Hermosa Beach City Council
November 29, 2022

As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the IS/ND and administrative record on file with the City. The City Council finds that the IS/ND have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the IS/ND was prepared pursuant with the requirements of CEQA on the basis that there was no substantial evidence that there may be significant environmental impacts on specific environmental areas as a result of the Project.

SECTION 3. Adoption of the IS/ND.

The City Council approves and adopts the IS/ND for the Project. City staff is authorized and directed to cause a Notice of Determination concerning the adoption of the IS/ND for the Project to be filed in the office of the Los Angeles County Clerk in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 4. Records of Proceedings. The City clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution and to keep a copy of the same with such other documents and records of proceedings as may be designated by the City Manager.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 29th day of November 2022.

Michael Detoy, PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ________________________________ Myra Maravilla Michael Jenkins
City Clerk City Attorney
1004

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-XX was adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 29th day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Myra Maravilla
City Clerk
1005
65270.00001\34395204.1
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES
Public Review Draft
Initial Study and
Negative Declaration
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
February 14, 2022
1006
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -2- City of Hermosa Beach, California 1007
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -3- City of Hermosa Beach, California

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project Title: 911 First Street Residences

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director (310) 318-0242
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The 0.46-acre site is a paved lot on First Street, approximately 500 feet northeast of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Heronda Street in the City of Hermosa Beach.

See Exhibits 1 through 5.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc. 2040 Lomita Blvd.

Lomita, CA 90717

6. General Plan
Designation: CC, Community Commercial

7. Zoning: SPA-7, Specific Plan Area-7

8. Description of Project:

The Project consists of 12 attached condominium units to be developed in four separate three-story buildings. The four buildings will be separated by a common two-way driveway in the center of the property. Each of the 12 units will have three bedrooms and two bathrooms and will range from 1,517 to 1,807 square feet. Each unit will have three floors, a roof deck and an enclosed two-car garage. The project includes eight shared guest parking spaces.

Proposed Uses
The project’s proposed use is high density residential, in the form of 12 attached condominium units.

Project Schedule
Estimated start date: January 1st, 2022
Estimated completion and occupancy: 14 months from start of construction Construction Phases:

1. Excavation – 4 weeks

2. Foundation\Retaining walls - 8 weeks
1008
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 1
Regional Location
N
Source: Google Maps

PROJECT

LOCATION
1009
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 2
Project Vicinity
N
Source: Google Maps
1st Street
Anita Street

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
PACIFIC COAST HWY.

Frontier
Switching
Facility
1010
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 3
Current Land Uses
N
Source: City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa, 2017

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks
General Office
Commercial and Services
Facilities
Education
Industrial
Transportation, Communications, Utilities
Mixed Commercial and Industrial
Mixed Residential and Commercial
Open Space and Recreation
Vacant
1011
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 4
General Plan Designation
Source: City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa, 2017

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
1012
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 5
Zoning
N
Source:City of Hermosa Beach

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
1013
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -4- City of Hermosa Beach, California

3. Framing - 12 weeks

4. Rough Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing - 8 weeks

5. Lath, Stucco and Drywall - 8 weeks

6. Interior Finishes - 12 weeks

7. Exterior Hardscape\Landscape - 8 weeks

9. Project Site Characteristics
The project site is located in a mixed commercial and residential area in the city of Hermosa Beach, California. Topography is sloped to the west with a commercial development (Frontier Communications) on the west adjacent to the site and residential housing on the north, east and south adjacent properties. The site consists of three parcels encompassing approximately 0.46 acres. Concrete block walls and rolling steel gates bound the site and a concrete wall bisects the site in a north/south direction. There are no structures on-site and the site is covered with an asphalt surface. The site has recently been used as an automobile storage lot for a nearby Mitsubishi Motors dealership. The site was previously occupied by single family residences from approximately 1927 until 1966 when the residential structures were demolished, and a parking lot developed.

10. Requested Approvals
Discretionary Approvals
Implementation of the project requires the following discretionary actions by the City of Hermosa Beach:
 General Plan land use designation change from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density (HD) Residential.
 Zone designation change from Specific Plan Area-7 (SPA-7) to Residential-Professional (R-P).
 Subdivision Tract Map approval to combine three existing lots.  Approval of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) to allow construction of the new buildings and modifications to the site.
 Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow condominium use on the property.

Administrative Approvals
 Building Permit

11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Surrounding land uses are commercial and residential (see Exhibits 2 through 4). 1014
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -5- City of Hermosa Beach, California

12. Approvals Required From Other Public Agencies:

Los Angeles County Fire Department

13. Have Native American tribes requested consultation? No

14. Documents & References:
 California Department of Conservation, 1999. State Hazards Map, Redondo Beach Quadrangle.
 City of Hermosa Beach, 2014. PLAN Hermosa, Existing Conditions Report.  City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Code
 City of Hermosa Beach, 2017a, PLAN Hermosa (General Plan)  City of Hermosa Beach, 2017b, PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2015081009)
 City of Torrance, 2019. Solana Residential Development Project. SCH No. 2017071061.  Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
 Institute of Transportation (ITE), 2017. Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition.  Leymaster Environmental Consulting, LLC, 2016. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report. Prepared for Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc.
 Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.  South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), December 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.  TIN Engineering Company, 2018. Soil Engineering Investigation and Report for Proposed Nine-Unit, Two-Story Single Family House Development with Semi-Subterranean Parking Garage at 911-1st Street, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc.

15. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Hazards & Hazardous
Mats. Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning
Mineral Resources Noise & Vibration Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation
Utilities & Service Systems Energy
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

16. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation:
1015
1016
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -7- City of Hermosa Beach, California 3) Once the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Include a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted. 8) This form is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and all Initial Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify, a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State-designated scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1017
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -8- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Scenic vistas in Hermosa Beach consist of expansive public views of the Pacific Ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or inland views of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The most prominent scenic vistas in the city are from the beach and The Strand (the boardwalk) and other areas immediately adjacent to the coast. A few scenic vistas exist in the upper elevations of the city. The City’s General Plan identifies a Prominent Public Viewpoint at the southern gateway to the City at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Herondo Street (Hermosa Beach, 2017a, Figure 5.3). The project site is not visible from the gateway view at the intersection and only a very small portion of the site is briefly visible to travelers on Pacific Coast Highway. The visible portion of the site does not constitute a significant part of the viewshed from Pacific Coast Highway. There are no other designated Prominent Public Viewpoints near the project site. Like most east-west trending streets in Hermosa Beach, First Street provides a narrow public view of the ocean and horizon viewed along the length of First Street towards the west. The proposed development will not obstruct this view. A partial view of the ocean is also visible from the public right-of-way at First Street viewed diagonally across the site from immediately adjacent to the site to the northwest and to the north of the Frontier Building which otherwise obstructs views to the ocean. But this view is small and further obscured by more distant buildings. It is not a Prominent Public Viewpoint, nor is it an expansive view that contributes significantly to the public viewshed. Views across the site from the public right-of-way would be mostly blocked by the proposed buildings, with a narrow landscaped open space strip along the project site’s western property line. There are no other public views of the ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or the San Gabriel Mountains from the project site. The proposed development will not obstruct significant views of the Pacific Ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or inland views of the San Gabriel Mountains from any significant public viewing area. The proposed project would have no effect on public views or scenic vistas.
(b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed development would not affect any adjacent or nearby scenic resources. The site is not within or near a state scenic highway. The project would have no impact on scenic resources.
(c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The visual character of the site reflects the current use, a vacant, paved parking lot. Three large ornamental pine trees, ice plant, low-level masonry block walls and asphalt are the features on-site. The proposed development will fundamentally alter the visual 1018
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -9- City of Hermosa Beach, California character from its current state to that of a multi-family residential use, but the change in land use does not constitute a degradation in visual character. The site’s surroundings have the visual character of a residential neighborhood ranging from medium to high density residential, with the Frontier building immediately to the west. The proposed condominium development is similar in visual character to its surroundings. The project will not significantly degrade the visual character or quality of the site, or its surroundings.
(d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. Under current conditions, sources of light or glare on the site are limited to security lighting. Sources of light and glare near the site are typical of urban environments in Southern California. Artificial night lighting in the vicinity is produced from streetlights and ambient lighting from commercial buildings on Pacific Coast Highway and elsewhere in the vicinity. The proposed project will introduce new exterior light sources located on the building and in exterior common areas. Lighting for residential uses in Hermosa Beach is regulated through a standard condition of approval that will be enforced through the City’s process of review and approval for the project’s Precise Development Plan (PDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City’s standard condition requires that:

All exterior lighting shall be downcast, fully shielded and illumination shall be contained within the property boundaries. Lighting shall be energy conserving and motion detector lighting shall be used for all lighting except low-level (3 feet or less in height) security lighting and porch lights. Lamp bulbs and images shall not be visible from within any onsite or offsite residential unit. Exterior lighting shall not be deemed finally approved until 30 days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming or modification of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant or impacting to nearby properties.

Implementation of this standard condition through the project’s Precise Development Plan (PDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval process will effectively ensure that adverse light and glare impacts are avoided.

