santa Cruz Island Foundation Archives, the Los Angeles County Public Library, Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection, University of Southern California (USC) Digital Collections, the historical Catalina Islander newspaper, and other published sources.
• Review and analysis of ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to Federal and State designation assessment processes, and related programs. The City of Avalon 2030 General Plan/Local Coastal Plan was also reviewed for associated local ordinances.
• Evaluation of potential historical resources based upon criteria used by the National Register and California Register.

Regulatory Framework
Historical resources fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal, State, and Local designation programs. Federal laws provide the framework for the identification of historical resources, and in certain instances, protection. State and Local jurisdictions play active roles in the identification, documentation, and protection of such resources within their communities. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and the California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5024.1, are the primary Federal and State laws governing the evaluation and significance of historical resources of national, state, regional, and local importance in the state of California. 301 Beacon Street 5 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Federal Eligibility Criteria and Integrity Aspects
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register was established by the NHPA as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and Local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.”1 The National Register recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and/or local levels.

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Four criteria for evaluation have been established to determine the significance of a resource. They include the following:

Criterion A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Criterion D. Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.2
Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are 50 years in age or older must meet one or more of the above criteria and retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to be eligible for listing.

Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association:

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as 1 36 CFR Section 60.2, National Register of Historic Places. 2 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, National Register Branch, Interagency Resources Division, National Register Bulletin 16: Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms, 1977, rev. 1986, 1991, 1997. 301 Beacon Street 6 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property’s design reflects historic functions and technologies, as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space.

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components.

Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. A property must retain key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance.

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer.3 To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess most of the aspects described above.

Depending upon its significance, retention of specific aspects of integrity may be paramount for a property to convey its significance.4 Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where and when a property is significant.5 For properties that are considered significant under National Register Criteria A and B, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Register Bulletin 15) explains, “a property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s).”6 In assessing the integrity of properties that are 3 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, National Register Branch, Interagency Resources Division, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 1990, rev. 1991, 1995, 1997, 44-45.
4 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 46. 5 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 44. 6 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 46. 301 Beacon Street 7 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
considered significant under National Register Criterion C, National Register Bulletin 15 states, “a property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.”7 Under the National Register, alterations to a structure do not necessarily disqualify a property from a potential listing. A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and uses over a period of time.8 State Register and Eligibility Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register was created by Assembly Bill 2881 which was signed into law on September 27, 1992. The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”9 The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria.10 The California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed on the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register; 11
• California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; • Those California Points of Historical Interest (PHI) that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register.12
Other resources which may be nominated to the California Register include:
• Individual historical resources;
• Historical resources contributing to historic districts; • Historical resources identified as significant in historical resources surveys with significance ratings of Category 1 through 5;
7 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 44. 8 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 19. 9 California Public Resources Code, Division 5. Parks and Monuments, Chapter 1, State Parks and Monuments, Article 2, Historical Resources, Section 5024.1(a).
10 PRC Section 5024.1(b).
11 PRC Section 5024.1(d).
12 PRC Section 5024.1(d).
301 Beacon Street 8 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
• Historical resources designated or listed as local Los Angeles HCMs, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an HPOZ.13
To be eligible for the California Register, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Additionally, a historical resource eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one or more of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reasons for its significance.

Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of seven aspects of integrity similar to the National Register (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association). Also like the National Register, it must be judged in context to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.

Also implemented at the state level, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires projects to identify any substantial adverse impacts which may affect the significance of identified historical resources.
13 PRC Section 5024.1(e)
301 Beacon Street 9 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Identification of Potential Historical Resources within the Subject Property and Surrounding Area
Previous Evaluations of the Subject Properties
The Subject Property was initially surveyed as part of the Preliminary Cultural Resource Management Plan for the City of Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California prepared by Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team in 2010.14 This survey report listed the legal information such as the year built and square footage, but a full significance evaluation of the Subject Property was not included. The Subject Property was not included in the list of properties of local and historical interest in the 2013 City of Avalon 2030 General Plan/Local Coastal Plan.15
Archival Research
Methods
A records search was conducted by ESA staff on September 6, 2023, through the BERD. The records search included a review of all previously documented historic architectural resources and studies on or within a 0.25-mile radius of the Subject Property.

Results
A record search using BERD revealed two previously surveyed resources within 0.25 miles of the Subject Property (Table 1). 209 East Whittley Avenue is located 0.10 miles north of the Subject Property. Constructed in 1929, the two-story Spanish Colonial Revival property has a status code of “1S,” which means it is listed in the National Register. 100 St. Catherine Way (Tuna Club) is located 0.21 miles north of the Subject Property. Constructed in 1916, the two-story property has elements of the Craftsman and Italianate style and was assigned a status code of “1CL/1S,” indicating it is an “individual property listed in the NR” and “automatically listed in the California Register.”16
TABLE 1
NEARBY HISTORICAL RESOURCES RECORDED WITHIN 0.25 MILES OF THE PROJECT SITE Address/Name Date
Status
Code
View Distance
from
Project Site
209 E WHITTLEY / CHRISTIAN
SCIENCE SOCIETY 1929 1S Indirect 0.10 miles north
14 Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team (H.E.A.R.T), Preliminary Cultural Resource Management Plan for the City of Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California, Prepared for Rincon Consultants, Inc., October 2010, 49.
15 City of Avalon, City of Avalon 2030 General Plan/Local Coastal Plan, Prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc., Fehr & Peers, Veronica Tam and Associates, Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team, June 2013, IV-16-17.
16 California Historical Resource Status Codes, 2003.
301 Beacon Street 10 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Address/Name Date
Status
Code
View Distance
from
Project Site
100 ST. CATHERINE WAY /
TUNA CLUB 1916 1CL/1S Indirect 0.21 miles northeast
Environmental Setting
The project site is in the City of Avalon on Catalina Island. A brief history of Catalina Island, and the development of Avalon is included below, as well as the development of Lot 53, Block 22, and the surrounding neighborhood. The occupancy history and construction history of the Subject Property are also detailed below.

Catalina Island and the Development of Avalon
The history of Catalina Island and the Development of Avalon below was adapted from Jeanine L. Pederson’s Images of America, Catalina Island unless otherwise noted.

Catalina Island was first discovered by the Spanish explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, around 1542. Native Americans who had occupied the land for thousands of years were removed from the island to the San Gabriel Mission and other parts of Los Angeles in the 1820s. In 1846, Governor Pio Pico awarded Catalina Island to Thomas Robbins, a sea captain. Jose Maria Covarrubias purchased “Rancho Santa Catalina” in 1850, and later sold it to Albert Packard in 1853. By 1864, James Lick, an American real estate investor owned the island in its entirety.

In 1887, developer and entrepreneur George Shatto of Grand Rapids, Michigan, purchased Catalina Island to develop into a pleasure resort and to lease a portion of the land to miners and ranchers. Shatto spent thousands of dollars on surveys, plans, and island maps and brought his wife’s brother Edwin to the island to assume a supervisor role for major construction projects.17 After the initial planning, streets were laid out, and lots were auctioned to the public by his partner Charles A. Sumner, who operated the C.A. Sumner & Co. real estate agent on the island.

The public auction involved two steamships chartered by Shatto to bring potential buyers to the island for lots that ranged in price from $75 to $1,800. The town was named Avalon, a word of Celtic origin meaning “Island of Apples,” after Edwin Whitney’s wife, Etta Marilla, decided the name appropriately depicted the island’s beauty. Once complete, the Hotel Metropole was the main lodging available for tourists, but designated lots around the city allowed visitors to pitch tents for an affordable lodging option. Tents for tourists became so popular that Avalon got the nickname of “Rag City.”18 Permanent dwellings were also constructed throughout the city, 17 “Whitney, Etta Marilla,” Islapedia blog, https://www.islapedia.com/index.php?title=WHITNEY,_Etta_Marilla. 18 Water and Power Associates, “Catalina Island, 1880-present,” Digital collection, https://waterandpower.org/museum/Early_Views_of_Catalina.html. 301 Beacon Street 11 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
including the Whitney house (Edwin and Etta), 1888, and the Holly Hill House, constructed by Peter Gano from 1889 to 1890.19
In 1891, Shatto defaulted on his loans and was forced to sell the island to William, Hancock, and Joseph Brent Banning, the sons of Phineas, who was in the transportation business and helped develop Wilmington, California. The Banning brothers owned and operated the Wilmington Transportation Company and continued Shatto’s vision of making Avalon a thriving resort community. One of their significant contributions to the development of Avalon was a fleet of steamships that provided increased access to the island and was coordinated with the Pacific Electric Railroad schedule on the mainland. The Banning brothers, through their company, the Banning Company, also constructed a dance hall, aquarium, and bath house, and expanded the Hotel Metropole. Avalon’s “Rag City” continued during the Banning-era with rows of tents laid out across multiple blocks of the city with frame floors and canvas sides. These could be rented for $7.50 per week including bedding, furnishings, and basic cooking amenities. The second hotel in Avalon, the Glenmore Hotel, was constructed in 1891 on Sumner Avenue by the same builders who constructed the Hotel del Coronado in San Diego and was owned and operated by the Whitney family.20 It experienced fires and remodels over the years but is extant today as the oldest hotel on the island.

In October 1894, the Banning Brothers established the Santa Catalina Island Company and hoped to model Avalon as a type of “Company Town,” for permanent residents providing services such as water, electricity, and gas without passing these costs down to the residents.21 This arrangement later caused issues between the company and residents and the Freeholders Improvement Association was established by the boatman and homeowners to protect their interests. The Avalon Inn, another popular lodging accommodation, was constructed in 1896 by Mrs. E. Allen and located on Beacon Street. The first school was also established in 1896 to serve the permanent residents and their children. In November of 1915, a devastating fire burned half of Avalon’s buildings, including six hotels and several clubs. Homes from Whittley Avenue to Hill Street were destroyed and residents were left homeless.

This fire eventually resulted in a huge debt for the Banning family, and combined with World War I’s negative effect on tourism, they were forced to sell the island in 1919. William Wrigley, Jr., a chewing gum magnate from Chicago and a seasonal resident of Pasadena, purchased the island when he took control of the Santa Catalina Island Company between 1919 through 1932.

By 1921, Mr. Wrigley had completed his Avalon residence, named “Mt. Ada,” located on a high hill overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Throughout the remainder of the decade, Mr. Wrigley and his wife, Ada Foote Wrigley, implemented a large‐scale vision to reinvent Catalina Island as a premier resort destination through a comprehensive program of civic improvements and tourist attractions. These improvements included tourist lodging (Hotel Atwater), numerous attractions 19 Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team (H.E.A.R.T), Preliminary Cultural Resource Management Plan for the City of Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California, Prepared for Rincon Consultants, Inc., October 2010, 49.
20 “Glenmore Hotel, Santa Catalina Island,” Islapedia,
https://www.islapedia.com/index.php?title=Glenmore_Hotel,_Santa_Catalina_Island. 21 “Santa Catalina Island Company,” Islapedia w
https://www.islapedia.com/index.php?title=Santa_Catalina_Island_Company 301 Beacon Street 12 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
(Bird Park, Avalon Casino, and an expanded golf course), picturesque landscape elements (Chimes Tower), as well as the introduction of a new local industry, the Catalina Clay Products Tile and Pottery Plant. Mr. Wrigley also developed the Island’s infrastructure to facilitate tourist travel, which included submarine cables for improved communications with the mainland and new steamships, such as the S.S. Avalon and the S.S. Catalina. In addition to Wrigley’s numerous physical improvements, the island supported many leisure activities for visitors, including golf tournaments, sport competitions, marlin angling, and entertainment by the era’s top performers at the Avalon Casino. As owner of the Chicago Cubs, Mr. Wrigley located the team’s spring training practice on Catalina Island in 1921. Except during World War II, the team held their annual spring training on the island until the early 1950s.22 The improvements that Wrigley, Jr. implemented on the island soon attracted visitors and Catalina became synonymous with entertainment and play. By the late 1920s, over 400,000 tourists visited Catalina Island annually. Hollywood filmmakers also flocked to the island, utilizing its diverse landscapes as set locations. On film, the island represented a wide range of destinations, including Tahiti, Africa, and the American West. Many of the era’s most prominent actors and movie industry celebrities, like Charlie Chaplin, Cecil B. DeMille, Dolores Del Rio, Jean Harlow, Errol Flynn and Clark Gable worked and played on Catalina Island during the 1920s and 1930s.23 Wrigley passed away in 1932 and his ownership of the island was passed to his son Philip K. Wrigley. Catalina remains a popular tourism destination to the present day, with numerous hotels, restaurants, shops, and a variety of watersport activities.

Neighborhood Development
The Subject Property is in the southwest part of town and a brief history of the development of Beacon Street, Metropole Avenue, and surrounding streets is included below. The first church in Avalon, the Congregational Church, was constructed to the northeast of the Subject Property on the corner of Metropole and Beacon in 1888.24 Pioneer settlers George Shatto, J.B. Banning, and others founded the church, and it was constructed by John D. MacLean, who was responsible for building many of the hotels and early structures on the island (Figures 3 and 4).25 The Congregational Church had additions and improvements over the years, and a circa 1930s image from across the street near the Subject Property showed what it looked like at the time, and it remains relatively unchanged today (Figure 5).26 The surrounding neighborhood at this time contained tents scattered on various parcels, including on the rear of the Congregational Church lot, along with a few permanent frame dwellings on Beacon Street and Metropole Avenue. As described in the development history above, the Avalon Inn was constructed on a large lot 22 Kevin Starr, The Dream Endures: California Enters the 1940s, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2002. 23 Kevin Starr, The Dream Endures: California Enters the 1940s, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2002. 24 Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team (H.E.A.R.T), Preliminary Cultural Resource Management Plan for the City of Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California, Prepared for Rincon Consultants, Inc., October 2010, 49.
25 Ernest Windle, Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide), Avalon, Calif.: Catalina Islander, 1931, Hathi Trust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31158001307395; “J.D. MacLean, Pioneer Builder of Avalon, Dies,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1951, 39.
26 Ernest Windle, Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide), Avalon, Calif.: Catalina Islander, 1931, Hathi Trust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31158001307395, 117. 301 Beacon Street 13 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
situated to the east of the Congregational Church in 1896 (Figure 6).27 The building was one of the earliest permanent structures and hotels built in Avalon. Interestingly, in 1950, the hotel was auctioned off with the adjoining lot (309-311 Beacon Street).28 Today, it appears to have been demolished or significantly altered with little to no original fabric remaining.

By 1898, tents were scattered throughout the block and surrounding streets, contributing to Avalon’s “Rag City” reputation (Figure 7).29 Tent accommodations in the neighborhood included “Camp Tycoon” to the northeast of the Subject Property, and “Camp Swaine” located to the east. Island Villa, a popular tent city in Avalon for many decades, also appeared on the Sanborn maps at this time. Island Villa consisted of orderly rows of canvas tents set up during tourist season and owned by the Banning Company (Figure 8).30 By 1902, little had changed in the surrounding neighborhood. By 1909, the surrounding neighborhood began to contain more permanent dwellings including larger homes and narrow one-story bungalow types to rent to tourists and seasonal residents.31 “Camp Swaine” had become “Catalina Canvas City” by this time and “Wegman’s Apartments” were located to the southwest of the Subject Property, fronting Metropole Avenue.32 Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide) detailed that John H.

Wegman was a resident for 28 years and owned several apartments on Metropole Avenue.33 A circa 1915 map depicted the surrounding neighborhood with buildings of note in Avalon for tourists (Figure 9).34 To the southwest on Metropole Avenue was Loma Vista Terrace, Corbet Flats, and Casa Loma Apartments, providing temporary lodging for tourists or seasonal visitors.

Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide) also describes some of the buildings in the neighborhood around this time including Lucas “Tinch” Moricich’s house.35 He was the fourth child of fifteen, born to the early settlers Vincent and Josephine, and his house was constructed on Beacon Street around 1917. He worked as a boat captain and ran the glass-bottom boat The Princess in the 1930s.36 The MacLean Lodge, likely belonging to pioneer settler and town builder John D. MacLean, was situated on the west corner of Beacon Street and Metropole Avenue, across from the Subject Property.37 The dwelling appears to be later owned by Joseph B. 27 “Avalon Inn sold to L.B. partners,” Independent, August 15, 1976, 20. 28 “Auction: Hotel in Avalon Santa Catalina Island, Avalon Inn,” Los Angles Times, June 11, 1950, 56. 29 Water and Power Associates, “Catalina Island, 1880-present,” Digital collection, https://waterandpower.org/museum/Early_Views_of_Catalina.html. 30 “Island Villa, Catalina Island, California, 1922,” SDSU University Library, John and Jane Adams Postcard Collection, https://digitallibrary.sdsu.edu/islandora/object/sdsu%3A134350. 31 “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Avalon, Los Angeles County, California,” Sanborn Map Company, 1909, Library of Congress. 32 Harry Wilson “Map of Catalina Island, California” Catalina, California: Wilson Map and Guide Company, ca. 1915, https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/78605/map-of-catalina-island-california-wilsons-map-of-avalon-wilson. 33 Ernest Windle, Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide), Avalon, Calif, Catalina Islander, 1931, Hathi Trust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31158001307395, 113. 34 Harry Wilson “Map of Catalina Island, California” Catalina, California: Wilson Map and Guide Company, ca. 1915, https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/78605/map-of-catalina-island-california-wilsons-map-of-avalon-wilson. 35 Ernest Windle, Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide), Avalon, Calif, Catalina Islander, 1931, Hathi Trust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31158001307395, 110. 36 Moricich, Lucas “Tinch,” Islapedia website,
https://www.islapedia.com/index.php?title=MORICICH,_Lucas_%E2%80%98Tinch%E2%80%99. 37 Harry Wilson “Map of Catalina Island, California” (Catalina, California: Wilson Map and Guide Company, ca. 1915), https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/78605/map-of-catalina-island-california-wilsons-map-of-avalonwilson. 301 Beacon Street 14 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Cameron, also an early owner of the Subject Property (see the Original Owners section of this report). “Camp Albert,” owned by the Albert family, was located south of the Subject Property tract on Metropole Avenue.38
As described above, in 1919, William Wrigley Jr. acquired the island which resulted in the continuation of Shatto and the Banning brother’s efforts to develop Avalon into a resort town.

Tract 3368, inclusive of the Subject Property and many of the surrounding blocks, was platted the same year by the Santa Catalina Island Company. During this period, guidebooks and newspaper articles advertised numerous options for visitor lodging including hotels, apartments, tents, and bungalows. Sanborn maps from 1919 show a large building labeled “Lodging” at 225 Beacon Street, to the west of the future Subject Property.39 The rest of the block continued to contain apartments and flats on Metropole Avenue, along with some permanent dwellings and tents on some of the parcels. City Hall and a fire department were constructed on Metropole Avenue to the northeast of the Subject Property by 1919.

Into the 1920s, rows of bungalows can be seen on Claressa Avenue and Descanso Avenue north of Beacon Street. The Santa Catalina Island advertised these bungalows as short-term rentals for $25.00 to $35.00 per month (Figure 10).40 The Santa Catalina Island Company took over the management of the Island Villa tents, which was advertised as an “open air hotel” in the 1920s.41 It is unclear who commissioned the Subject Property, the White House Apartments, constructed in 1923, but this was during a time in which the island was rapidly developing as a tourist haven and profit was a likely motivation. The island received much press and investment during the Wrigley years, and the White House Apartments would have helped fill the demand of tourists and seasonal visitors to Catalina Island.

In 1942, the United States Maritime Service troops were stationed at Catalina Island. The Hotel Atwater, Hotel St. Catherine, Island Villa, and other buildings were leased to the Maritime Service for troops’ lodging, reflective of a slump in island tourism during the war years. In the years that followed the end of World War II, a playful souvenir map from 1947 depicted the Island Villa still in existence near the Subject Property, and the Chicago Cubs field to the west of Beacon Street, which was constructed by Wrigley for spring training. The map also depicts that the Catalina Hospital, a jeweler, and the United Airlines office are situated near the Subject Property on Sumner Avenue and Metropole Avenue (Figure 11).42 The neighborhood today remains a mixture of a few early buildings constructed in the first decade of the1900s and Wrigley-era construction. The Subject Property is one of a handful of examples of an early 20th century multi-family property in the neighborhood and within Avalon. 38 Ernest Windle, Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide), Avalon, Calif.: Catalina Islander, 1931, Hathi Trust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31158001307395, 117. 39 “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Avalon, Los Angeles County, California,” Sanborn Map Company, 1919, Library of Congress.
40 “Save Expenses! Live at Catalina Island,” Los Angeles Evening Express, March 9, 1922, 29. 41 “Catalina Island Report Prepares for Summer,” Anaheim Gazette, June 1, 1922, 4. 42 “Street map: Avalon town Catalina Island California,” David Rumsey Map Collection, 1947, https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~299830~90070890:Street-map---Avalon-townCatalina-I. 301 Beacon Street 15 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: “View of Avalon in the 1890s showing a church
under construction on Metropole Avenue, ca.1895,”
California Historical Society.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 3
View of the Congregational Church under
construction. Tents can be seen in the foreground and
adjacent to the future Subject Property site to the south, c. 1889.

SOURCE: “Avalon Congregational Church on Santa Catalina Island, California Historical Society Collection,
1860-1960.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 4
View of the Congregational Church completed
in 1888 and located to the northeast of the Subject
Property.
301 Beacon Street 16 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: Ernest Windle, Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide), Avalon, Calif, Catalina Islander,
1931, Hathi Trust, 84.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 5
A view of the Congregational Church from
Metropole Avenue, c. 1930.

SOURCE: “Old Avalon Inn Purchased; Will Be Restored,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 1976, 101.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 6
The Avalon Inn was located on a large lot
shared with the future subject parcel; circa 1880s.
301 Beacon Street 17 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: Water and Power Associates, “Catalina Island,
1880-present,” Digital collection.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 7
A view of tents scattered around the
neighborhood near the future Subject Property in 1892.

The Congregational Church is visible to the right.

SOURCE: “The Island Villa, Avalon, Catalina Island, Calif,” circa 1915, Department of Archives and Special
Collections, Courtesy of the Department of
Archives and Special Collections, William H.

Hannon Library, Loyola Marymount University.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 8
Island Villa, a collection of canvas tents for visitor
lodging located near the subject parcel, c. 1915.
301 Beacon Street 18 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: “Map of Catalina Island California / Wilson’s Map of Avalon and Catalina Island,” Harry Wilson, 1913,
Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 9
Map with the future site of the Subject Property
at the red arrow, c. 1915.

SOURCE: “Save Expenses! Live at Catalina Island,” Los
Angeles Evening Express, March 9, 1922, 29.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 10
An advertisement for rental cottages and
bungalows on the blocks to the east of the Subject
Property, 1922.
301 Beacon Street 19 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: “Street map: Avalon town Catalina Island
California,” David Rumsey Map Collection, 1947.
301 Beacon Street
Figure 11
Detail of a souvenir map depicting the area
around the Subject Property, 1947.

Lot Development
Lot 53, Block 22 (Subject Property)
Sanborn maps were used to determine the development of the Subject Property at 301 Beacon Street. The first Sanborn map from 1894 depicts an empty lot with a tent with a frame floor located on the east of the lot (Figure 12). The block at this time had been unofficially divided into rectangular lots oriented towards Beacon Street, although this changed later with the official subdivision of the lots. By 1898, one large corner lot on Metropole Avenue and Beacon Street was shown on the Sanborn map. A narrow rectangular frame building on the eastern portion of the subject lot that fronted onto Beacon Street was labeled as the Avalon Inn (Figure 13). Five tents with frame floors were situated at the rear and front of the lot with one of the tents on the site of the future subject parcel. The addresses associated with the large lot, inclusive of the future subject parcel were originally 42-46 Beacon Street. By 1902, the Sanborn map depicted the large lot still containing the Avalon Inn, and the two tents fronting Beacon Street were labeled as frame structures with “part canvas sides,” and two tents are located at the rear of the lot (Figure 14).

The Sanborn map from 1909 depicted little change to the large lot.

As mentioned above in the Neighborhood Development, Tract 3368, inclusive of the Subject Property, was platted in 1919 by the Santa Catalina Island Company. By 1919, the Avalon Inn on the Sanborn map simply read “Lodgings” and a few other frame dwellings existed on the lot at 305 and 303 Beacon Street (Figure 15). The Subject Property was constructed in 1923 on the north corner of the large lot, as illustrated in the 1924 Sanborn map, and was soon listed as the White House Apartments in city directories (Figure 16). It appears the rectilinear dwelling at 303 Beacon Street was demolished to construct the Subject Property. As detailed in the construction history below, no builder information for the original construction was located. 301 Beacon Street 20 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
By 1930, the Official Avalon Map of the City of Avalon showed the Subject Property parcel had been re-subdivided into an L-shaped lot and labeled as Lot 53 in Block 22.43 The current lot proportions today are 34.90 feet wide by 95 feet deep, the lot is rectangular, and the footprint of the building appears unchanged from the time of its original construction to the present. The property boundary description by the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor does not list a tract for the Subject Property and lists the following property description: “Official Map Of The City Of Avalon As Per Bk 1 Pgs 31 To 46 Of O M Nw 34.9 Ft Of Lot 53 Blk 22.”44 SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1894, Library of Congress. 301 Beacon Street Figure 12
1894 map showing the future parcel of the
Subject Property outlined in red.
43 Los Angeles County, “Official Map of the City of Avalon, Santa Catalina Island,” 0-1-31, Sheet 11, 1930. 44 Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor website.
301 Beacon Street 21 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1898, Library of Congress. 301 Beacon Street Figure 13
1898 map showing the future parcel of the
Subject Property outlined in red.

SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1902, Library of Congress 301 Beacon Street Figure 14
1902 map showing the Subject Property
outlined in red.
301 Beacon Street 22 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1919, Library of Congress 301 Beacon Street Figure 15
1919 map showing the future parcel of the
Subject Property outlined in red.

SOURCE: Sanborn Map Company, 1924, Library of Congress 301 Beacon Street Figure 16
1924 map showing the future parcel of the
Subject Property outlined in red.

Construction History
ESA reviewed the Sanborn maps, and aerial imagery to determine the construction history of the Subject Property. 301 Beacon Street was constructed as a two-story, 10-unit multi-family 301 Beacon Street 23 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
residence in 1923, and is depicted on a 1924 Sanborn map.45 No information about a builder or architect has been discovered. By 1924, the building is listed as the White House Apartments in city directories.46 A rectilinear frame dwelling at 303 Beacon Street appears to have been demolished for the construction of 301 Beacon Street. The 1924 Sanborn map depicts a mostly rectangular-shaped building with short projecting wings on the southeast elevation forming a modest H-shape. A partial-width porch projects from the west corner of the southwest elevation.

There was only one building permit for the Subject Property in the files of the Avalon Planning and Building department which detailed that Thelma Cameron Splane, of the original Cameron family owners, had vinyl siding installed in 1995 (Table 2 and Appendix D).47 Visual inspection revealed that maintenance repairs have been made to the building such as a new roof. Despite significant research, no original images were located to confirm other changes to the historic fabric.

TABLE 2
AVALON PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PERMITS48 Issued Location Permit/
Assessor
Record
Owner Architect (A)
Contractor (C)
Engineer (E)
Valuatio
n ($)
Description
10/3/95 301 Beacon
Street
Thelma Splane Amre Remodeling 58,363 Intall vinyl siding Occupancy History
The occupancy history for the Subject Property was researched by reviewing city directories, newspapers, and the U. S. Census, and details are included below and in Table 3.

The Subject Property was constructed in 1923 as a 10-unit apartment house and appears to have housed short-term and seasonal visitors, as well as permanent residents, as was typical with other apartment houses in Avalon. Archival materials such as city directories and newspapers listed the property as the White House Apartments shortly after construction was completed in 1923.

Various members of the Cameron family lived in the Subject Property at 301 Beacon Street from the time it was built until recently and have owned the building from circa 1930 to today. While city directories list the White House Apartments at the Subject Property address, individual resident names were not typically included. A few newspapers and census records over the years detailed information about residents including the 1930 census, which was the first federal census 45 Visual inspection of the property today yields that it is a three-story building even though it was labeled as a twostory building on the Sanborn maps. 46 Directory Listing, Catalina Islander, December 3, 1924, 11. 47 City of Avalon, Building Permit, October 3, 1995.
48City of Avalon, Building Permit, October 3, 1995.
301 Beacon Street 24 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
after the building’s construction. This showed couples and a few individuals occupying the building who appear to have been full-time residents with working-class jobs and additional details about the residents are included below.

In 1930, Joseph Cameron was listed in the census as the owner of the Subject Property. He lived there with other family members including his brother Michael, Michael’s wife Susie, and their two children, Thelma and Louis. According to the 1930 census, lifetime Avalon residents John W.R. and Helen Windle rented a unit at the Subject Property. By the time of the 1940 census, the Windles had moved to another location in Avalon. Other 1930s renters included John N. and Phyllis Connor, Harry B. and Ella Evilsizor, Laurence and Flora H Burkett, Bernard and Loretta E. Williams, Edward and Carrie Sucher, Victor Crushan, and Rena Napodano. The professions of the renters in 1930 included an accountant, a bookkeeper in the grocery industry, manager of a store, a grocery store clerk, and a retail saleswoman. The 1940 census indicated that Michael Cameron continued to own the Subject Property and live there with his wife and two children. 49 Michael had four boarders: Edith Rex, Hillion Hotchkiss, Janet Frey, and Ruth Eaton who each paid between $20.00 and $25.00 per month.50
City directory research yielded little information about who lived at the subject in the 1950s1970s except for family members such as Louis Cameron. As shown in Table 3 below, Louis appears to have lived at the property from the 1930s until his death in 2002.51 Directory and census records listed other residents in the 1980s including Frank and Gloria Lopez who lived there through 2000. No information was found about Frank and Gloria Lopez except that they were residents at the White House Apartments during those years. Original family members such as Thelma Cameron Splane, and her husband Bob lived there from about 1987-2019 as shown below in Table 3.

TABLE 3
OCCUPANCY HISTORY FOR 301 BEACON STREET
Occupant / Date Source
Joseph B. Cameron (c. 1930s- c. 1937) U.S. Census Records, Catlina Islander Michael and Susan Cameron (c. 1930 – 1976) U.S. Census Records, Catlina Islander; City Directory (EDR)
Louis M. Cameron (c. 1930- 2002; Beverly Jean Cheney
Cameron (wife) (c. 1950-c. 2002)
Newspaper, U.S Public Records, City Directory,
U.S. Census Records
Thelma (Cameron) (c. 1930-1995), Bob Splane (husband)
c. 1976-1995
City Directory (EDR)
John W.R. and Helen Windle, John N. and Phyllis Connor, Harry B. and Ella Evilsisor, Laurence and Flora H Burkett, Bernard and Loretta E. Williams, and Edward and Carrie
Sucher (1930)
U.S. Census Records
Rena Napodano (c. 1934-1935) Catalina Islander, U.S. Census Records Victor Crushan (1934) Catalina Islander
49 1940 U.S. Federal Census, Ancestry.com.
50 1940 U.S. Federal Census, Ancestry.com.
51 Research did not yield if Cameron family members lived at the property continuously or periodically after it was constructed.
301 Beacon Street 25 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Linda (Linn) C. Cameron (1952 and c. 1987-2019) U.S. Index to Public Records Gloria and Frank Lopez, (c. 1982-2000) City Directory (EDR) Original Owners
Cameron Family
Joseph B. Cameron was one of the original owners of the Subject Property as early as 1930. It is unclear if he was responsible for the construction of the building, or if it was purchased later.

Although little research was found about the construction of the property, some biographical information about the family is included below. All sources are from Ancestry.com unless otherwise noted.

Joseph arrived in Avalon in 1906 and was employed at the Hotel Metropole.52 He had three brothers, Michael, Daniel, and Andrew. Joseph began leasing the Grill Café at 309 Crescent Avenue in 1909, and his profession in the 1920 census was recorded as “restaurant proprietor.” In the 1920 census, Joseph resided at a single-family dwelling on 301 Metropole Avenue, north of the Subject Property. Joseph’s obituary detailed that he purchased “properties in Avalon, including the White House Apartments, the C&F Curio Shop, The Seal Rock Café, The White Elephant Café and the Monterey Hotel.”53 By 1930, Joseph was listed in the census as the owner of the Subject Property, the White House Apartments, at 301 Beacon Street.

As detailed in the occupancy history above, Joseph’s brother, Michael, and his wife Susie J.

Cameron lived at the Subject Property with Joseph and their two children, Louis and Thelma in 1930.54 Historical research for Michael and Susie yielded that they were married in 1919 in Waterbury, Connecticut and it appears they came to Avalon around the 1920s. The 1920 census showed that Michael and Susie initially rented somewhere on Metropole Avenue, possibly with Joseph at the home across the street. Like Joseph, Michael was in the restaurant business, and was listed as a restaurant manager for the Island Café at 411-413 Crescent Avenue.55 Susie was listed as an apartment manager in the 1930s, likely for the Subject Property, the White House Apartments, as this was her permanent address. Joseph passed away in 1937, and the 1940 census indicated that Michael owned 301 Beacon Street and lived there with his wife and children. 56 In 1950, Michael, Susie, and Louis were living at 301 Beacon Street according to the census.

Michael’s profession was in retail and real estate at this time and his son Louis was 27 years old and working in the amusement business.57 Thelma was married to Robert C. Splane and lived 52 “Funeral Services Today for Joseph B. Cameron Resident Here 30 Years,” Catalina Islander, June 24, 1937, 6, https://cat.stparchive.com/Archive/CAT/CAT06241937P06.php?tags=joseph|b|cameron. 53 “Funeral Services Today for Joseph B. Cameron Resident Here 30 Years,” Catalina Islander, June 24, 1937, 6, https://cat.stparchive.com/Archive/CAT/CAT06241937P06.php?tags=joseph|b|cameron. 54 1930 U.S. Federal Census, Ancestry.com. The address was incorrectly recorded in the census as 308 Beacon Street; https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryuicontent/view/89437710:6224?tid=&pid=&queryId=cdcbac1eb95d1ae0c9bb86e84fbf2a86&_phsrc=vrC389&_phsta rt=successSource.
55 “Notice of Intention to Chattel Mortgage,” Catalina Islander, August 16, 1934, 8. 56 1940 U.S. Federal Census.
57 1950 U.S. Federal Census.
301 Beacon Street 26 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
somewhere in Avalon. Her profession was a schoolteacher, and she lived on the mainland with her husband when school was not in session.58 By 1954, Louis owned a liquor store and applied for a liquor license at Tally-Ho, located at 401 Crescent Avenue.59 Tally-Ho was listed as a cocktail lounge on a 1947 souvenir map and may have been acquired by Louis in the 1950s or earlier.60 When Michael passed away in the 1970s, Louis managed the El Galleon, formerly the Island Café.61 Little information was discovered about the family after the 1950s. It appears that Michael and Susie lived at 301 Beacon Street until their deaths in 1975 and 1976, and they were both buried in Avalon. Louis appears to have lived at 301 Beacon his entire life until his death in 2002 along with various other family members who resided at the building over the years.

Architectural Description
The property located at 301 Beacon Street is situated on the southeast corner of Beacon Street and Metropole Avenue. The parcel contains a 5,882 square-foot multi-family apartment house with 11 units. The property is built to the edge of the lot and is slightly graded to conform to the relatively steep hill it sits on, which slopes up toward the southwest. The property extends across most of the lot and a small rear yard at the southwest is enclosed with a lattice gate and wooden fence.

Designed in a vernacular style, with elements of Mediterranean Revival, the Subject Property was constructed in 1923. The rectangular plan includes two shallow wings that project from the east and south corners. The three-story property includes a flat roof that has a centralized stepped parapet at the northwest elevation. The stepped parapet meets in the center of the northwest elevation and includes a tower-like projection with a hipped roof that extends beyond the roofline. The main roof appears to be clad in rolled asphalt and the tower is clad in shingles. The building is of wood frame construction, sheathed in non-original vinyl siding. Limited horizontal wood clapboard siding remains underneath the replacement siding, although it is unlikely to be original.

There are recessed ground-level entrances at all four elevations, framed by archways and accessed by concrete steps with original wood landings. All doors except one are wooden with multi-pane glazing. The door appears to be from the original construction date of 1923 and consists of three panels and one lite. The northeast elevation contains recessed entrances framed by archways that lead to a metal fire escape on the upper levels. There is an upper-level door surmounted by a pent roof on the southwest elevation that used to contain a balcony or external stairway that has been removed. The entrance on the southeast elevation is surmounted by a metal canopy (likely not original). Fenestration appears to be original consisting of double-hung, one over one wood frame windows with lamb’s tongue details. The first-floor windows on all elevations are covered with wooden lattices that may be original. No decorative detailing exists on the vernacular structure (Figures 17-29).
58 “Leonhardi-Smith, Inc. v. Cameron,” Lawlink website, https://lawlink.com/research/cases/56852/leonhardi-smithinc-v-cameron. 59 “27 Liquor Licenses for L.A. Approved,” Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, September 17, 1954, 16. 60 “Street map: Avalon town Catalina Island California,” David Rumsey Map Collection, 1947, https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~299830~90070890:Street-map---Avalon-townCatalina-I. 61 “New Jeep CJ-5 is tougher,” Press-Telegram, November 28, 1976, 45. 301 Beacon Street 27 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 17
A symmetrical northeast elevation showing with
arched doorways along a central bay, view facing
southwest
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 18
301 Beacon Street, northeast and northwest
elevation, view facing south
301 Beacon Street 28 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 19
301 Beacon Street, northwest elevation, view
facing east
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 20
Detail of the rear southwest elevation, view
facing east
301 Beacon Street 29 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 21
Detail of the projecting wing on the southeast
elevation, view facing northeast.

SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 22
301 Beacon Street, northwest elevation, view
facing east
301 Beacon Street 30 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 23
301 Beacon Street, detail on northwest
elevation, view facing southeast
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 24
Detail of arched doorway and concrete steps on
northwest elevation at 301 Beacon Street, view facing
southwest
301 Beacon Street 31 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 25
Detail of the entrance on the northeast
elevation of 301 Beacon Street, view facing southwest
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 26
Detail of the concrete steps and original wood
landing, northeast elevation, view facing southwest.
301 Beacon Street 32 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 27
Detail of the projecting wing on the southeast
elevation with three-panel door, view facing southwest.

SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 28
Detail of the projecting wing on the southeast
elevation and metal canopy, view facing northeast
301 Beacon Street 33 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: ESA, 2023 301 Beacon Street
Figure 29
Detail of the windows on the rear southwest
elevation, view facing northeast
Historic Context
The Subject Property at 301 Beacon Street was evaluated within the context of the city of Avalon, within Tract 3368. ESA evaluated the Subject Property against the criteria for listing in the National Register, California Register, and as a local resource. The historic context for the multifamily apartment houses, Vernacular Architecture, and the Mediterranean Revival Style provided the background and guidelines necessary to evaluate the architectural significance of 301 Beacon Street. The period of significance associated with the Subject Property is its construction date of 1923.

Apartment Houses (1895-1970)
The Subject Property is an example of a multi-family housing constructed during an early period of development in Avalon, shortly after Wrigley purchased Catalina Island. Excerpts from the Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Residential Development and Suburbanization, 1880-1980 were used to provide context for the apartment house typology of the Subject Property.62 The character-defining features of an apartment house found in the Subject Property, as outlined in the SurveyLA context, include the following: designed to maximize lot coverage, is two or more stories, has three or more units, is generally rectangular in plan, and has multiple ground-floor entries. In addition, the Subject Property reflects the trend of vernacular designs in 62 SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Residential Development and Suburbanization, 1880- 1980, December 2018, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/1a7b1647-4516-45da-9cff-db2db3b9b440/MultiFamilyResidentialDevelopment_1910-1980.pdf, 24-32. 301 Beacon Street 34 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
early examples of this typology, which SurveyLA details “may not exhibit the features of a particular architectural style.” Additional detail is included in the Vernacular Architecture context in the next section. While not a duplex, the Subject Property also exhibits the trend for an owner to live on property while renting out the other unit for income property as outlined in the context below:

The apartment house can best be defined in contrast to the bungalow court and other forms of courtyard housing that were being constructed in the early twentieth century.

Unlike courtyard housing, the apartment house is designed to maximize lot coverage, with little or no lot area land dedicated to useable open space. And unlike courtyard housing, which is typically oriented onto a central common space, apartment houses are oriented toward the street, with architectural detailing concentrated on the street-facing façade. Apartment houses vary widely in terms of density, from one-story duplexes to high-rise luxury apartment towers. They can accommodate a variety of architectural styles, and therefore often reflect the dominant residential styles of the period in which they were constructed.63
One of the earliest and most modest types of apartment housing in Los Angeles was the duplex. There were several reasons that development of the duplex prevailed during the early days of multi-family development in the city. Chief among them was the fact that duplexes presented even the average homeowner with the opportunity to capitalize on the concurrent population and real estate booms. Composed of two separate dwelling units, the arrangement of the typical duplex allowed the homeowner to live in one unit while renting out the other, thus enabling the construction of both a residence and income property on a single lot. Duplexes were also appealing because their size and scale resembled that of the single-family homes with which they sometimes shared the block.

The similarity in scale and massing allowed duplexes to be designed in many of the same styles as were popular for single-family residences at the time, including the Craftsman style and various Period Revival styles.64
Apartment houses of all sizes grew in popularity as developers sought higher-density solutions to the population boom. Some were smaller, typically two stories in height, with three or four units. Like duplexes, they were designed in the prevailing architectural styles of day. Larger apartment houses from this early period could range anywhere from two to six stories in height, with four or more units. Early examples constructed during the 1910s were mostly modest vernacular structures constructed of brick or wood frame, while into the 1920s they began to take on more decorative, even fanciful, stylistic elements. Their comparative affordability and the ability to pack as many units onto a lot as possible made the two-story apartment building a particularly attractive investment for 63 Except from SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Residential Development and Suburbanization, 1880-1980, December 2018, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/1a7b1647-4516-45da-9cffdb2db3b9b440/Multi-FamilyResidentialDevelopment_1910-1980.pdf, 24-32. 64 SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Residential Development and Suburbanization, 1880- 1980, December 2018, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/1a7b1647-4516-45da-9cff-db2db3b9b440/MultiFamilyResidentialDevelopment_1910-1980.pdf, 24-32. 301 Beacon Street 35 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
both novice and seasoned developers.65 As many as a dozen or more two- and three-room units could be fit into this simple type, greatly increasing the potential rate of return relative to outlay for construction.66
Vernacular Architecture
As mentioned above, the Subject Property is an example of vernacular architecture for an apartment house from 1923. A brief description of vernacular architecture from the Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, Architecture and Engineering/Late 19th and Early 20th Century Residential Architecture was used to establish the evaluation for the Subject Property under this style.67 The Subject Property’s vernacular design also contains a modest influence of the Mediterranean Revival Style, as detailed in the following architectural context. The characterdefining features of the Subject Property include minimal detailing, a simple plan, and construction by a local builder. Visual inspection during ESA’s site visit yielded only a few vernacular style examples throughout Avalon, as most were lost in the 1915 fire, or altered over time. It also revealed that the stepped parapet motif seen on the Subject Property is popular on other properties in Avalon, particularly single-family houses. As was common with builders, they also mixed vernacular style with elements of Craftsman or Mediterranean Revival. The Subject Property does not contain design elements of Folk Victorian as described in the SurveyLA context below, however the vernacular style described below can be translated to the design of the Subject Property:

Several styles from this period of development in Los Angeles are best classified as vernacular architecture. According to historian Alan Gowans, “vernacular architecture is the use of architectural style without being conscious of style.”68 Nevertheless, even the minimal design features of vernacular buildings were often influenced by nationwide stylistic trends that emerged during this particularly transitional era. It was only through technological advances that many of the earlier high-style forms were simplified for mass production to meet the needs of various socio-economic classes and thus took on vernacular forms. The Folk Victorian style, for example, was largely the product of the Industrial Revolution. The style was doubtlessly influenced by Queen Anne and Eastlake with bold ornamentation in the form of pre-cut wooden scrollwork, spindle work, and trim, yet are easily distinguishable by their small scale and simple rectangular or Lshaped plans. With the invention of improved, mechanized woodworking tools and the expansion of the railroads, even relatively modest homes could feature elaborate 65 SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Residential Development and Suburbanization, 1880- 1980, December 2018, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/1a7b1647-4516-45da-9cff-db2db3b9b440/MultiFamilyResidentialDevelopment_1910-1980.pdf, 24-32; Todd Douglas Gish, “Building Los Angeles: Urban Housing in the Suburban Metropolis, 1900-1936.” PhD diss., University of Southern California, 2007, 102. 66 SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Residential Development and Suburbanization, 1880- 1980, December 2018, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/1a7b1647-4516-45da-9cff-db2db3b9b440/MultiFamilyResidentialDevelopment_1910-1980.pdf, 24-32; Todd Douglas Gish, “Building Los Angeles: Urban Housing in the Suburban Metropolis, 1900-1936.” PhD diss., University of Southern California, 2007, 102. 67 SurveyLA, Citywide Historic Context Statement, Architecture and Engineering/Late 19th and Early 20th Century Residential Architecture; Housing the Masses/Late 19th and Early 20th Century Neighborhoods, July 2019, 9-10. 68 Alan Gowans, The Comfortable House: North American Suburban Architecture, 1890-1930, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1986.
301 Beacon Street 36 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
decoration. Many vernacular buildings were constructed by builders – trained carpenters who inherited their trade or learned through apprenticeship. Others were constructed by contractors who replicated plans “on spec” using catalogs, or pattern books and pre-cut house kits. Kits included everything required to complete the house, including lumber, nails, doors, windows, screens, hardware, paint, and an instruction manual.

Mediterranean Revival Style (1887-1942)
The Subject Property is vernacular in style although it contains a few elements of Italian influence as part of the Mediterranean Revival style of 1887-1942.69 The modest elements of the style include the massing with two projecting wings, the stacked archways, and the low hipped roof tower on the northwest elevation. The St. Catherine Hotel, and Tuna Club are both high-style examples in Avalon that may have served as inspiration for the Subject Property. The St.

Catherine Hotel was constructed on Catalina Island from 1917 to 1918, and the Tuna Club was constructed earlier in 1916. It is not clear if the builder for 301 Beacon Street drew inspiration from this impressive hotel or the highly visible Tuna Club, or just the style in general. Elements can also be seen in the old schoolhouse which was torn down in 1930, such as the hipped roof tower and arches. Although the Subject Property only contains modest elements of the style, a brief context for the Mediterranean Style is included below.

Mediterranean Revival architecture (sometimes called Italian Renaissance) is a style that was used in early 20th century residential architect across the United States, especially after World War I. The style emerged in the late 19th century when it was primarily used for high-style residences designed by professional architects for wealthy clients. The well-known architecture firm of McKim, Mead & White is credited with sparking the revival with the Villard Houses in New York. As opposed to its predecessor, the Italianate style, the Mediterranean Revival or Italian Renaissance style more closely evoked examples of Italian domestic architecture. This was primarily due to the fact that increased mobility between America and Europe had allowed many architects and their clients to visit Italy, giving them firsthand knowledge of the country’s architecture. Additionally, advances in masonry veneering in the early 20th century allowed for better imitation of the stone and stucco that typically clad the original Italian buildings that inspired the American designs. These new techniques also helped the style to spread to more vernacular uses as the style came within the financial means of the middle-class in the 1920s. The style began to decline in the 1930s and had virtually disappeared from use by World War II (Figures 30-32).

The typical character-defining feature of this style are a low-pitched hipped roof, wide overhanging eaves with decorative brackets, ceramic tile roof, smaller and less elaborate upper story windows, round arches above doors or first story windows, entrance accented by classical columns or pilasters, and a symmetrical façade. The exterior walls are typically clad in stone, stucco, or brick. Common decorative details include quoins, roof-line balustrades, pedimented 69 The stepped parapet on the property cannot be characterized as part of the Mediterranean Style. This represents the vernacular trend to mix various styles as well as use materials available locally. This design element was more often found on commercial buildings from the late 1800s and was also popular in the west on False Front buildings on main streets.
301 Beacon Street 37 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
windows, classical door surrounds, molded cornices, and belt courses. 70 As previously mentioned, the Subject Property only loosely references this style, as was common with vernacular properties that generally contained little design elements. The Subject Property contains arched doorways, Italian Renaissance projecting wings, a hipped roof tower, and a reference to the form of the St. Catherine Hotel with stacked archways arranged in a central bay with external fire escapes.

SOURCE: “St. Catherine Hotel, Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, Calif,” 1938, Burton Frasher, Pomona Public
Library, Online Archive of California
301 Beacon Street
Figure 30
The Mediterranean Revival style of the St.

Catherine Hotel may have served as inspiration for
elements found on the Subject Property, particularly the wing outlined in red.
70 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 496-508. 301 Beacon Street 38 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
SOURCE: Ernest Windle, Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide), Avalon, Calif.: The Catalina
Islander, 1931
301 Beacon Street
Figure 31
The design of the old schoolhouse is another
example of a vernacular style design in Avalon with a
hipped roof tower and Mediterranean Revival-style
archways. This building design may have also inspired
elements of the Subject Property.

SOURCE: Library of Congress, Digital Library 301 Beacon Street Figure 32
The Villard Houses at 451-457 Madison Avenue
inspired served as inspiration for the Mediterranean
Revival style. A vernacular interpretation of the
archways, hipped roof, and projecting wings can be
seen in the design of the Subject Property.
301 Beacon Street 39 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Significance Evaluation
ESA reviewed the dwelling located on the Subject Property for significance under the federal, state, and city criteria as outlined below.

Broad Patterns of History
With regard to broad patterns of history, the following are the relevant criteria:
• National Register Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
• California Register Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.

The Subject Property was built in 1923 in the southwest portion of Avalon, Catalina on a steep hill by an unknown builder and owner. While records could not be located to confirm exact dates, Joseph Cameron may have purchased the building shortly after it was constructed. He is shown to have owned and be living there with his brother and his brother’s family, and renters in the 1930 census. Constructed as a 10-unit apartment, and listed in directories as the White House Apartments, residents appear to be a mix of seasonal visitors and long-term residents of Avalon.

The earliest buildings in the neighborhood were the Congregational Church and the Avalon Inn from the late 1800s. The neighborhood developed into a tourist area in the early 1900s through the 1920s with a mixture of cottages, bungalows, and tent cities. Rooming houses and apartment houses were constructed to meet the demand of the tourist industry and housed many of the workers in the tourist industry and local stores. The Subject Property housed local workers in the restaurant industries and other modest trades and does not appear to have been strongly associated with the tourism industry of Catalina Island.
301 Beacon Street remains today as a modest example of an apartment house constructed in the 1920s, shortly after Wrigley acquired the island. The Subject Property appears to be a typical multi-family apartment house constructed in Avalon as well as the larger context of Los Angeles County and is not a unique development. While the building is representative of the increased residential settlement patterns of Avalon during the 1920s, it is one of multiple properties from the same period that remain extant in Avalon. The property does not appear to have influenced any building trends for multi-family properties in Avalon and is not associated with events that have made significant contributions to broad patterns of national, state and local history. While it is a good example of a large multi-family apartment house in the community, it does not appear to be significant or any trends or patterns of development in Avalon in the 1920s or since.