Aesthetics Summary: The proposed project will have no significant impact on aesthetics and visual resources.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
1019
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -10- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. No portion of the site is Prime Agricultural Land (as defined by Government Code Section 51201(c) and 56064) or Agricultural Land (as defined by Government Code Section 56016).

(b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact. The site is not zoned for agricultural use. No Williamson Act contracts pertain to the site.

(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands on or near the site. (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands on or near the site. (e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed project will not generate changes that might directly or indirectly result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

Agricultural Resources Summary: The project will have no impact on agricultural resources, forests or timberland.
1020
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -11- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Land use and development projects commonly have two major sources of air quality impacts: (1) pollutant emissions generated during construction of the new project, and (2) long-term operational emissions generated after construction. (See Section 18.8 for a separate assessment of the potential for impacts resulting from emission of greenhouse gases.) The activities proposed for this project are of a very small scale relative to the air basin and the level of emissions considered significant by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Construction activities are limited to the 0.46-acre lot and will not require the prolonged use of heavy, emission-generating equipment except for the excavation phase, which is expected to last approximately four weeks. The number of new vehicular trips generated by proposed uses after development, which is the principal source of post-development operational emissions, will be relatively small (approximately 88 estimated daily trips).

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for construction (and demolition) emissions for six categories of pollutants. These thresholds are based on their potential adverse short-term health effects. The scale of the proposed development is not nearly great enough to exceed these thresholds.
75 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC)
100 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
150 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 10 mm (PM10) 55 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 25 mm (PM25) 150 pounds per day of Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
3 pounds per day of Lead
The same is true of the project’s relationship to Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). These are thresholds established by the SCAQMD to examine the potential for on-site emissions generated during construction to adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors, such as residential neighbors or schools. LSTs reflect only those construction-related emissions that would occur on-site (not vehicular emissions generated by construction workers travelling to and from the site). The emissions they assess are therefore even smaller in magnitude than overall construction emissions (which do include construction worker trip emissions) and are even less likely to exceed established thresholds. Emissions generated on-site are likely to be highest during the excavation phase when heavy diesel equipment is in use. The use of an excavator and loader during the excavation phase 1021
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -12- City of Hermosa Beach, California will not generate emissions in excess of LST screening thresholds and will not adversely impact neighboring residences.

LONG TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The principal sources of operational emissions of new development projects are vehicular trips generated by the project, combustion of natural gas for water and space heating, the use of landscaping equipment, and architectural coatings during maintenance. None of these sources is expected to generate significant levels of emissions as a result of the project. While the proposed uses will generate new vehicular trips (see Section 18.16 for discussion) the estimated 88 daily trips are not great enough to generate new emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The proposed uses will also consume energy, but the amount of energy consumed by the 12 units will not be great enough to result in emissions that exceed thresholds of significance. None of the major sources of long-term emissions will increase significantly over current conditions as a result of the project, nor will the combined sources exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for operational emissions presented below.1
55 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC)
55 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
150 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 10 mm (PM10) 55 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 25 mm (PM25) 150 pounds per day of Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
3 pounds per day of Lead
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project’s long-term emissions are not great enough to exceed the thresholds of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) (see above discussion). Because the proposed construction will not substantially increase any sources of air pollutant emissions, the project will not result in significant local or regional air quality impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance.

The project’s development and long-term use will not obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Nor do the proposed improvements in any way conflict with the AQMP’s underlying assumptions. The AQMP is based on emissions projections which assume land use composition and intensity expressed in local general plan Land Use Elements. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." The current land use designation under the General Plan is Community Commercial. This designation allows for ‘retail stores, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and personal services’ (PLAN Hermosa, Table 2.1, Land Use Designations). Community Commercial uses are intended to be ‘Locally-oriented’ and therefore relatively low generators of vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT). For this reason, it is therefore probable that development of the project site under the current land use designation would likely be a low VMT generator. (It is also probable that such a development would meet the criteria of established VMT screening thresholds and would not result

1 Model runs of emissions for various land use types (performed for the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department) indicate that a considerably larger project of up to 20 dwelling units (single or multifamily) would not generate emissions that exceed the AQMD operational thresholds. 1022
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -13- City of Hermosa Beach, California in significant VMT impacts. See discussion in Section 18.16, Transportation, below.) Even so, Community Commercial uses generally generate higher levels of vehicular trips than a medium-rise residential use. For example, a general office use of 15,000 square feet on the 20,137 square foot site would generate 165 average daily trips, compared to the proposed residential project’s 88 daily trips. Other Community Commercial uses with higher trip generation rates are allowed under the current General Plan. AQMP regional emissions assumptions, being based on the General Plan, are likely to be higher than the emissions that would be generated by the relatively low number of vehicular trips anticipated under the project and its proposed land use designation change from the current Community Commercial designation to a High Density (HD) residential use. While the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan, and therefore may be inconsistent with projected emissions of the AQMP, its emissions can be expected to be lower than assumed under the General Plan. Rather than adversely impact regional air emissions, the project is likely to reduce emissions compared to AQMP assumptions, thus resulting in a net reduction in air quality impacts. (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant cumulative impact would occur if a project would, in conjunction with other projects, result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment with respect to federal or state pollutant standards. Because the region is in non-attainment with respect to ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10 and PM2.5, there could be a cumulatively significant impact if the project and related projects led to an exceedance of these standards or contributed to an existing exceedance. For determining the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impact, SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Because the proposed project would not generate construction or operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, the construction and operational emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and would result in a less than significant impact. Refer to discussion above. (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors typically include residences, hospitals and schools. Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the project vicinity. Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. However, as described in Section 18.16, Transportation, below, the project is not anticipated to cause any significant increase in traffic volumes or contribute to degradation of traffic conditions. The project will not generate vehicular emissions in sufficient quantities to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Although construction may result in low levels of criteria air pollutants, these temporary emissions will not result in significant pollutant concentrations (see discussion above) and would not affect sensitive receptors. Temporary construction emissions generated on the site will not be significant enough to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Toxic Air Contaminants2 (TACs) are often a source of pollutants associated with specific activities.

2 TACs refers to a diverse group of air pollutants regulated at the regional, state, and federal level because of their 1023
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -14- City of Hermosa Beach, California TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., benzene near a freeway). Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). As discussed above, the use of heavy diesel equipment for one or two days during site preparation will generate diesel-fueled emissions for a very brief time.

These short-term emissions are not great enough to constitute a substantial source of TACs. Nor will other construction-generated emissions that might be anticipated to occur on-site. (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No impact. The residential use proposed by the project does not include any activities that would generate objectionable odors.

Air Quality Summary: The project will not result in significant impacts to air quality at the regional or local levels.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

ability to cause adverse effects on human health. Ambient air quality standards have not been set for TACs because of the diverse number of air toxics and the fact that their effects on health tend to be localized rather than regional.
1024
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -15- City of Hermosa Beach, California Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site has already been developed and has been used as a private parking lot. There is no native habitat onsite that could support sensitive native plant or wildlife species. The project is in an urbanized area and there are no locally designated species, natural habitats or wetlands or associated environments at or near the site. (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. There is no riparian habitat and no other sensitive natural communities on or near the site.
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. No federally protected wetlands exist on or near the site. (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. No native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species exist at the project site. There are no migratory corridors on site or in the vicinity. There is no native habitat onsite that might be used by native wildlife as a nursery site. Migratory or native birds could potentially nest in the three non-native trees on-site. Policy 9.6 of the City’s General Plan calls for the protection of trees “that may provide temporary or permanent bird habitat”. This policy is enforced through the condition of approval presented below which will be applied to the project at PDP review to ensure avoidance of impacts to resident or migratory birds that might use the trees on-site.

Nesting Birds. If vegetation clearing or other project construction is to be initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), pre-construction/grading surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall be conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work. If a nesting bird or special-status species is located, consultation with the local California Department of Fish and Wildlife representative shall occur to determine what avoidance actions may be taken. If any active non-raptor bird nests are found, a suitable buffer area (varying from 250-300 feet), depending on the particular species found, shall be established from the nest, and that area shall be avoided until the nest becomes inactive (vacated). If any active raptor bird nests are found, a suitable buffer area of typically 250-500 feet from the nest shall be established, and that area shall be avoided until the nest becomes inactive (vacated). The limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area by a qualified biologist hired by the project proponent and endorsed by the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department. Encroachment into buffers 1025
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -16- City of Hermosa Beach, California around active nests must be conducted at the discretion of a qualified biologist. The applicant shall record the results of the recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable State and federal laws pertaining to the protection of nesting birds and provide documentation of compliance prior to issuance of building permits. (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no significant biological resources onsite or near the site that might be impacted by the project. The project will be required to comply with Section 12.36 of the Municipal Code which requires granting of a permit for the removal of trees with a trunk diameter greater than 12 inches.
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No impact. Neither the site nor its surroundings are governed by a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or any other habitat conservation plan.