Therefore, 301 Beacon Street does not appear to meet the significance requirements as a historical resource under National Register Criterion A and California Register Criterion 1.

No local criteria exist for the City of Avalon.
301 Beacon Street 40 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Significant Persons
With regard to associations with important persons, the following are the relevant criteria:
• National Register Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. • California Register Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

As mentioned above, no builder or architect was found for 301 Beacon Street, but the Cameron family appears to have acquired it sometime after it was built, likely around 1930. The Subject Property is referred to as the “White House Apartments” in city directories, and housed members of the Cameron family from circa 1930 to circa 2002. Three generations of the Cameron family (Joseph, Michael, and Louis) were in the food and beverage industry, owning and operating bars and restaurants in Avalon. Their involvement in local restaurants and bars was not found to be significant to the local history of Avalon. While the Cameron family lived in Avalon for many years, and is well-known among local residents, the family does not appear to have made significant contributions to local, state or national history. In addition, no other occupants of the Subject Property were found to be significant under Criterion B/2.

Therefore, 301 Beacon Street does not appear to be associated with significant personages or events as is required under National Register Criterion B and California Register Criterion 2. No local criteria exist for the City of Avalon.

Architecture
With regard to architecture, design, or construction, the following are the relevant criteria:
• National Register Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
• California Register Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

The Subject Property at 301 Beacon Street is a good example of a vernacular style multi-family residential building that contains modest elements of the Mediterranean Revival style. Dating from 1923, it was constructed as a 10-unit apartment house. No builder or architect information was located. Some remaining character-defining features of the Subject Property include the Italian Renaissance wing massing, a hipped roof tower, arched entryways, and double-hung 1/1 wood sash windows from the 1920s. The parapet may be original to the construction of the Subject Property due to the vernacular trend of combining styles and using locally available materials and finishes. A hipped roof tower is also present on the building and mimics other buildings in Avalon including the Tuna Club. The siding is not original and covers the original horizontal wood siding. No major changes appear to have been made to the footprint of the property. While the Subject Property represents an extant multi-family property in a vernacular style, it is not a good example of any style or building typology in Avalon. Since no information was found about a builder or architect, it could not be found significant as the work of a master. It 301 Beacon Street 41 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
does not possess high artistic value, nor does it demonstrate an important type, period, or method of construction.

Therefore, 301 Beacon Street does not appear to meet the significance requirements under National Register Criterion C and California Register Criterion 3. No local criteria exist for the City of Avalon.

Data
• National Register Criterion D: It yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
• California Register Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

While most often applied to archaeological districts and sites, Criterion D/4 can also apply to buildings, structures, and objects that contain important information. In order for these types of properties to be eligible under Criterion D/4, they themselves must be, or must have been, the principal source of the important information. The Subject Property does not appear to yield significant information that would expand our current knowledge or theories of design, methods of construction, operation, or other information that is not already known about the period in which it was constructed, the method of construction, or the design. The building reflects common building practices and materials of the 1920s, which have already been well documented. Furthermore, 1920s multi-family residential architectural styles have been preserved and are available for study. Therefore, the Subject Property does not meet the significance requirements under National Register Criterion D and California Register Criterion 4.

Conclusion
As a result of ESA’s research and survey investigations and, through the application of the Federal and State eligibility evaluation criteria, ESA determined 301 Beacon Street is not eligible under Criterion A/1, B/1, C/3, or D/4. No local criteria exist for the City of Avalon. While the building is representative of early residential development in 1920s Avalon, it is not a unique or rare example from this period and is not eligible under Criterion A/1. The Cameron family who owned the Subject Property for the majority of its usable life are not significant persons within the history of Avalon, Catalina Island, or the larger Southern California landscape and it is therefore not eligible under B/2. It is a good example of a vernacular multi-family dwelling with elements of the Mediterranean Revival style, but it is not an excellent or rare example. Therefore, it is not eligible under Criterion C/3. Therefore, it is ESA’s recommendation that the Subject Property be considered not eligible for the National Register or California Register through survey evaluation and assigned a code 6Z.
301 Beacon Street 42 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Bibliography
13 From Port Enter Army, News-Pilot, September 30, 1941, 10. “27 Liquor Licenses for L.A. Approved,” Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, September 17, 1954, 16.

Aerial Decade Package, EDR
“Auction: Hotel in Avalon Santa Catalina Island, Avalon Inn,” Los Angles Times, June 11, 1950,

56. “Avalon Congregational Church on Santa Catalina Island, California Historical Society Collection, 1860-1960, ”https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetmanagement/2A3BF1DPDPD?FR_=1&W=1748&H=1322. “Avalon Inn sold to L.B. partners,” Independent, August 15, 1976, 20. “Catalina Island Report Prepares for Summer,” Anaheim Gazette, June 1, 1922, 4. “Catalina Rediscovered,” Catalina Islander, June 28, 2013, 3, Chuck Lidell, “This and That,” Catalina Islander, April 7, 2017, 3.

City of Avalon, 2030 General Plan/Local Coastal Plan, Prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc., Fehr & Peers, Veronica Tam and Associates, Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team, June 2013, IV-16-17.

City of Avalon, Building Permit, October 3, 1995.

Directory Listing, Catalina Islander, December 3, 1924, 11. “Do you Remember,” Catalina Islander, December 5, 1935, 8.

City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement: Late 19th and Early 20th Century Residential Architecture: Housing the Masses/Late 19th and 20th Century Neighborhoods, November 2018, 26-28.
“Edwin J. Whitney, Former Superintendent Dies,” Catalina Islander, May 20, 1931. “Farnsworth, George Chase “Tuna George,” Islapedia website, https://www.islapedia.com/index.php?title=FARNSWORTH,_George_Chase_%E2 %80%9CTuna_George%E2%80%9D.
“Funeral Services Today for Joseph B. Cameron Resident Here 30 Years,” Catalina Islander, June 24, 1937, 6,
https://cat.stparchive.com/Archive/CAT/CAT06241937P06.php?tags=joseph|b|cameron. “Glenmore Hotel, Santa Catalina Island,” Islapedia,
https://www.islapedia.com/index.php?title=Glenmore_Hotel,_Santa_Catalina_Island. 301 Beacon Street 43 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
“Helen Brown,” FindAGrave website,
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/52239603/helen-brown, “Island Owners,” Catalina Islander, April 6, 2012, 5.

Island Villa, Catalina Island, California, 1922,” SDSU University Library, John and Jane Adams Postcard Collection, https://digitallibrary.sdsu.edu/islandora/object/sdsu%3A134350. “J.D. MacLean, Pioneer Builder of Avalon, Dies,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1951, 39. “Kosher Delicatessen and Liquor Store to Open Here This Week,” Desert Sun, October 30, 1936,

2. “Leonhardi-Smith, Inc. v. Cameron,” Lawlink website, https://lawlink.com/research/cases/56852/leonhardi-smith-inc-v-cameron. “Map of Catalina Island California,” Wilson’s Map of Avalon and Catalina Island,” Harry Wilson, c. 1915, Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps, Inc., https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/78605/map-of-catalina-island-californiawilsons-map-of-avalon-wilson.

Moricich, Lucas “Tinch,” Islapedia website,
https://www.islapedia.com/index.php?title=MORICICH,_Lucas_%E2%80%98Tinch%E2 %80%99.
“Mrs. Whitney Visits Island—She Named Avalon; 60 years ago,” Catalina Islander, September 18, 1947.
“Norma Jeane’s ‘year of transition,” on Catalina Island, Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2011, 6. “Notice of Intention to Chattel Mortgage,” Catalina Islander, August 16, 1934, 8. “Official Map of Avalon,” 1930, http://pw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/OM/OM1/OM1-

31.pdf, 2
Pedersen, Jeannine L. and the Catalina Island Museum. Catalina Island. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.

Pederson, Jeanine L. Images of America, Catalina Island, Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina, 2004.

Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team (H.E.A.R.T), Preliminary Cultural Resource Management Plan for the City of Avalon, Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles County, California, Prepared for Rincon Consultants, Inc., October 2010, 49. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Avalon, Los Angeles County, California,” Sanborn Map Company, 1894, Library of Congress,
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4364am.g4364am_g003991894/?sp=1&r=-

0.159,0.382,0.626,0.457,0
301 Beacon Street 44 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
______, 1898, Sanborn Map Company, Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4364am.g4364am_g003991894/?sp=1&r=-

0.159,0.382,0.626,0.457,0
______, 1902, https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4364am.g4364am_g003991902/?sp=1&r=-

0.187,0.241,1.011,0.882,0
_____ 1909, https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4364am.g4364am_g003991909/?sp=1&r=-

0.083,0.484,0.378,0.276,0
_____ 1919, ://www.loc.gov/resource/g4364am.g4364am_g003991919/?sp=2&r=-

0.125,0.417,0.544,0.397,0
_____ 1924,
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4364am.g4364am_g003991924/?sp=2&r=0.019,0.372,0.45 3,0.395,0.
“Save Expenses! Live at Catalina Island,” Los Angeles Evening Express, March 9, 1922, 29.

Starr, Kevin, The Dream Endures: California Enters the 1940s, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2002.
“Street map: Avalon town Catalina Island California,” David Rumsey Map Collection, 1947, https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~299830~90070890:Stree t-map---Avalon-town-Catalina-I.
“The Island Villa, Avalon, Catalina Island, Calif,” circa 1915, Department of Archives and Special Collections, Courtesy of the Department of Archives and Special Collections, William H. Hannon Library, Loyola Marymount University, https://digitalcollections.lmu.edu/documents/detail/25057.

Tract Map, Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor.
“United States Federal Census,” Ancestry.com website, https://www.ancestry.com/. “U.S. Voter Registration,” Ancestry.com website, https://www.ancestry.com/. “Walks Around Avalon, Catalina Island,” Love Catalina Island website, https://www.lovecatalina.com/things-to-do/things-to-do-by-land/walking-itineraries/.

Water and Power Associates, “Catalina Island, 1880-present,” Digital collection, https://waterandpower.org/museum/Early_Views_of_Catalina.html. “Whitney, Etta Marilla,” Islapedia,
https://www.islapedia.com/index.php?title=WHITNEY,_Etta_Marilla Williamson, M. Burton, “History of Santa Catalina Island,” 1903, Historical Society of Southern California, https://www.islapedia.com/images/e/e1/Williamson_History_of_SCI_1903.pdf,

30. 301 Beacon Street 45 ESA / D202300564.00
Historic Resources Assessment February 2024
Windle, Ernest, Windle's History of Santa Catalina Island (and Guide), Avalon, Calif.: The Catalina Islander, 1931, Hathi Trust, https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.31158001307395.

Wilson, Harry, “Map of Catalina Island, California” (Catalina, California: Wilson Map and Guide Company, ca. 1915), AVA0115114.

APPENDIX A
Professional Qualifications
Shannon L. Papin
Cultural Resource Specialist IV
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Shannon is a Senior Architectural Historian and Cultural Resource Specialist with 25 years of professional experience in architectural history, cultural resource management, and historic preservation planning, policy, and economics. She has authored historic resource assessments, State and National Register Nominations, historic structure reports, CEQA Impacts Analysis, feasibility studies, LAHCM nominations, and HABS/HAER reports.

Previous Experience
Hermon Park Building Evaluations, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Shannon prepared a memorandum that included structural assessments, documentations, and evaluations of two fire-damaged buildings located within Hermon Park, a National Register-eligible property that is part of the Arroyo Seco Park system.

Isadore House Significance Evaluation and Historic Structure Report, Isadore House, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Shannon prepared a structural assessment, documentation, and evaluation of Isadore House, a historic property owned by the LA RAP. The Report included a CEQA impacts analysis in preparation for a planned redevelopment.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power On-Call Historic Resources Services:

Sunshine House Historic Structure Report, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Shannon prepared a structural assessment, documentation, and evaluation of the Sunshine House, the former caretaker’s residence at the Silver Lake Reservoir Complex, owned by LADWP.

Garvanza Pump Station, Historic Structure Report, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager.

Shannon prepared a structural assessment, documentation, and evaluation of the Garvanza Pump Station, a historic property associated with the Garvanza Reservoir in northeast Los Angeles, owned by LADWP.

Los Angeles County Public Works On-Call Historic Resources Services:

High Desert Hospital, Historic Resource Assessment, Lancaster, CA. Project Manager.

Shannon prepared a documentation and evaluation of High Desert Hospital and Coroner’s Office, a historic property owned by the LADPW. The Report included a CEQA impacts analysis in preparation for a planned redevelopment.

EWMP Addendum, Compton Boulevard Historic Survey, Compton, CA. Project Manager. Shannon conducted an architectural survey of a including, identification of potentially significant resources for state, local and national eligibility, integrity evaluation, and research and writing of an accompanying historic context. The Report included a CEQA impacts analysis in preparation for a planned redevelopment.

Los Angeles Unified School District On-Call Historic Resources Services:

EDUCATION
M.A., in Historic
Preservation (American
Studies Department)
George Washington
University Washington,
DC, 2020
B.A., in English (Writing)
Rhodes College Memphis,
TN, 1994
25 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION
Approved Consultant,
California Historical
Resources Information
System Consultant List
(History & Architectural
History)
Certified Historian &
Architectural Historian,
New Mexico SHPO
Directory
Approved Historian, City
of Santa Fe, NM

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society of Architectural
Historians, Member
National Trust for Historic
Preservation and NTHP
Forum, Member
Preservation Action,
Member
Shannon L. Papin (Continued)
Cultural Resource Specialist IV
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Seismic Retrofit Project, Lockwood Elementary School, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Shannon managed a documentation project for LAUSD campus in Hollywood in preparation for a planned seismic retrofit. Project deliverables includes character-defining matrixes and California DPR forms for multiple historical resources.

Seismic Retrofit Project, First Street Elementary School, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Shannon managed a documentation project for LAUSD campuses in Boyle heights in preparation for a planned seismic retrofit. Project deliverables includes character-defining matrixes and California DPR forms for multiple historical resources.

City of Pasadena On-Call Historic Resources Services, Mayfield Junior School Historic Resource Evaluation, Pasadena, CA. Project Manager. Shannon surveyed entire campus and prepared an evaluation of three historic resources, including CEQA impacts analysis for a proposed master plan. 8025 Santa Monica Boulevard Historic Resource Assessment and CEQA Impacts Analysis, West Hollywood, CA.

Project Manager. Shannon analyzed the potential impacts of construction of a 24-story, mixed-use project in Hollywood, adjacent to the historic Lombardi House for compliance with CEQA impacts threshold and for conformance with the SOI Standards.
1715 – 1739 Bronson Avenue, CEQA Impacts Analysis, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Shannon analyzed the potential impacts of construction of a 24-story, mixed-use project in Hollywood, adjacent to the historic Lombardi House for compliance with CEQA impacts threshold and for conformance with the SOI Standards. 3623 Hayden Place Historic Resource Assessment and MND, Culver City, California. Senior Architectural Historian.

Shannon authored a historic resource assessment of a large industrial site located on the border of Los Angeles and Culver City for a proposed redevelopment. Work involved research on the property and its history as well as an evaluation of the site’s eligibility.

Related Bristol Historic Resource Assessment and EIR, Santa Ana, California. Senior Architectural Historian. Shannon authored a historic resource assessment of a large industrial site located on the border of Los Angeles and Culver City for a proposed redevelopment. Work involved research on the property and its history as well as an evaluation of the site’s eligibility.

Culver Crossings Historic Resource Assessment and EIR, Culver City and Los Angeles, California. Senior Architectural Historian. Shannon authored a historic resource assessment of a large industrial site located on the border of Los Angeles and Culver City for a proposed redevelopment. Work involved research on the property and its history as well as an evaluation of the site’s eligibility.
910 North Roxbury Drive Historic Resource Assessment, Beverly Hills, CA. Project Manager Shannon assessed the eligibility of an American Colonial Revival residence designed by master architect Robert V. Derrah in Beverly Hills. The report involved digital and archival research and an assessment of the home’s integrity using historic plans and images. 1707 Tropical Drive Historic Resource Assessment, Beverly Hills, CA. Architectural Historian. Claire assessed the eligibility of an American Colonial Revival residence built by Carleton Lyle Burgess and occupied by Edward Paul Dentzel.

Research included a construction chronology and identification of alterations, research on the builder and occupants, and analysis of neighborhood integrity.
448 West Cypress Historic Resource Assessment, Glendale, CA. Project Manager Shannon authored a Historic Resource Assessment of an industrial warehouse constructed in the Tropico neighborhood of Glendale in 1908. Research Shannon L. Papin (Continued)
Cultural Resource Specialist IV
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
included an integrity evaluation, research on Tropico’s history as an early agricultural center, and the strawberry industry.
28307 Agoura Road Historic Resource Assessment, Agoura Hills, CA. Project Manager. Shannon authored a Historic Resource Assessment for a 1940s commercial property in Agoura Hills. Work involved researching the rural character and history of Agoura Hills, conducting research at the Agoura Hills Library and Building Division, identifying occupants of the structure, and assessing the property’s eligibility.

Kun House II Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument Nomination, Los Angeles, CA. Project Manager. Shannon prepared LAHCM nomination for the Joseph Kun House II, 1950 residence designed by Richard Neutra and presented the nomination to the Cultural Heritage Commission.
1828 Edgemont Street Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument Nomination,, Hollywood, CA. Project Manager.

Shannon prepared LAHCM nomination for a 1940 Garden Apartment complex in Hollywood and presented the nomination to the Cultural Heritage Commission.

Silver Lake Reservoir Complex EIR and Impacts Analysis, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. Shannon conducted research on the historic development of the Silver Lake Reservoir Complex and identified all previously identified historic resources within 0.25-mile of the perimeter of the site to conduct a direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts analysis for the Complex’s proposed master plan. 1600 Naud and 1635 – 1639 Main Street Historic Resource Assessment and MND, Los Angeles, CA. Senior Architectural Historian. Shannon managed cultural portion of CEQA environmental review process, focusing on ten coldstorage facilities as potential historic resources, including eligibility evaluations, analysis of projects impacts and recommendations on adaptive reuse and mitigation.

Historic Structure Report, New Mexico Veteran’s Home, Truth or Consequences. Project Manager. Shannon served as the Project Manager on the preparation of an Historic Structure Report for a 1937 hospital for crippled children, including historic narrative and context, evaluation of significance, documentation of original construction and later modifications, and historic preservation recommendations.

State & National Register Nomination, Ashley Pond Residence (535 East Palace Avenue), Santa Fe, NM. Project Manager. Shannon prepared State and National Register nomination of a 1925 residence and compound designed by John Gaw Meem.

Multiple Property Documentation Form for the Cañon neighborhood, Taos, NM. Project Manager. Shannon performed the initial neighborhood survey, individual nominations for three resources, and associated historic context.

The properties listed included a residential compound, a guesthouse/hotel and a community chapel.

Architectural Survey of the Sioux Falls Historic District & Pettigrew Heights neighborhood, Sioux Falls, SD. Project Manager. Shannon served as the Project Manager on the re-survey of a 1974 National Register district, including approximately 240 residential resources. New survey of an adjoining neighborhood with approximately 120 residential resources. She also prepared survey reports with recommendations on district expansion and new district possibilities.

County-wide Architectural Surveys, South Dakota. Project Manager. Shannon served as the Project Manager on four county-wide architectural surveys, including integrity evaluation, identification of potentially significant resources for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; research and writing of an accompanying historic context.  Tripp County: 1,617 square miles, 351 surveyed resources.

Shannon L. Papin (Continued)
Cultural Resource Specialist IV
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
 McPherson County: 1,152 square miles, 168 surveyed resources.  Walworth County: 745 square miles, 211 surveyed resources.  Moody County: 521 square miles, 204 surveyed resources Cultural Resource Surveys. Shannon performed cultural resource surveys for a variety of compliance documents including Environmental Impacts Reports, Section 106, Section 4F, and NEPA compliance. Project duties included consultation with states, local municipalities, tribes and planning consultants, as well as overseeing the archaeological portion of the survey.
 Cold War Era Properties Survey, Shaw Air Force Base, Sumter, SC  Property Surveys for EA, Fort Bliss Army Base, El Paso, TX  Portales Railroad Depot Focus Area, Portales, NM
 Washington Avenue Pedestrian Improvements, Lovington, NM  Environmental Assessment, Water Control Facilities, Montezuma, NM  Interstate 25 Landscape Improvements, Glorieta/Rowe, NM  12.68-mile Pipeline Expansion, Bosque, NM
 Housing Rehabilitation Project, Santo Domingo Pueblo
 NM Visual Impact Assessment, various Plateau Cell Towers, NM  Construction at Day School Complex, Picuris Pueblo, Penasco, NM  Santa Fe County Courthouse, Santa Fe, NM
Historic American Building Surveys, Walker Air Force Base, Roswell, NM. Project Manager. Shannon prepared the building documentation (HABS Level III standard) of three buildings at the former Walker Air Force Base as well as the former Roswell Airfield Terminal Building
Historic American Building Surveys, Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM. Project Manager. Shannon prepared the building documentation (HABS Level II standard) of the 21st EOD Headquarters at Kirtland Air Force Base.

Historic American Building Surveys, White Sands Missile Range, Alamogordo, New Mexico. Shannon prepared the building documentation (HABS Level II standards) of the old Officer’s Club at White Sands Missile Range.

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Washington D.C. Director of Communications and State Services. Shannon served as the primary liaison and resource for all fifty-nine State Historic Preservation Offices and represented NCSHPO to Congress and the federal government as well as the press, partner organizations and general public. Worked extensively with the National Park Service and the Advisory Council onHistoric Preservation and served on task forces dealing with the Section 106 review process, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, and National Register Criteria and Processes.

CarrAmerica Urban Development, Inc., Washington, DC. Development Assistant. Shannon was the assistant for multiple downtown development projects including a mixed-use project of approximately 450,000 square feet combining office, residential andpreferred arts retail in three historic buildings along with new construction. Duties included assistance with project approvals, design review, due diligence,acquisition and development documents, pro forma analysis as well as workingwith public and private groups to garner support and necessary approvals.

Valerie Smith
Architectural Historian
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Valerie is an architectural historian with four years of experience in historic preservation in California and New York. Her work with historic resources and cultural heritage includes extensive and detailed archival research, drafting historic resource assessments, historic preservation consulting such as plan reviews and construction monitoring, feasibility studies, and resource surveys and documentation. She has experience with conservation projects, conditions assessment reports, and materials science. Her studio art background and photography training have proven helpful for onsite documentation and she is currently training to be a HABS photographer. In addition to historic preservation and photography, Valerie has 18 years of professional experience in finance and investor relations with strong client and project management skills, which have been an asset in her role at ESA.

Relevant Experience
3916 Martin Luther King Jr, Historic Resource Assessment, Los Angeles, CA.

Architectural Historian. Valerie co-authored the production of a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRA) to establish the building’s historic significance in the Crenshaw neighborhood of Los Angeles. Valerie’s research provided context for a 1962 bank building in the International Style that was occupied by a Black-owned savings and loan company for over twenty years. The founder, Peter Dauterive was instrumental in race relations in Los Angeles and provided financial services to underserved communities, served on the board of various foundations, and started a scholarship fund at USC for minority students.

Ventura County Transportation Commission, US 101 Improvement Project, Ventura County, CA. Architectural Historian. While working for ICF, Valerie assisted with a largescale Cultural Heritage Survey as part of the US 101 Improvement Project. The project included the survey of over 100 buildings in the study area located throughout San Buenaventura (Ventura), Camarillo and Oxnard, California. As part of this effort, Valerie wrote historic context statements on various property types and architectural styles including manufactured homes, post-war restaurants, commercial buildings, and MidCentury Modern-style architecture. She researched, documented, and evaluated the individual properties and prepared compliance reports and DPR forms.

Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD), Section 106 Reviews, Los Angeles County, CA. Architectural Historian. While working for ICF, Valerie surveyed and researched buildings within areas of potential effect for various projects as part of the Section 106 requirements for the City of Los Angeles. She drafted DPR documents and completed deliverables for development projects. As part of her responsibilities, she wrote building descriptions, conducted site visits, conducted research, and evaluated buildings located in the vicinity of development projects.

EDUCATION
MS, Historic Preservation,
Columbia University
Advanced Certificate,
Columbia University
BA, Studio Art, Hope College
4 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE
(HISTORIC

PRESERVATION)
23 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE
(PHOTOGRAPHY)
18 YEARS’ EXPERIENCE
(FINANCIAL SERVICES)

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Preservation Alumni,
Columbia University, Board
Member
Columbia University,
Mentorship Committee
Member
California Preservation
Foundation, Member
National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Member
DOCOMOMO US, Member
Association for Preservation
Technology (APT), Member
Valerie Smith (Continued)
Architectural Historian
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
City of Los Angeles, Venice Coastal Zone Survey, Los Angeles County, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie expanded on existing research included in SurveyLA to evaluate contributing/non-contributing members of the Millwood Historic district of Venice, CA. Survey, documentation and research was conducted on a large number of bungalow-style homes within the historic district.
1000-1018 N. Croft Avenue, Historic Resource Assessment, Los Angeles, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie provided research, wrote historical contexts, and compiled a Historic Resource Assessment for four multi-family properties in Hollywood. One property was designed in a Mediterranean Style using a house stock plan from the local company Bungalowcraft. Two of the properties are Spanish Colonial Revival duplexes constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. The fourth property was designed in 1940 by a notable Los Angeles architect who became known for his unique window treatment and Minimal Traditional designs. The four properties were found significant as early dwellings in the Hollywood Scenic Tract under Criterion A, and as excellent examples of three different architectural styles applied multifamily properties under Criterion C. 133 Vieudelou Avenue, Historic Resource Assessment, Catalina Island, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie researched the oldest house in Avalon, Catalina Island and compiled a Historic Resource Assessment. The house belonged to a family who settled on the island during the early days of development into a resort town. The house is Folk Victorian style and constructed in 1888. The property was found eligible for the National Register and California Register for its significance under Criterion A, B, and C.
301 Beacon Street, Historic Resource Assessment, Catalina Island, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie researched a multi-family property on Beacon Street in Avalon, Catalina Island and compiled a Historic Resource Assessment. The dwelling has been owned by the same family who constructed it in 1923. The style is vernacular with elements of Italianate and Mediterranean Revival. It was called the White House Apartments and housed the original family and other short-term guests visiting the island. The property was found eligible as a rare example of a multi-family property from the 1920s in Avalon, Catalina Island.