Biological Resources Summary: The project will not have a significant impact on biological resources.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the project:
1026
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -17- City of Hermosa Beach, California (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No impact. There are no historical resources on the project site. Nor are there any identified historical resources in the immediate vicinity that might be adversely affected by the proposed development.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no recorded archaeological sites on the site or within the project vicinity. The probability of encountering archaeological resources on the previously disturbed

0.46-acre site is extremely low. Implementation of adopted General Plan policy (Implementing Action LU-21, Land Use Element, PLAN Hermosa) which requires measures to reduce or eliminate the risk of disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources, will ensure that impacts to cultural and tribal resources are less than significant.

LU-21- All discretionary projects that include ground disturbance or excavation activities on previously undisturbed land shall be required to conduct archaeological investigations in accordance with CEQA regulations to determine if the project is sensitive for cultural resources.

Additionally, the Lead Agency for future discretionary projects, the city is required under AB 52 to notify tribal organizations of proposed projects and offer to consult with those tribal organizations that indicate interest. Following any tribal consultation or archaeological investigation, the City shall weigh and consider available evidence to determine whether there is a potential risk for disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources and whether any precautionary measures can be required to reduce or eliminate that risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to complete training on archaeological and tribal resources before any ground disturbance activity and/or required a qualified archaeologist or tribal representative to monitor some or all of the ground disturbance activities. The City shall require the preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.
(c) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than significant impact. Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB 52), adopted by the California State Legislature in September 2014, identifies procedures for the evaluation of environmental impacts to 1027
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -18- City of Hermosa Beach, California tribal cultural resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AB 52 requires lead agencies to consult with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if the tribe requested, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed project in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation.

In compliance with Assembly Bill 52, the City of Hermosa Beach sent certified letters to eight designated representatives of tribes in Los Angeles County identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The City did not receive any responses from any of the eight representatives.

In the course of previous consultation (April 12, 2018) with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Manager and CEQA consultant met with the tribal chairperson, Andrew Salas, and tribal biologist, Matt Teutimezto to discuss potentially sensitive locations in Hermosa Beach. Information provided during that meeting and through subsequent correspondence included maps and information documenting the presence of a regionally important trade route utilized by members of the Kizh Nation in the prehistoric and historic past. Native American activities associated with this trade route are linked to the site of the prehistoric village of “Engnovangia” (“place of the salt lake”) which was located in what is now northwest Redondo Beach, not far from the municipal boundary with Hermosa Beach. The natural springs and salt beds at this site were an important resource that stimulated trade and transport of commodities along the “Old Salt Road” trade route. Although the alignment of the trade route is not known, it is generally thought to be along the Greenbelt (former railroad route). The significance of this trade route, and its high level of activity, suggest that some portions of the city, generally east of Manhattan Avenue and within proximity of the prehistoric village site, may still have the potential for yielding significant tribal resources, particularly at depths where non-sandy substrate is undisturbed. The 911 First Street site is approximately 0.15 mile from the prehistoric village site.

In evaluating the potential for the project to impact tribal resources, the City evaluated information from multiple sources in addition to consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, including a Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for PLAN Hermosa (PCR, 2014). No Sacred Lands have been recorded for the site with the Sacred Lands Inventory. There are no recorded archaeological sites at the project site or in the vicinity of the site. The project site has been previously disturbed by anthropogenic activities in modern times and the area that would be disturbed as a result of the project is limited to a footprint of approximately 20,000 square feet. The City has weighed all available evidence in the record and determined that although the potential risk for destroying or damaging any cultural or tribal resources is low, the project site’s proximity to the prehistoric village site warrants site disturbance monitoring during the project’s brief excavation phase, consistent with the City’s standard requirement for monitoring in sensitive areas (PLAN Hermosa, Implementation Action LAND USE 21), the potential for the project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in Public Resource Code 21074 will be less than significant.
(e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact. The entire site has already been disturbed and graded. The probability of encountering human remains is extremely low. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during excavation activities, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would result in notification of the County Coroner. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15054.5(a) and (e) would take effect. The implementation of these applicable laws and standard procedures would ensure that 1028
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -19- City of Hermosa Beach, California impacts resulting from the discovery of human remains would be reduced to a level below significant. (See City of Hermosa Beach, 2017a, Page 4.4-17.) Cultural Resources Summary: The project will not adversely affect cultural resources. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.6 ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Would the project:
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is development of a conventional residential land use with no extraordinary energy demands or uses that would result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. As an infill project in an area of mixed commercial and residential use, the 12 proposed residences will generate a relatively low number of vehicle trips (see Section 18.16, Transportation) with a corresponding low consumption of energy. The project will comply with State and local energy standards.
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The project will comply with the California Green Building Code. Compliance will ensue that the project’s long-term energy use does not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Energy Summary: The project will not have a significant impact related to energy. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?; or, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction?; or, (iv) landslides? 1029
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -20- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Would the project:
(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse seismic effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or other known fault zone. Nor is the site within the potential hazard zones (liquefaction) identified on the State Hazards Map (TIN Engineering, August 2018; City of Hermosa Beach, 2017, Figure 4.5-2; California Department of Conservation, Redondo Beach Quadrangle, 1999). As is the case throughout Southern California, the site is subject to potential ground shaking from seismic activity. Structural seismic hazards are mitigated through compliance with the California Building Code.
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant impact. The project will not create the potential for soil erosion except during the excavation and site preparation phases of construction. Compliance with the City’s standard requirement to prepare and comply with an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan (SWPPP) will significantly reduce the potential for substantial erosion or topsoil loss to occur (City of Hermosa Beach, 2017b, Page 4.5-12).
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No impact. The site is not geologically unstable or subject to instability as a result of landslide. Nor is the site subject to severe lateral spreading or subsidence, both of which are addressed in the Soil Engineering Investigation and Report for the project (TIN Engineering, 2018). Compliance with recommendations of the Soil Engineering Investigation Report will effectively avoid impacts related to hazards. See above discussion on liquefaction and related hazards. (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial risks to life or property?
1030
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -21- City of Hermosa Beach, California No impact. The site is underlain by silty sands which are not expansive soils (TIN Engineering, 2018, Page 7).
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact. The project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The site is underlain by Miocene older dune sands which have a low probability of yielding significant fossil remains (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010; City of Hermosa Beach 2017b, Section 4.4). Although Quaternary marine terrace deposits, a geologic formation with a history of yielding fossils in the region, also underlies the site at depth, the project will not disturb soils to a depth greater than approximately six feet and therefore will not encounter the deeper Quaternary deposits. There is a very low potential to encounter paleontological resources during construction activities.

Geology and Soils Summary: The project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to geology and soils.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (“MMT CO2EQ”) units. A metric ton is approximately 2,205 lbs. Some GHGs emitted into the atmosphere are naturally occurring, while others are caused solely by human activities. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation, and deforestation, as well as the manufacturing of cement.
 Methane (CH4) is emitted through the production and transportation of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as from livestock. Other agricultural activities influence methane emissions as well as the decay of waste in landfills.
 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is released most often during the burning of fuel at high temperatures. This greenhouse gas is caused mostly by motor vehicles, which also include non-road vehicles, such as those used for agriculture. 1031
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -22- City of Hermosa Beach, California  Fluorinated Gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which often include hydrofluorocarbons (HRC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Though they are often released in smaller quantities, they are referred to as High Global Warming Potential Gases because of their ability to cause global warming.

These gases have different potentials for trapping heat in the atmosphere, called global warming potential (“GWP”). For example, one pound of methane has 21 times more heat capturing potential than one pound of carbon dioxide. When dealing with an array of emissions, the gases are converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2EQ) for comparison purposes.

The greatest source of GHG emissions associated with development projects in California, by far, is vehicular emissions. The second greatest source is emissions from energy consumption (both natural gas and electrical). The project’s emissions would be considered significant if they exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) screening threshold of 3,500 MTCO2EQ per year for residential uses, as reflected in the SCAQMD’s interim significance thresholds (SCAQMD, 2008).

Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted previously in Section 18.3, Air Quality, total air emissions from the project (construction and operational) are expected to be well below daily emission thresholds for criteria pollutants, owing to the relatively small scale of the project. While the project will generate emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases, the magnitude of emissions is also anticipated to be well under the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold for residential projects of 3,500 MTCO2EQ/year.3

(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project’s GHG emissions are expected to be less than the screening threshold identified by the SCAQMD. In this respect, it is consistent with state, regional and local strategies to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary: The project’s GHG impacts will be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

17.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

3 By comparison, a 248-unit apartment complex generates an estimated 3,065 MT CO2e per year, below the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e per year. (City of Torrance, 2019, Pg. 5.6-33, Table 5.6- 3).
1032
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -23- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within 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 result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Responses to some of the questions below are derived from a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the project site (Leymaster Environmental Consulting, 2016). The Environmental Site Assessment found “No evidence of environmental conditions associated with the Property” and that “No further investigation is required” (Leymaster, 2016. Page 19).

Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No impact. The proposed residential use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials and by its nature would not introduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area. Nor would activities associated with construction of the project involve the routine transport, use or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No impact. Neither the project site nor the nature of the proposed uses present any foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. The operations associated with the proposed residences will not emit hazardous emissions, nor will they involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste.
1033
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -24- City of Hermosa Beach, California (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site (Leymaster, 2016). (e) For a project located within 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 result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. There are no public or private airports on or adjacent to the site. The nearest airport is Los Angeles International Airport, located approximately five miles north of the project site. (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact. The proposed project would not change alignment or access of streets serving the project site or surrounding area, and thus would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No impact. There are no wildlands in the vicinity of the project; therefore the project will not expose people or structures to injury or death involving wildland fires.

Hazards Summary: The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hazards or hazardous materials.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d. Substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
1034
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -25- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, result in release of pollutants due to project inundation?
g. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Would the project:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No impact. The project will comply with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements through its compliance with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements which in turn implement the Municipal NPDES Permit. The LID Ordinance (Ordinance No. 15-1351) requires the project to “control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area” and by “controlling runoff through infiltration, bio retention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. Project plans must include a storm water mitigation plan (SWMP) to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary to control storm water pollution from the completed project. All BMPs must meet performance standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. These requirements not only ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met, they also are effective in mitigating the project’s water quality impacts to a level that is less than a significant impact. The project’s LID Plan will be reviewed by the City to ensure that it complies with the LID Ordinance and other applicable requirements.
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No impact. The project will have no impact on groundwater, either by inhibiting groundwater recharge, introducing pollutants to the groundwater, or by withdrawing groundwater from an underlying aquifer. The project does not propose grading or any intrusion to groundwater depths. It will reduce rather than increase impermeable surface area onsite. The proposed residential land use will not introduce any pollutants that have the potential to substantially affect groundwater. (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? No impact. The project will alter the manner in which storm water is directed and managed on-site through integration of catch basins and increased permeable surface area, in compliance with the City’s LID requirements (see response to (a) above). This small-scale alteration is expected to have a beneficial though immeasurably small effect on the management of storm water volume and water 1035
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -26- City of Hermosa Beach, California quality discharged from the site because the site is entirely paved and impervious under current conditions. The project will not alter the course of a stream or river, or otherwise modify local or regional drainage patterns, in a way that results in substantial erosion or siltation. (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
No impact. The rate and amount of surface runoff during and after project development will be controlled by standard regulatory mechanisms. See above response to (a). (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No impact. The project can be expected to result in a slight reduction in the amount of runoff from the site that would enter the storm drain system, due to the beneficial effects of design measures and BMPs in compliance with the City’s LID requirements. (See response to (a) above). (d) In a flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zone, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No impact. The site is not within an area with the potential for adverse flooding impacts (see Leymaster, 2016, Page 11), is not in the Tsunami Hazard Zone and is not subject to seiche hazard. (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No impact. See above response to (a).

Hydrology and Water Quality Summary: The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hydrology and water quality.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Would the project:
(a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The project is construction of an infill residential development and does not have the potential to divide a community.
1036
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -27- City of Hermosa Beach, California (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No impact. The project will be required to comply with all applicable land use plans, policies and regulations, including policies of the City’s General Plan and regulations of the zoning ordinance through the discretionary approval process (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Subdivision Map). If approved, the discretionary permits will be consistent with the existing land use patterns.

Land Use Summary: The project will have no significant impacts related to land use. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No impact. Most of Hermosa Beach, including the project site, is underlain by Holocene-age dune sands. Although “sand, gravel and crushed stone” are identified among construction aggregate resources important to the region, the sand deposits underlying Hermosa Beach are not identified as an aggregate deposit of prime importance to meet the region’s future need for construction quality aggregates. The urbanized conditions that exist throughout the City reflect a long-standing land use commitment that effectively precludes mineral extraction at a significant scale either on the project site or within city limits.
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. There are no mineral resource recovery sites within the city. As mapped by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMBG), most of Hermosa Beach lies within the San Fernando Valley Production-Consumption Region in Los Angeles County. A small portion of Hermosa Beach south of 2 nd Street lies in the San Gabriel Valley Production-Consumption Region. A review of the Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County- South Half (DOC 1994) shows that all of the planning area is designated as MRZ-3 land. The MRZ-3 classification indicates areas of undetermined mineral resource significance.

Mineral Resources Summary: The project will have no impact on mineral resources. 1037
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -28- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.12 NOISE. Would the project result 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?
The project will generate temporary construction noise. The noisiest event is likely to be site preparation when some heavy equipment is used. The project applicant anticipates use of a 315 excavator and a 953 track loader along with haul trucks to export earth material. These pieces of equipment are diesel fueled and therefore generate noise above ambient levels. They can also generate groundborne vibration, though the magnitude of vibration anticipated from these machines is less than earth moving equipment and other machinery that would be required for larger projects.

According to the applicant, construction activities that produce extremely high levels of noise or vibration, such as jackhammers and pile driving, will not be used. The site preparation phase is expected to last 4 weeks, during which approximately 1,000 to 1,750 cubic yards of earth material will be excavated and exported from the site. The export of soil will require from 70 to 130 truckloads over the four-week period. Haul trucks and construction worker vehicles will add to the ambient noise level in the project vicinity on First Street and on other local and regional roadways as vehicles come and go from the site. However, this temporary increase in roadway noise will not be great enough to significantly increase ambient roadway noise levels.

During the remaining 10 months of the construction period the subsequent construction activities will generate noise temporarily at various levels depending on the activity. The magnitude of noise generated by these actions is not great enough to violate local standards provided such activity complies with the workday and work hour restrictions of the City’s Municipal Code Noise Ordinance.

Noise standards applied to land use and development projects consider the duration of noise (averaging the noise level over time) along with the volume of the noise event. The short duration of noise events reduces the overall effect of noise on the environment. Although there are residences immediately adjacent to the site to the east and north and other residences in the immediate neighborhood on First Street, the noise impact of the construction phase will affect these sensitive land uses only temporarily for a relatively brief period. The City’s Noise Ordinance limits construction and demolition hours to 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sunday or on national holidays. Compliance with the ordinance would ensure the project’s conformance with adopted noise thresholds and avoidance of any significant adverse impacts related to noise during the construction phase.

The site is subject to noise from traffic on First Street, but traffic noise is not significant enough to adversely impact the proposed land use. This is true for current traffic levels as well as for future traffic conditions. The number of vehicular trips generated by the project is very small and not great enough to result in a measurable increase in roadway noise (see discussion of traffic in Section 1038
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -29- City of Hermosa Beach, California

18.16). An increase in traffic volumes of at least 26 percent is necessary to cause a 1 dB increase in noise. (An increase of 1 dB is well below the level of increase in noise detectable by the human ear; a 3 dB increase is usually applied as the threshold level at which noise might be considered to have an impact.) The project’s estimated increase in traffic volumes of 88 trips per day will not approach a 26 percent increase over current traffic volumes. The proposed residential use will have no longterm effect that would increase the exposure of persons using the site to adverse noise.

Would the project:
(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? Less than significant impact. Neither the construction nor the long-term activities associated with the project will generate significant noise. The site is not currently exposed to noise levels in excess of established standards and the project will not alter this condition. See above discussion. (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than significant impact. The use of some diesel powered equipment (excavator, loader and haul trucks) during site preparation has the potential to generate groundborne vibration on-site. A peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.01 is considered to be a vibration level that is barely perceptible by humans and well below the level of vibration that would incur structural damage. A vibration level of

0.04 inches per second PPV is considered the threshold at which vibration has the potential to cause annoyance to occupants of nearby residences. A PPV of 0.2 inches per second is the threshold at which there is a potential to incur structural damage. A vibration velocity level that exceeds 0.04 inches per second PPV at the property line of any neighboring use is therefore an effective screening threshold for avoidance of both human and structural impacts. Impacts related to groundborne vibration are considered significant if the vibration velocity level exceeds 0.04 inches per second at the property line of any neighboring use. None of the construction activities or equipment that will be used on-site are expected to generate vibration levels that exceed the 0.04 threshold at neighboring property lines (FTA 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment) (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?
No impact. The site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Noise and Vibration Summary: The project will not result in significant noise or vibration impacts. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.13 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
1039
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -30- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the project:
(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. The project proposes construction of 12 new dwelling units, which would result in an increase in the local population of about 48 persons. This number of new residents does not represent a substantial level of population growth for Hermosa Beach whose current population is approximately 20,000 persons. The population of Hermosa Beach is expected to grow by 661 persons between 2015 and 2040. This level of growth is anticipated by the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa EIR, page 4.12-7) and represents less than 0.006 percent of the population projected for the year 2040 within the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCOG) planning area (see PLAN Hermosa Final EIR, page 4.12-9). The project’s additional 48 person increase is not great enough to be considered ‘substantial population growth’. The project will not induce indirect population growth through the extension of roads or infrastructure. (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project proposes to create housing on an existing private parking lot. No persons or housing will be displaced.

Population and Housing Summary: The project will not have significant impacts on population and housing.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1040
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -31- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
The project’s 12 residences do not present a substantial increase in the demands for public services. The project will thus not result in substantial adverse physical impacts resulting from the alteration of public service facilities or construction of new public service facilities. 1) Fire protection? No impact. The project will not impact fire protection services. The proposed use does not significantly increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions.
2) Police protection? No impact. There will be no significant impacts related to police services associated with the proposed use. The project will not significantly increase the demand for police services, nor will it induce the need for new or expanded police facilities. 3) Schools? No impact. The proposed uses will not result in a significant increase in student population or otherwise affect school services.
4) Parks? No impact. The project will not result in a substantial increase in the demand or use of parks.
5) Other public facilities? No impact. The proposed uses will not result in a significant increase in the resident population or an increase in employees great enough to substantially increase the demand for public facilities.

Public Services Summary: The project will have no impact related to public services. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.15 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1041
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -32- City of Hermosa Beach, California (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No impact. The project will not substantially increase the local population or increase the demand for local parks or recreational facilities, either directly or indirectly. It will have no impact on recreational facilities or parks.
(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The project does not include recreational facilities, nor will it require construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Recreation Summary: The project will have no impact related to recreation. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/Mitigation IncludedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.16 TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No impact. The project will not conflict with plans, policies or ordinances related to other modes of transportation (mass transit, pedestrian, bicycle). It will not alter or obstruct existing or planned bike paths. Nor will it alter or impede access to mass transit facilities. (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the appropriate measure of transportation impacts and prescribes criteria for analyzing VMT impacts, including the use of qualitative analysis in some cases. Analysis of the proposed project’s VMT impact applies the screening thresholds developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR, 2018), 1042
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -33- City of Hermosa Beach, California specifically the screening threshold of small projects which supports a finding that “projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-thansignificant transportation impact” (OPR, 2018, Page 12).

The First Street Residences project is estimated to generate 88 average daily trips (based on trip generation rates of a low-rise, multi-family land use per the Institute of Transportation (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, 2017). Because the project’s 88 daily trips are well below the 110 trips per day screening threshold, the project can be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No impact. The project does not propose any features, modifications to circulation facilities or uses that would introduce hazards.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. The project’s proposed modifications will not impact emergency access to the site.

Emergency access, fire lanes and ingress and egress points will be maintained in full compliance with the Building and Safety Code and Fire Code.

Summary: The project will have no adverse impacts on transportation. Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
1043
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -34- City of Hermosa Beach, California Would the project:
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No impact. The project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities except for connections to the site from existing local facilities which would not result in significant environmental effects.
(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No impact. Water availability for proposed uses will be verified through the City’s requirement for a Will Serve letter from the water purveyor. Water use will not result in environmental impacts. The project’s water demand is not large enough to exceed existing entitlements or the capacities of existing facilities.
(c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No impact. The proposed use will not require construction or expansion of treatment facilities. The current capacity of wastewater treatment facilities is sufficient to accommodate the wastewater generated by the project. Available treatment capacity will be verified through the City’s requirement for a Will Serve letter for the proposed uses.
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No impact. The project will generate solid waste during construction. Proposed new uses will generate increased amounts of solid waste, however the increase is not great enough to impact regional landfill capacity. Sufficient landfill capacity is available and is expected to be available through the lifetime of the proposed uses (20 years) (City of Hermosa Beach, June 2014). (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact. Policy 4.5 of the City’s Sustainability and Conservation Element requires that projects “use sustainable building checklists to minimize or eliminate waste and maximize recycling in building design, demolition, and construction activities.” Compliance with this policy will be enforced through the building permit approval process.

Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The project will have no impact on utilities and service systems.
1044
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -35- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.18 WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
(a) through (d)
No impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.

Wildfire Summary: The project will have no impacts related to wildfire. Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means the project’s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)?
1045
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -36- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact. The project has no potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of longterm, environmental goals? No Impact. The project does not jeopardize long-term environmental goals in favor of short-term environmental goals. If the General Plan Change request is approved, the proposal to develop residences at this site would be consistent with the long-term goals established by the City as reflected in the General Plan.
c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means the project’s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)? No impact. The project would not result in incremental effects of this type. Potential impacts are limited to those that are less than significant and which do not have un-mitigable incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed and with implementation of all standard conditions of approval and compliance with current City ordinances and policies will have no significant impacts to humans, directly or indirectly.

18. PREPARATION. This initial study was prepared by the City of Hermosa Beach with assistance from Ed Almanza & Associates, an environmental consultant under contract to the City.

Principal City staff participants include Melanie Emas Hall, Assistant Planner; Ken Robertson, Community Development Director; Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney.

The project’s vehicle trip generation projections were provided by the City’s traffic consultant, Seth Contreras of Fehr & Peers.
1046

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 20-1) AMENDING

THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HD) AND A ZONING CHANGE (ZC 20-1) AT 911 1ST STREET (APN 4186-026-047) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:

A. An application was filed on December 2, 2020, by the applicant Luigi Schiappa Development Inc., for development of a property located at 911 1st Street requesting a General Plan Amendment amending the land use designation from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density Residential (HD), a Zoning Code Change changing the zoning designation from Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) to Residential- Professional (R-P) and approval of Conditional Use Permit (CON 20-05), Precise Development Plan (PDP 20-10), and Tentative Parcel Map No. 83011 for a proposed twelve-unit attached residential condominium project (collectively, the “Project”).

B. An Initial Study (“IS”) was prepared by the City in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The IS indicated that the Project would not have an impact on the environment. As such, a Negative Declaration (“ND”) was prepared.

C. On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a 12-unit condominium project. There was discussion regarding the current Housing Element process being updated and whether there was an opportunity to consider affordable housing or other public benefit within this project. The project was continued for further study. The Housing Element Process has been lengthier than expected and mechanisms to require affordable housing or other public benefit have not been implemented. The Planning Commission held a dully noticed public hearing on November 15th and deliberated on the project. All interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. 1047

D. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-17 recommending, among other things, adoption of the General Plan Amendment (GPA 20-1) amending the land use designation from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density Residential (HD) and adoption of the IS/ND.

E. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the 29th day of November, 2022. All interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.

F. The proposed General Plan Amendment is deemed to be in the public interest under Government Code section 65358 for the following reasons:

1. The distance of the Community Commercial designation from Pacific Coast Highway extends further into the residential neighborhood than any other property on either side of Pacific Coast Highway.

2. The subject property is under separate ownership from the Pacific Coast Highway facing commercial property at 102 Pacific Coast Highway, making it unlikely to be developed as part of a greater commercial project.

3. It is unlikely a commercial use would be compatible at entrance of the residential neighborhood. A retail or office building would be out of place since the property is not easily visible from Pacific Coast Highway and is surrounded by residential uses on three sides.

4. The topography of the site is sloping up away from Pacific Coast Highway, separating it from the Pacific Coast Highway -adjacent properties physically upward along the residential street.

5. A residential use would be compatible with the surrounding area which is comprised of multiple-family developments.

G. The City Council has approved Resolution No. 22-XX, which adopted the IS/ND for, among other things, the General Plan Amendment.

SECTION 2. Approval
1048

A. The City Council hereby approves a General Plan Land Use Map amendment from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density Residential (HD) as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto.

SECTION 3. Environmental Review.

The City Council has adopted Resolution No. 22-XX finding that the IS/ND was prepared pursuant with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there was no substantial evidence that there may be significant environmental impacts on specific environmental areas as a result of the Project.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remainder of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. Record of Proceedings. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the adoption of this Resolution and to keep a copy of same along with such other documents and records of proceedings as may be designated by the City Manager. This Resolution shall only become effective upon the adoption and effective date of Ordinance No. 2022-XX. The effective date of this Resolution shall be the same as the effective date of Ordinance No. 2022-XX.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 29th day of November 2022.

Michael Detoy, PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA
1049

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ________________________________ Myra Maravilla Michael Jenkins
City Clerk City Attorney
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-XX was adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 29th day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Myra Maravilla
City Clerk
1050
911
911 1st Street,Hermosa Beach, CA, 90254
dlR Design Inc.