West San Gabriel Valley, Historic Context Statement, Los Angeles County, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie authored the residential section of the West San Gabriel Historic Context Statement which involved extensive research, and the development of architectural context narratives and residential resource registration requirements. Valerie conducted an archival record search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) to determine the presence of cultural resources in eight unincorporated study areas. 211 Emerald Bay, California Register Nomination, Orange County, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie provided architectural historian services which included research, the development of historical contexts, and the preparation of a nomination for the California Register of Historical Resources for a property in Emerald Bay. 211 Emerald Bay is in a planned coastal “garden suburb” that was developed beginning in 1929. The community was designed by renowned landscape architect Mark Daniels and notable Pasadena architects such as Roland Coate and H. Palmer Sabin. The house at 211 Emerald Bay contributed to the early development of the neighborhood and is one of the last remaining intact examples of the Mediterranean Revival aesthetic developed by the architectural review board and original developer.

AGBU Manoogian-Demirdjian School Improvements, Categorical Exemption, Canoga Park, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie provided research, wrote historical contexts, conducted a site visit, and compiled a Department of Parks and Recreation form 523 and Notice of Exemption for an Armenian-American school in Canoga Park. The school is operated by the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU), and the organization purchased the parcel in 1985. The Valerie Smith (Continued)
Architectural Historian
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
campus was originally an LAUSD campus, and the AGBU has made improvements to accommodate the Armenian student body occupying the campus. The buildings are a mixture of 1962 Mid-Century Modern and post-1996 buildings.

Modernist house, Peer Review, Laguna Beach, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie peer-reviewed a California Register of Historical Resources nomination that had been drafted by other historians for a house in Laguna Beach. As part of the peer review, Valerie wrote a historic context statement for modernist architecture in Laguna Beach, focusing on 1960s and 1970s expressionist /organic single-family properties. The house was representative of a local, regional, and national trend for the design of houses by architects practicing in a modernist style. Valere drafted a script and provided guidance to the client and team for the presentation to the California State Historical Resources Commission at the quarterly meeting.

Eastmont Theatre, Historic Resource Evaluation, Oakland, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie provided research, wrote historical contexts, and compiled a Historic Resource Evaluation for the Eastmont Theatre. The Eastmont Theatre was constructed in 1926 during the rise of Art Deco theaters in the United States. The theater is a modest version of the movie palaces of the era and was evaluated for its significance in the city of Oakland and the larger context of Art Deco theaters.
615 E. Ocean Boulevard, Historic Resource Assessment, and Impacts, Long Beach, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie researched and evaluated a 1970s commercial vernacular restaurant that was originally a Copper Penny Family Restaurant. The building design was a modest interpretation of the Late Hollywood Regency style and consisted of a simple box design capped with a mansard roof.
448 West Cypress Street, Historic Resource Evaluation, Glendale, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie provided research, wrote historic contexts, and compiled the Historic Resource Assessment report for the property at 448 West Cypress Street. 448 West Cypress was identified as a historic vernacular warehouse from c. 1907 located in the Tropico section of Glendale, CA.
951 Cliff Drive, Historic Resource Assessment and Impacts, Laguna Beach, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie provided research and updated an existing impact assessment for a 1918 Beach Cottage with a Craftsman-influenced style in Laguna Beach. Valerie evaluated the property using the new Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Ordinance and assessed the impact of a pending addition to the property’s historic fabric. 1051 Marine Drive, Historic Resource Assessment and Impacts, Laguna Beach, CA. Architectural Historian. Valerie provided research and updated an existing impact assessment for a 1920s Beach Cottage with a Craftsman-influenced style in Laguna Beach. Valerie evaluated the property using the new Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Ordinance and assessed the impact of a pending addition to the property’s historic fabric.

Columbia University, The Harlem Renaissance: Preservation, Spatial Encounter, and Anti-Racism, Harlem, NY.

Architectural Historian/Student. As a graduate student, Valerie contributed to a group research report that examined the legacy of the Harlem Renaissance, its significance in anti-Black racism histories and its place-based associations. This included an in-depth study of the era, Harlem as the Black mecca, and the exploration of preservation through an innovative community lens. The goal of the report was to instrumentalize the heritage of the Harlem Renaissance toward anti-racism and social justice while also identifying and preserving key assets for the Black community.

Columbia University, Historic Paint Sample Analysis, Jay Heritage Center. Architectural Historian/Student. As a graduate student, Valerie contributed to a group conservation project that examined the layers of paint in the historic Valerie Smith (Continued)
Architectural Historian
Environmental Science Associates
esassoc.com
Jay Estate. The Jay Estate requested that Columbia’s Historic Preservation graduate students help date various parts of the 1838 Greek Revival mansion. Paint samples were collected, and the multiple layers of paint and architectural finishes were examined using microscopes in the historic preservation laboratory at the University.

Columbia University, National Register Nomination, Bronx, NY. Architectural Historian/Student. As a graduate student Valerie wrote a National Register Nomination for a church in the Bronx. The nomination is in review by the New York State Historic Preservation Office. The nomination detailed the history and significance of Creston Avenue Baptist, a historically black church constructed c. 1905, and designed in a Chateauesque style.

Columbia University, Woodlawn Cemetery Research Report, Bronx, NY. Architectural Historian/Student. As a graduate student, Valerie wrote a section of a group report for the Woodlawn Cemetery in the Bronx. The report included a detailed evaluation of the materials, stained glass window, and biographical family account of the Livingston mausoleum. One key goal was to determine if the window was created by Louis Comfort Tiffany’s company, and the other was to construct a vital historical account needed to create a preservation plan for the historic mausoleum.

Goodman Commerce Center, Historic Resource Assessment and Impacts, Long Beach, CA. Architectural Historian.

Valerie conducted a site visit and compiled a report for a 1967 Boeing factory in Long Beach. A project for a development plan of the property was created by Goodman and Valerie compiled historic and current information about the building.

Photography
Trained as a photographer, with a B.A. in Studio Art from Hope College, Valerie has 23 years of photography experience.

She has a large portfolio of architectural photographs from site visits, college courses and fine art photography exploration. She completed an architectural photography course at UCLA in 2018, and she is currently being trained as a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) photographer.

California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) – Authorized Researcher Valerie is authorized to perform record searches to uncover archeological and historic resources at one of the twelve Information Centers managed by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Valerie has been trained to review 7.5 USGS Quadrangle Maps, historical resource records and reports, and computerized data housed at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.

Publications
Preserve Orange County, Tracts “Better Homes in America in Anaheim,” December 23, 2022.

Columbia University Master’s Thesis, “The Small House Movement of the 1920s: Preserving Small ‘Better’ Houses,” 2022.

APPENDIX B
Tract Maps

95 19
127
127

59.90 80
2 80
40 4
4 60
4 90
120
40 BDRY LINE LOT 10, MR 34-67-72
MOST N COR LOT 18, BLK I, TR 3368
BDRY LINE LOT 11, MR 34-67-72
28 120
NW LINE LOT 18, TR NO 3368
120

48.86 63
BDRY LINE LOT 48
BLK I, TR NO 3368

15.95 15.40

20.28 40.28

13.55 3

18.41 6.36

13.72 3.73

40.50 BDRY LINE LOT 23
BLK I, TR NO 3368

19.60 SEE DETAIL

58.28 19

5.20 65
53 54
55 56
5 CITY
CITY
52 50 51
49 47
46 45
44 48
43 42
41 18
17 16
22 6
POR
15 14
12 13
11 10
9 8
7 1
2 3 4 OFFICIAL MAP OF

POR THE CITY OF AVALON
OM 1-31-46

METROPOLE
AVE
SUMNER
AVE
SUNNY
LN
BEACON
ST

BEACON ST
B
B
B
B
B 3330±SF
1970±SF
B
9630±SF B
B
6090±SF
1270±SF
1110±SF
360±SF
E: 30-222
N 52°59'W
S 37°01'W
60 60
30 30
50 50
15 15
15 15
PG
17 PG
30 PG
33 PG
16 B

14.48 B
PG
32 60
(50
(22
(901
(27
(49
(45
(40
(55
(20
(46
(900
(14
(28
(41
(902
(54
(31
(39
(13
(2
(30
(3
(17
(19
(44
(53
(12 (35
(32
(37 (1
(36
( (33
34 (52
(56
(5
(6
120
125
125
95 87.99
76 72

69.43 65
63 63

59.90 60
20 58.28
57 57
56 40.50
"

48.86 45

45.42 45.42
45 45

40.76 40
40 40
40 40
40 40
40 40
40 0.29

40.76 36
36 35.37

34.90 34.90
33 32
32 32
32 32.05

32.05 40
30 40
28 21.52

22.60 25
25 23.77

23.77 22.60

5.20 22.25

22.22 21.95

27.78 21.52

20.57 20.58

20.10 20
20 20.10
20 20
20 20
20 19.85
60 19

19.85 19.60

19.32 19.32
19 18.52

18.52 18.50

18.35 18.22

17.79 17.41
56 15.95

15.29 14.48

28.20 22.25
6 18.35
20 20
72 35.37
33 76
SHEET
P. A.
7480-31
TRA
5370

REVISED
1-20-65
671122057

OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR

SEARCH NO

MAPPING AND GIS

SERVICES
SCALE 1" = 50'
7480 31
q
680509308
720211618
740826510
800303
93042108011002-14
95030307003001-14
95061405001001-14
2001033002002001-14
2012091712001001-14
Date Printed: 8/20/2019 3:47:47 PM
Date Saved: 8/27/2019 3:19:37 PM

19.85 19.58

19.58 3.73
4 4
4 45.42
65 28.20
7 3
2 B
DETAIL

NO SCALE
ALL 900 SERIES PARCELS ON THIS PAGE ARE ASSESSED

TO AVALON COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
2019082702005001-14
2020

APPENDIX C
Sanborn Maps
Certified Sanborn® Map Report
Inquiry Number:
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street Avalon, CA 90704 July 27, 2023 7401034.3 This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1952 1952 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 3
Volume 1, Sheet 2
Volume 1, Sheet 4
7401034 3 6
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1944 1944 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 3
Volume 1, Sheet 4
Volume 1, Sheet 2
7401034 3 7
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1930 1930 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 2
Volume 1, Sheet 4
Volume 1, Sheet 3
7401034 3 8
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1924 1924 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 4
Volume 1, Sheet 3
Volume 1, Sheet 2
7401034 3 9
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1919 1919 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 3
Volume 1, Sheet 2
Volume 1, Sheet 4
7401034 3 10
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1909 1909 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 2
Volume 1, Sheet 1
7401034 3 11
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1902 1902 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 2
Volume 1, Sheet 1
7401034 3 12
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1898 1898 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 2
Volume 1, Sheet 1
7401034 3 13
This Certified Sanborn Map combines the following sheets.

Outlined areas indicate map sheets within the collection. 0 Feet 150 300 600 - page
Certified Sanborn® Map
10F4-48B9-A45B
10F4-48B9-A45B 1894 1894 Order Date: 07/27/2023 Certification # Site Name: Address: 301 Beacon 301 Beacon Street City, ST, ZIP: Avalon, CA 90704 EDR Inquiry: 7401034.3 Client: ESA Copyright Volume 1, Sheet 2
Volume 1, Sheet 1
7401034 3 14

APPENDIX D
Building Permits

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 21, 2024

AVALON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY AUGUST 21, 2024

MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER-5:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL- Present: Vice Chair Kathy Smith, Commissioners, Yolanda Say, Eric Huart, Jessica Romero, Bob Kennedy, Brenda Carel, Sean Sterling, City Manager Dave Maistros, Senior Administrative Assistant Donna Terpinitz-Romo, Project Manager Kelly Ribuffo and AV Specialist Jamie Hmeilak.