Ricky de la Rosa
2040 Lomita Blvd., Suite 104,
Lomita, CA, 90717

1.310.972.9050
[email protected]
CLIENTLuigi Schiappa Dev ppa Development, Inc.2040 Lomita Blvd., ta Blvd., Suite 100,Lomita, CA, 90717 ita, CA, [email protected]

HERMOSA
SD PACKAGECLIENTLuigi Schiappa Development, Inc.2040 Lomita Blvd., Suite 100,Lomita, CA, [email protected] SHEET INDEX:01 Cover Sheet02.1 Tabulations / Site Plan02.2 Fire Access Plan03.1 Conceptual Diagrams03.2 Parking & Open Space04 Site Plan (1st Floor)05 Site Plan (2nd Floor)06 Site Plan (3rd Floor)07 Site Plan (Roof / Deck)08 Elevations 1, 2, 309 Elevations 4, 5, 610 Elevations 7, 8 11 Plan A12 Plan B13 Plan C14 Plan D15 Plan E16 Plan F17 Plan G18 Plan H19 Building Sections20 Site Photographs21 Conceptual Imagery22 3D Renderings 01 20-01
R+S
1051
Building ( 3 Units )

BUILDING LEGEND

SITE PLAN

F IREL ANE

ZONING SUMMARY

PROJECT ANALYSIS

UNIT SUMMARYOPEN SPACE / AMENITY SUMMARYPARKING SUMMARYPROJECT SITE INFORMATIONSETBACKS PLAN

PROJECT UNITS TOTAL

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY GROSS AREA GROSS AREA SUBTOTAL DECK AREA DECK AREA SUBTOTAL RATIO NUMBER OF UNITS ??? 12
26 DU/AC20,362 SF1.013 STORIES
30’ ABOVE EXISTING GRADE MAX. <30’ ABOVE EXISTING GRADE FAR DOES NOT INCLUDE GARAGE100 SF MIN. ADJACENT TO PRIMARYLIVING AREA100 SF MAX. ON ROOF DECKS MAYCOUNT AS OPEN SPACE DENSITY 33 DU/AC (1,320 SF/DU MIN.)
65% MAX. (13,089 SF) 46% (9,258 SF)200 C.F PER UNIT3 STORY TOWNHOME - TYPE V-B 396-476 C.F PER UNIT
300 SF/DU (MIN. DIMENSION OF 7’)100 SF/DU ADDITIONAL (5+ UNIT DEVELOPMENTS) = 400 SF/DU * 12 UNITS = 4,800 SF 4,430 SF PUBLIC + 1,200 PRIVATE= 5,630 SF
BUILDING FLOOR AREALOT COVERAGEFLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.)BUILDING HEIGHTA 3 UNITS ± 1,565 SF 4,695 SF 405 SF 1,215 SF 25.9% ± 1,623 SF 1,623 SF 407 SF 407 SF 25.1%± 1,802 SF 1,802 SF 432 SF 432 SF 24.0%± 1,808 SF 1,808 SF 432 SF 432 SF 23.9%± 1,627 SF 4,881 SF 473 SF 1,419 SF 29.1%± 1,830 SF 1,830 SF 479 SF 479 SF 26.2%± 1,862 SF 1,862 SF 513 SF 513 SF 27.6%± 1,861 SF 1,861 SF 516 SF 516 SF 20,362 SF 5,413 SF 26.6%

27.7%
3 BR / 2.5 BA
B 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAC 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAD 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAE 3 UNITS 3 BR / 2.5 BAF 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAG 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAH 1 UNIT 12 UNITS
3 BR / 2.5 BA

OPEN SPACE (USABLE)STORAGE SPACE (PRIVATE)PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TYPE

REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED

COMMON OPEN SPACEREQUIREDPROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL/GUEST (2) STANDARD 18’x20’ SPACE / UNIT (12 UNITS) 24 SPACES (1) GUEST SPACE / 2 UNITS (12 UNITS) 6 SPACES

RESIDENTIAL/GUEST
TOTAL(2) STANDARD 18’x20’ SPACES / UNIT (12 UNITS) 24 SPACES(1) 10’x20’ GUEST SPACE 1 SPACES(0) 17’x20’ GUEST SPACE - H.C. 0 SPACES(1) 8’x20’ / 9’x20’ GUEST SPACE - COMPACT 6 SPACESTOTAL 31 SPACES 30 SPACES
4,800 SF 2,482 SF
LANDSCAPED AREA = 3,658 SF200 SF/DU OF ROOF DECK AREA MAY COUNT400 SF/DU REQUIRED (12 UNITS) 2,400 SF4,882 SF

REQUIRED PROPOSED NOTES

PRIVATE OPEN SPACETOTAL OPEN SPACE
NOTES

APN NUMBER
4186-026-047
FRONT - SOUTH 10’
5’5’5’
10’10’10’8’ - 10’

SIDE - EASTSIDE - WESTREAR - NORTH
911 1ST STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 SPA (COMMERCIAL) R-P 20,137 0.46

ADDRESS EXISTING ZONE PROPOSED NEW ZONE LOT AREA (ACRE) LOT AREA (SF) 2 N D S T R E E T

PACIFI C COA ST HWY(BEYOND)
N
1 S T S T R E E T
0 32
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
64 128 96

SITE PLAN
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 4

DRIVE AISLE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

TRASH /

RECYCLE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

VEHICULAR ACCESS
GUEST

PARKING
PLAN
A
PLAN
A
PLAN
A
PLAN
D
PLAN
C
PLAN
B
PLAN
E
PLAN
E
PLAN
E
PLAN
H
PLAN
G
PLAN
F
( EXISTING PARKING )
( EXISTING R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY )
( EXISTING R-P PROFESSIONAL )
Tabulations / Site & Building Plan

02.1 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1052

EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING
0 32
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
64 128 96
N
Hose PullHose Pull - Start/EndNo Parking Fire Lane
LEGEND
Fire Hydrant - NewFire Hydrant - Existing
150’ HOSE PULL
120’ HOSE PULL
100’ HOSE PULL
150’ HOSE PULL
55’ HOSE PULL
150’ HOSE PULL
80’ HOSE PULL
60’ HOSE PULL
150’ HOSE PULL
90’-0”

FIRE TRUCK ACCESS / NO PARKING FIRE LANE

TRASH /

RECYCLE
B.1 & B.3 - 1ST STREET - SOUTH ELEVATION
1 ST STREE T 1 ST STREE T
28'-0"

CLEAR AT GROUND
26'-0"26'-0"

CLEAR TO SKY

DRIVE AISLE
28'-0"

CLEAR AT GROUND

CURB CUT

CLEAR TO SKY
32'-9"
30'-0"
29'-0"
29'-0"

P EDE S TRIAN A CC E SS
A
RECY
S
CLE
N
17'-10"
SPACE 1
25'-0"
SPACE 4
39'-0"
SPACE 2-3
Fire Access Plan + Existing On-Street Parking

02.2 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1053
16’ RISE ACROSS SITE
13’ RISE ALONG FRONT
5’

16.5’
16’

2. SLOPE

7.9%

2.9%

13.4%
115.00’ DATUM
103.60’ DATUM

98.60’ DATUM
114.60’ DATUM0
10’
10’
10’
5’
5’
5’
5’
10’
10’ FRONT REQ / 10‘ PROVIDED
5’ BACK REQ / 8’-10‘ PROVIDED
5’ SIDES REQ / 10’ PROVIDED

3. SETBACKS
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 3
119’-7” x 168’-4” = 20,137 SF
119’-7”
168’-4”

1. LOT SIZE
30’ ABOVE NATURAL GRADE
( CONSIDERING CROSS-SITE SLOPE )

4. MAX HEIGHT
30’
4 144.60’ DATUM
145.00’ DATUM
133.60’ DATUM
128.60’ DATUM
4,882 SF TOTAL2,482 SF PUBLIC2,400 SF PRIVATE = 200 SF/DU

7. OPEN SPACE
LOT AREA = 20,137 SF
65% MAX. LOT AREA = 13,089 SF
( 45% PROVIDED = 8,986 SF )

5. LOT COVERAGE
1,420 SF LIVING
405 SF GARAGE
100 SF DECK

8. PROGRAM

GARAGEENTRYEATINGSLEEPINGSLEEPINGDECKLIVINGDINING
B1
B2
B3
B4
3RD FLOOR2ND FLOOR1ST FLOORPARTY WALL
8’-1” GROUND FLOOR
8’-1“ & 9‘-1” UPPER FLOORS

6. FLOOR HEIGHTS
8’-1”8’-1”9’-1”
8’-1”8’-1”
8’-6”
9’-1”
8’-6”
8’-1”
9’-1”8’-1”
9’-1”

MAXIMIZE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE

CAPITALIZE ON OCEAN VIEWS

PRIVACY B/W UNITS & NEIGHBORS

9. CONCEPT

ROOF DECKACCESSPRIVACY WALL(OBSCURED)VIEWS

PUBLICPRIVATE

PUBLICPRIVATE
30’ CLIPPING PLANEMINIMAL OPENINGS/ VIEWS
Conceptual Diagrams

03.1 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1054
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48
TOTAL UNITS: 12 DU
A. REQUIRED OPEN SPACE: 300SF/DU + 100SF/DU ADDITIONAL (FOR 5+ UNIT DEVELOPMENTS) = 400SF/DU 400SF/DU * 12 DU = 4,800 SF
B. PROVIDED OPEN SPACE = 2,482 SF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE + 2,400 SF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (200SF MAX. PER UNIT * 12) = 4,882 SF
C. PROVIDED ON-STREET PARKING = 4 SPACES (STANDARD 8’x20’ SPACE) N
Roof3rd Floor1st Floor
LEGEND