PUBLIC COMMENTApplicant Michael Flynn with Christopher Hill Development gave a short presentation to Staff, Commissioners and members of the community on the audience 16 letters opposing this project were provided to the Planning Commissioners and Staff. 40 letters in favor of the project were provided to the Planning Commissioners and Staff. 6 members of the community spoke about the project.

CONSENT CALENDAR1) Minutes- July 17, 2024
Motion to approve July 17, 2024 Minutes was made by Commissioner Kennedy seconded by Vice Chair Smith
(All Ayes) Vice Chair Smith, Commissioners Say, Huart, Kennedy. Romero, Carel, Sterling and Huart.
2) Election of new Chair and Vice Chair
A motion was made by Commissioner Huart to promote Vice Chair Smith to the Chair position. A second was made by Commissioner Kennedy
(All Ayes) Vice Chair Smith, Commissioners Say, Huart, Kennedy. Romero, Carel, Sterling and Huart.

A motion was made by Commissioner Huart to promote Commissioner Kennedy to the Vice Chair position.

A second was made by Chairman Smith.
(All Ayes) Chairman Smith, Commissioners Say, Huart, Kennedy. Romero, Carel, Sterling and Huart.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 21, 2024
PUBLIC HEARING3) A motion was made by Vice Chairman Kennedy to approve PC # 2867, Conditional Use Permit, Variances, Site Plan, and Coastal Development Permit. With the following Conditions:

Applicant will provide:

Freshwater Fire Hydrant on site, a crosswalk, location to be approved by City Manager and Public Works Dept., underground utilities,14’ rear setback and provide staffing when food and beverages are being served.

Location: 301 Beacon Street (APN 7480-031-040)
Owner: The Cameron Family Limited Partnership, Roger and Kathleen Wesley Living Trust dated November 21, 2019, and Suzanne T. Coe
Application #: PC 2842
Filing Date: April 24, 2024
(All Ayes) Chairman Smith, Vice Chairman Kennedy, Commissioners Say, Huart, Romero, Carel, Sterling and Huart.

Vice Chair Smith adjourned meeting at 7:12 pm
I, Donna Terpinitz-Romo, Senior Administrative Assistant, do hereby certify that the DVD videotape of the Planning Commission Meeting on August 21, 2024 is on file in City Hall.
______________________________________________________
Donna Terpinitz-Romo/Senior Administrative Assistant

From: [email protected] on behalf of Devin Thompson To: David Maistros
Cc: Gabrielle Morones; Donna Romo; Kelly Ribuffo
Subject: FW: Appeal Re: Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit and Application # PC2842 at 301 Beacon Street Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:26:32 PM
Hey Dave,
I am tentatively scheduling this appeal hearing to the October 1 City Council Meeting… pending confirmation of fee payment.

Thanks,
Devin
From: Bobby Sillman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 12:40 PM
To: Gabrielle Morones <[email protected]>
Cc: robert <[email protected]>; Laurie Glaser <[email protected]>; Donna Romo <[email protected]>; D Conover <[email protected]>; Devin Thompson <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal Re: Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit and Application # PC2842 at 301 Beacon Street
Dear City Clerk Gabrielle Morones and Avalon California City Council, We, the property owners of 314 Metropole Ave. and 310 Metropole Ave., as residents and frequent visitors to Avalon, wish to appeal the recent Planning Commission vote regarding the proposed development at 301 Beacon St. We have reviewed Application # PC2842 and have several concerns that we would like to bring to your attention:

Special Variances: The proposed development deviates significantly from the allowable Development Standards in the SC Zone, particularly in terms of height limitations, lot coverage, and floor area. For instance, the Development Standards in the SC Zone allow a height limit of 28 feet, while the development proposes a height of 28 to 44 feet to the top of the parapet, with an additional 10 feet for a rooftop elevator kitchen/restroom enclosure. This proposal adds 16 to 26 feet over the allowable height limit, which greatly affects the views and enjoyment of neighboring properties.

Impact on Views: The proposed development threatens to obstruct and eliminate the mountain and coastline views from 314 Metropole Ave., 310 Metropole Ave., and neighboring properties. This would not only diminish the enjoyment of these scenic vistas but also significantly decrease the rental and property values. The impact on the residents of 310 and 314 Metropole Ave, who include several local families working on the island, is particularly concerning. They have invested in their homes and their views, and the proposed development undermines their hard-earned right to enjoy their surroundings.

Increased Noise and Traffic: The proposed development is likely to increase noise levels and traffic congestion in the area. Construction activities will inevitably generate significant noise, disrupting the tranquility of the neighborhood. Additionally, the design of the development includes a rooftop bar and restaurant area that will contribute to increased noise levels from gatherings and other activities, further disturbing the peaceful environment of the neighborhood. Once completed, the new development will attract additional traffic, further straining the already limited roadways and exacerbating the current traffic issues. This increase in noise and traffic will negatively impact the quality of life for nearby residents and diminish the overall appeal of the area.

Lack of Parking: The development plans indicate insufficient on-site parking for an area that is already struggling with parking shortages. This could exacerbate the existing parking issues for residents and visitors alike, further straining the community's resources.

Review of Commission Decisions: The Planning Commission agreed to changes to the application at the meeting but did not require Mr. Flynn to provide updated plans for further review. We believe this is a serious misstep, as it prevents a thorough understanding of how these changes will impact the project. Mr. Flynn offered several hypothetical scenarios regarding the potential impacts of these changes but did not provide any concrete details.

Kelly specifically advised that adding updated plans as a condition would be prudent, but her advice was disregarded.

Additionally, Mr. Flynn categorically denied planning to include a bar and restaurant open to the public, with a 100-person capacity and operating hours from 7 AM to 10 PM. He asserted that the space would be for hotel guests to gather and relax. If this is indeed his intention, then the "bar and restaurant" terminology currently in the application should be removed to avoid any confusion about what will actually be allowed on the deck.

We respectfully request that these concerns be carefully considered.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. The check for the appeal, as well as a hard copy of the appeal letter has been mailed.

Sincerely,
Diane Conover,
[email protected]
Property Owner, 310 Metropole Ave.

Robert and Laurie Glaser, Nancy Bonus,
[email protected]
Property Owners, 314 Metropole Ave.
21' 2"
Lobby
f
14' 2"
New Ground Floor
Housekeeper
Housekeeper
Room #2 Room #3
Housekeeper
14' 2" 14' 4" 35' 0"
Elevator
1 Elevator
2 Manager
14' 0"
SH
5' 6"
Luggage
Storage
Bath
Laundry
3 Hotel Rooms
4 Staff Studios
4 Workforce Rooms
Down
Up
Room #1

THE CAMERON HOTEL
84' 0"
Mechanical
10/20/2024
(8 Beds)
12' 4"
7' 4"
12' 4"
14' 4"
7' 8"
13' 4"
10' 0"
11' 4"
11' 4"
10' 0"
10' 8"
26' 0"
8' 0"
6' 0"
Room # 4 Room # 5 Room # 6 Room # 7 Room # 8
Room # 9 Room # 10 Room # 11 Room # 12
14' 0"
up
9 Suite Rooms
Elevator
1 Elevator
2 82' 10 11/16"
35' 1 5/16"
5' 4"
Parking
Closet
13' 8"
The Cameron Hotel
Second Floor
84' 0"
10/20/2024
Hall
Stora
g
e
Room # 13 Room # 14 Room # 15 Room # 16 Room # 17
Room # 18 Room # 19 Room # 20 Room # 21
14' 0"
up
9 Suite Rooms
Elevator
1 Elevator
2 82' 10 11/16"
35' 1 5/16"
5' 4"
Parking
Closet
13' 8"
The Cameron Hotel
84' 0"
Third Floor
10/20/2024
Hall
Stora
g
e
Room # 22 Room # 23 Room # 24 Room # 25 Room # 26
Room # 27 Room # 28 Room # 29 Room # 30
14' 0"
up
9 Suite Rooms
Elevator
1 Elevator
2 82' 10 11/16"
35' 1 5/16"
5' 4"
Parking
Closet
13' 8"
The Cameron Hotel
84' 0"
10/20/2024
Hall
Stora
g
e
Fourth Floor
35' 0"
98' 0"
35' 0"
98' 0"
F
enc
e
F
enc
e
Conover
House
16' 10"
24' 8"
34' 8"
29' 6"
E
xisting
W
alkw
a
y
S
t
air
s
Concrete
Slab
35' 4"
48' 8"
14' 8"
54' 0"
14' 0"
1 5' 6"
2' 6"
4' 8"
12' 0"
16' 8"16' 8"
80' 0"
11' 6 11/16"
17' 4"
12' 4 11/16"
8' 0"
12' 6 11/16"
2' 8"
11' 1 5/16"
72' 0"
7' 11 5/16"
Elevator 1 Elevator 2
12' 0"
22' 8"22' 8"
21' 4"
22' 8"
21' 4" 9' 4"
16' 0"
7' 4"
1' 4"
1' 4"
19' 4"
Catering Prep
19' 4"
15' 4"
Storage
Bathroom 1 Bathroom 2
B
ar

ROOF TOP DECK

THE CAMERON HOTEL

CITY OF AVALON CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024 ADENDA ITEM:

ORIGINATING DEP: Administration CITY MANAGER: llkLA
PREPARED BY: Devin Hart, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Coyote Joe’s Outdoor Patio Lease AssignmentRECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Authorize the assignment of the lease for city-owned real property at 113 Catalina Avenue from Seabring Inc., dba Coyote Joe’s Restaurant to Coyote Joe’s Bar and Restaurant, LLC.

REPORT SUMMARY: On September 23, 2024, City Staff received a request from Ron Bevins,representing Seabring, Inc., dba Coyote Joe’s Restaurant, to assign the remaining term of his lease with the City of Avalon for exterior space at 113 Catalina Avenue to Martin Leyva, dba Coyote Joe’s Bar and Restaurant, LLC.

The exterior space, comprised of approximately 418 square feet, is currently used for outdoor dining. Per the lease agreement, any assignment must be approved by the City Council.

Additionally:
- The lease establishes a base rate of $3.25 per square foot (CPI adjusted annually).

Currently, the lease rate is approximately $3.90 per square foot or $1,629.80 a month. - The property may only be used for tables and chairs and similar furnishings to accommodate food and beverage sales and consumption and for no other purpose whatsoever.
- The property is required to be open nine (9) months each year.- The initial term of the lease is through December 31, 2025 with one, five year renewal term.

City Staff recommend the City Council authorizes assignment of the lease maintaining all of the existing lease terms on the following conditions:

1. The sale of the business is finalized.

2. Confirmation of the Catalina Island Company’s approval of the assignment.

FISCAL IMPACTS: Lease revenue.

CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The tenant will be required to remove tables from the public right-of-way and honor the area outlined within theoriginal lease agreement.

FOLLOW UP ACTION: Implement City Council direction.

ADVERTISING, NOTICE AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Pursuant to the Brown Act.ATTACHMENT: Current lease agreement.

LEASE AGREEMENT
This Lease Agreement (“Lease”), effective January 1, 2015 (Effective Date), is entered into between the CITY OF AVALON, a municipal corporation (“Lessor”), andSeabring Inc., dba Coyote Joe’s Restaurant (“Lessee”), (each individually a “Party” and collectively the Parties”).

RECITALS
A. Lessor is the owner of certain real property, including the improvements thereon, located in the City of Avalon with an address of 113 Catalina Avenue anddescribed in detail in Exhibit 1 (the ‘Property”).

B. Lessee desires to lease from Lessor, and Lessor desires to lease to Lessee, a portion of the Property as described in more detail in the Lease on the terms andconditions set forth herein.

C. This Lease is based on a standard lease form that is used by the Lessor for all leases entered into by the Lessor. To the extent that Lessee believes that certain of the standard provisions of this Lease were not intended to apply to the Property because of the specific nature, intended use, or location of the Property, Lessee should notify the City of Avalon Lease Department. This Recital C in no way relieves Lessee of any of its obligations under this Lease.

LEASE
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows;

1. Property. Lessor leases to Lessee, and Lessee leases from Lessor the Property, described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, consisting of 418 square feet of exterior space. Lessor and Lessee agree that if Lessormakes additional space available to Lessee and Lessee accepts such space, that space shall automatically be included in the Property and the terms of this Lease shallautomatically apply thereto, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.

2. Term.
(a) Term. The term of this Lease shall be from September 1, 2015, to December 31, 2025 (“Initial Term”). Lessor shall have the option to renew this Lease for one five (5) year period provided Lessor gives Lessee written notice of intent to renew the Lease at least sixty (60) days prior to December 31, 2025, but no more than 180 days prior to December 31, 2025 and the Parties agree to the terms and conditions (“Renewal Term”). The Initial Term and Renewal Term are referred to collectively herein as the “Term.”
(b) Termination. Lessee may terminate the Lease on sixty (60) days’ written notice to the Lessor.

Page 1 of 14 ends

Avalon City CouncilOctober 22, 2024

Avalon City Council
October 22, 2024