GUEST GUEST GUESTGUEST
GUEST

GUEST GUEST
3RD: 207 SF 3RD: 200 SF 3RD: 200 SF 3RD: 205 SF 3RD: 232 SF 3RD: 232 SF3RD: 100 SF ROOF: 179 SF
3RD: 100 SF
ROOF: 173 SF
UNIT E1
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 100 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 473 SF
UNIT E2
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 100 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 473 SF
UNIT H
ROOF: 199 SF
3RD: 117 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 516 SF
UNIT G
ROOF: 199 SF
3RD: 114 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 513 SF
UNIT E3
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 100 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 473 SF
UNIT F
ROOF: 179 SF
3RD: 100 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 479 SF
UNIT A1
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 205 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 405 SF
UNIT A2
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 200 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 400 SF
UNIT D
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 232 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 432 SF
UNIT C
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 232 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 432 SF
UNIT A3
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 200 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 400 SF
UNIT B
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 207 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 407 SF
3RD: 100 SF
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 100 SF
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 117 SF
ROOF: 199 SF
3RD: 114 SF
ROOF: 199 SF
1ST: 1,197 SF1ST: 1,285 SF
On-Street Parking & Open Space

03.2 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1055
Garage
DownspoutElect. MeterGas MeterAir-Conditioning Unit( Screened From View ) AC
M Mailbox
T Trash
R Recycle
EntryLEGEND
E
Garage Floor Slope
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48
N
FS 105.20’
105.60’
FS 105.30’ FS 104.70’ FS 103.95’
@ DOOR
FS 105.30’
@ DOOR
FS 105.30’
@ DOOR
FS 105.30’
@ DOOR
FS 105.10’
@ DOOR
FS 104.90’
@ DOOR
9’-0” 9’-0” 8’-05/16”
105.80’

GUEST GUEST GUESTGUEST
GUEST
TR
GUEST

99.86’
105.32’
105.40’
FF 100.80’FF 108.73’
.2 .2 .1
OPEN
SPACE
1,285 SF
OPEN
SPACE
1,197 SF
FF 108.73’ FF 108.73’ FF 108.73’ FF 108.73’ FF 108.73’
FF 104.30’ FF 103.30’ FF 102.30’ FF 101.80’ FF 101.30’
105.80’ 105.60’
106.73’ 106.73’ 106.73’ 106.73’ 106.73’ 106.73’
105.80’ 105.80’ 105.80’
FS 107.48’
TOW [103.42’]TOW [110.67’] TOW [111.67’]TOW [113.67’]TOW [115.67’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [116.00’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [115.00’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [114.00’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [114.00’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [115.10’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [102.13’] TOW [104.92’]TOW [106.42’]
108.23’ 108.23’ 108.23’
TW [116.00’][103.00’]
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
103.80’ 101.80’ 101.30’
10’-311/16”
18’-0”
119’-75/16”
119’-75/16
”
8’-311/16
”
10’-311/16”
8’-311/16” 38’-6”
35’-6” 35’-6”
2’-0” 2’-0” 1’-0” 1’-0”
38’-6” 26’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
8’-05/16” 10’-0”
23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
66’-6” 65’-10”
8’-0 18’-0” 5/16” 66’-6” 65’-10” 10’-0”

CLEAR TO SKY

OVERHANG OVERHANG

DRIVE AISLE SIDE

SETBACK
SIDE

SETBACK

CLEAR AT GROUND
28’-0”
108.23’

PROPERTYCORNER

PROPERTYCORNERPROPERTYCORNER

PROPERTYCORNER
9 8
8 9
6 5
23467
EE E
M
M
E
EE
E

E E E E E
TOW [114.50’]TOW [113.00’]TOW [108.00’]
TOW [108.00’]
TOW [106.80’]TOW [112.23’]TOW [111.73’]
168’-4 5/16”
168’-4 5/16”
5’-0”
5’-0”
5’-0”
5’-0”

ELEVATION KEY PLAN
SHEET 08-10
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
Existing curb & gutterKEY NOTES

1.2. (E) Landscape3. (E) Concrete walk4. New 4’-0” wide concrete walk5. New concrete steps New board-formed concretewall

6.7. New landscape8. (E) CMU wall9. New concrete retaining wall

AC AC AC AC AC ACAC AC AC AC AC AC
19 B
19 5
1 8 23 108 23
9 108 2
Site Plan (1st Floor)
04 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1056
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48

ELEVATION KEY PLAN
SHEET 08-10
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
N
18’-0”
119’-75/16”
8’-311/16
” 8’-311/16” 38’-6” 38’-6” 26’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
8’-05/16” 10’-0”
23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
66’-6” 65’-10”
8’-0 18’-0” 5/16” 66’-6” 65’-10” 10’-0”

DRIVE AISLE

CLEAR TO SKY
SIDE

SETBACK
SIDE

SETBACK

SITE WIDTH
.2 .2 .1
A
19 B
19 Site Plan (2nd Floor)
05 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1057
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48

ELEVATION KEY PLAN
SHEET 08-10
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
N
18’-0”
119’-75/16”
8’-311/16
” 8’-311/16” 38’-6” 38’-6” 26’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
8’-05/16” 10’-0”
23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
66’-6” 65’-10”
8’-0 18’-0” 5/16” 66’-6” 65’-10” 10’-0”

DRIVE AISLE

CLEAR TO SKY
SIDE

SETBACK
SIDE

SETBACK

SITE WIDTH
.2 .2 .1
A
19 B
19 Site Plan (3rd Floor)
06 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1058
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48

DOWNSPOUT
18’-0”
119’-75/16”
8’-311/16” 8’-311/16” 38’-6” 38’-6” 26’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
8’-05/16” 10’-0”
23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
66’-6” 65’-10”
8’-0 18’-0” 5/16” 66’-6” 65’-10” 10’-0”

DRIVE AISLE

CLEAR TO SKY
SIDE

SETBACK
SIDE

SETBACK

SITE WIDTH
.2 .2 .1
N

ELEVATION KEY PLAN
SHEET 08-10
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
DownspoutLEGENDSlope to drain
A
19 B
19 EL 130.84’
EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 133.72’ EL 132.72’ EL 131.72’ EL 131.72’ EL 131.25’
MH141.43’CP9139.73’MH136.04’CP8134.23’
MH133.53’CP4132.23’
MH140.12’CP11139.73’
MH140.16’CP10139.73’
MH134.07’CP6132.23’
MH132.39’CP2130.23’
MH134.79’CP7133.23’
MH132.28’CP3131.23’
MH132.82’CP5131.23’
MH130.63’CP1129.23’
MH139.96’CP12139.73’
Site Plan (Roof & Deck)
07 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1059
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
B.2 & B.1 - WEST ELEVATION
B.1 & B.3 - SOUTH ELEVATION
B.4 & B.2 - NORTH ELEVATION

SITE KEY PLAN
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N

PAINT LEGEND
12345678
P1P2P3P4
Metal Coping (3”)

MATERIAL LEGEND
Wood RailCement Plaster( 20/30 Sand Finish )Recessed Vinyl Windows( Milgard Espresso )Clear Douglas Fir DoorsVinyl Sliding Door( Milgard Espresso )Stucco Expansion JointsMetal Shade 9 Wood Privacy Screen
Dunn Edwards Paint:Igloo (DEW379)Dunn Edwards Paint:Formal Gray (DE6382)Dunn Edwards Paint:Bank Vault (DE6383) P5 Dunn Edwards Paint:

Unspecified (DEXXXX)Dunn Edwards Paint:Unspecified (DEXXXX)

PLAN A PLAN E

PLAN B PLAN A PLAN C PLAN A PLAN A

PLAN F PLAN B
PLAN D
1 29'-5"
8'-6" 9'-1" 8'-1"
29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
108.23’
112.23’
114.60’
104.70’104.48’

98.80’
100.36’

98.60’95.00’
106.23’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
(E) ELEV.
( EXISTING )
( R-P )
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"

98.60’
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE 108.23’
106.23’
115.00’
( EXISTING )
( R-P )

95.00’
DATUM
105.80’
102.48’
2 3
1 3 4 6 7
P3
2 P1
3 P2
2 P5
5 P5
8 P4
3 P2
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
101.30’110.63’120.39’130.72’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
103.30’112.63’122.39’131.72’
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
106.30’115.63’125.39’134.72’
101.30’110.63’120.39’130.72’
104.30’113.63’123.39’133.72’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’

SIDEWALK
103.80’
101.80’ 101.80’
100.36’ 103.60’

95.00’

98.60’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
30’ ABOVE GRADE

EXISTING GRADE
129.23’
102.13’
TOW
115.00’
TOW
115.10’
TOW
136.23’
133.23’
139.73’
137.23’
130.23’
131.23’
133.23’
136.23’
139.73’
137.23’
129.23’
131.23’
134.23’
130.23’
108.00’
TOW
109.00’
TOW
(
'
Elevations 1, 2, 3
08 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1060
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
B.4 & B.3 - WEST ELEVATION
B.3 & B.4 - EAST ELEVATION

SITE KEY PLAN
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
B.2 & B.4 - SOUTH ELEVATION

PAINT LEGEND
12345678
P1P2P3P4
Metal Coping (3”)

MATERIAL LEGEND
Wood RailCement Plaster( 20/30 Sand Finish )Recessed Vinyl Windows( Milgard Espresso )Clear Douglas Fir DoorsVinyl Sliding Door( Milgard Espresso )Stucco Expansion JointsMetal Shade 9 Wood Privacy Screen
Dunn Edwards Paint:Igloo (DEW379)Dunn Edwards Paint:Formal Gray (DE6382)Dunn Edwards Paint:Bank Vault (DE6383) P5 Dunn Edwards Paint:

Unspecified (DEXXXX)Dunn Edwards Paint:Unspecified (DEXXXX)

PLAN E PLAN G PLAN E PLAN E

PLAN C PLAN G
PLAN F

PLAN E PLAN E PLAN H PLAN G PLAN E PLAN F
PLAN H
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
108.23’
108.23’ 108.23’ 108.23’
114.60’

95.00’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE

SIDEWALK
4 29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1" 108.23’ 115.00’
105.30’
101.80’

95.00’
106.23’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE
( EXISTING )
( R-P )
5 30'-0"
9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-1" 106.23’ 106.23’ 106.23’ 106.23’

95.00’
DATUM
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE

DRIVE AISLE
6 1
6 4 7
3 P4
2 P5
3 P3
3 P1
3 P5
8 P1
8 P4
3 P1
3 P2
3 P3
5 P5
3 P2
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
104.30’113.63’122.97’133.30’
102.30’111.63’121.39’131.72’
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
115.67’
TOW
109.00’
TOW
115.10’
TOW
115.10’
TOW
137.23’
139.73’
136.23’
139.73’
131.23’
139.73’
137.23’139.73’
132.23’
136.23’ 137.23’
139.73’
136.23’
137.23’
137.23’
113.00’
TOW
00 Elevations 4, 5, 6
09 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1061
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
B.1 & B.2 - EAST ELEVATION

SITE KEY PLAN
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N B.3 & B.1 - NORTH ELEVATION

PAINT LEGEND
12345678
P1P2P3P4
Metal Coping (3”)

MATERIAL LEGEND
Wood RailCement Plaster( 20/30 Sand Finish )Recessed Vinyl Windows( Milgard Espresso )Clear Douglas Fir DoorsVinyl Sliding Door( Milgard Espresso )Stucco Expansion JointsMetal Shade 9 Wood Privacy Screen
Dunn Edwards Paint:Igloo (DEW379)Dunn Edwards Paint:Formal Gray (DE6382)Dunn Edwards Paint:Bank Vault (DE6383) P5 Dunn Edwards Paint:

Unspecified (DEXXXX)Dunn Edwards Paint:Unspecified (DEXXXX) PLAN H

PLAN A PLAN A PLAN A PLAN D PLAN B PLAN C
PLAN D
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1" 101.80’ 105.80’ 108.23’ 115.00’

95.00’
105.30’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE
( EXISTING )
( R-P )
7 104.70’ 105.30’ 105.30’ 105.30’

95.00’
DATUM
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE

DRIVE AISLE
8 1 2 3 4 5 7
P1
3 P5
3 P2
3 P1
8 P1
3 P2
2 P5
5 P5
3 P2
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
105.42’114.75’124.51’133.84’
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
104.30’113.63’123.39’132.72’
102.30’111.63’121.39’131.72’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
131.23’
139.73’
137.23’
130.23’
132.23’ 133.23’
132.23’
136.23’
131.23’ 132.23’
134.23’
108.00’
TOW
109.00’
TOW
115.00’
TOW
15 Elevations 7, 8
10 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1062
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
ST
166 CF
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 376 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:
1,565 Plan A 11
1st Street, Hermosa Beach,CA HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1063
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
ST
166 CF
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 376 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:
1,623
Plan B
12 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1064
03/26 - 2:30PM
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 376 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
166 CF
1,802
Plan C
13 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1065
06/26 - 6:30AM
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 376 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
166 CF
1,808
Plan D
1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1066
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 396 CF
100 SF
13’-4” x 7’-6” SF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
166 CF
1,627
Plan E
1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1067
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 410 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
180 CF
1,830
100 SF
13’-3” x 7’-6” SF
Plan F
1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1068
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 466 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
236 CF
1,862
114 SF
15’-3” x 7’-6” SF
Plan G
17 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1069
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 466 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
236 CF
1,861
117 SF
15’-8” x 7’-6” SF
Plan H
18 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1070
Garage
Bedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24

SITE KEY PLAN
B1B2
B3B4
N
A
B1
A
B
34 B.1 & B.3 B - SECTION A-A
B.3 & B.4 - SECTION B-B
( EXISTING )
( R-P )

RECESSED WINDOW DETAIL
29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
103.57’112.90’123.24’133.57’
102.57’111.90’122.24’132.57’
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1" 2'-0" 108.73’ 118.06’ 128.40’
137.73’
Building Sections
19 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1071
1ST STREET. LOOKING NORTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE
1ST STREET. LOOKING NORTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE
1ST STREET. LOOKING NORTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE
1ST STREET. LOOKING SOUTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE 1ST STREET. LOOKING SOUTH-WEST - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE 1ST STREET. LOOKING WEST 1ST STREET. LOOKING NORTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE
PROJECT AERIAL + KEY MAP (N.T.S.)
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
PACIFIC COAST HWY. N
1 2
3 5
6 4
7 42
3 1
5 6 7
Site Photographs
20 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1072
Conceptual Imagery
21 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA HB12 DECEMBER 23, 2021 Design Inc. 20-01 R
+
S
1073
VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON 1ST STREET - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE AERIAL LOOKING NORTH ON 1ST STREET - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE VIEW LOOKING NORTH-WEST - DRIVE COURT VIEW LOOKING WEST ON 1ST STREET - EAST SIDE OF SITE 3D Renderings
22 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA HB12 DECEMBER 23, 2021 Design Inc. 20-01 R+S
1074
NORTH
DATE: 11/03/20
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4' 8' 16'
12 1075

CREPE MYRTLE

CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
12 1076
1077
1078
65270.00001\34395204.1
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES
Public Review Draft
Initial Study and
Negative Declaration
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
February 14, 2022
1079
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -2- City of Hermosa Beach, California 1080
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -3- City of Hermosa Beach, California

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project Title: 911 First Street Residences

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director (310) 318-0242
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The 0.46-acre site is a paved lot on First Street, approximately 500 feet northeast of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Heronda Street in the City of Hermosa Beach.

See Exhibits 1 through 5.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc. 2040 Lomita Blvd.

Lomita, CA 90717

6. General Plan
Designation: CC, Community Commercial

7. Zoning: SPA-7, Specific Plan Area-7

8. Description of Project:

The Project consists of 12 attached condominium units to be developed in four separate three-story buildings. The four buildings will be separated by a common two-way driveway in the center of the property. Each of the 12 units will have three bedrooms and two bathrooms and will range from 1,517 to 1,807 square feet. Each unit will have three floors, a roof deck and an enclosed two-car garage. The project includes eight shared guest parking spaces.

Proposed Uses
The project’s proposed use is high density residential, in the form of 12 attached condominium units.

Project Schedule
Estimated start date: January 1st, 2022
Estimated completion and occupancy: 14 months from start of construction Construction Phases:

1. Excavation – 4 weeks

2. Foundation\Retaining walls - 8 weeks
1081
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 1
Regional Location
N
Source: Google Maps

PROJECT

LOCATION
1082
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 2
Project Vicinity
N
Source: Google Maps
1st Street
Anita Street

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
PACIFIC COAST HWY.

Frontier
Switching
Facility
1083
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 3
Current Land Uses
N
Source: City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa, 2017

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks
General Office
Commercial and Services
Facilities
Education
Industrial
Transportation, Communications, Utilities
Mixed Commercial and Industrial
Mixed Residential and Commercial
Open Space and Recreation
Vacant
1084
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 4
General Plan Designation
Source: City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa, 2017

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
1085
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 5
Zoning
N
Source:City of Hermosa Beach

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
1086
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -4- City of Hermosa Beach, California

3. Framing - 12 weeks

4. Rough Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing - 8 weeks

5. Lath, Stucco and Drywall - 8 weeks

6. Interior Finishes - 12 weeks

7. Exterior Hardscape\Landscape - 8 weeks

9. Project Site Characteristics
The project site is located in a mixed commercial and residential area in the city of Hermosa Beach, California. Topography is sloped to the west with a commercial development (Frontier Communications) on the west adjacent to the site and residential housing on the north, east and south adjacent properties. The site consists of three parcels encompassing approximately 0.46 acres. Concrete block walls and rolling steel gates bound the site and a concrete wall bisects the site in a north/south direction. There are no structures on-site and the site is covered with an asphalt surface. The site has recently been used as an automobile storage lot for a nearby Mitsubishi Motors dealership. The site was previously occupied by single family residences from approximately 1927 until 1966 when the residential structures were demolished, and a parking lot developed.

10. Requested Approvals
Discretionary Approvals
Implementation of the project requires the following discretionary actions by the City of Hermosa Beach:
 General Plan land use designation change from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density (HD) Residential.
 Zone designation change from Specific Plan Area-7 (SPA-7) to Residential-Professional (R-P).
 Subdivision Tract Map approval to combine three existing lots.  Approval of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) to allow construction of the new buildings and modifications to the site.
 Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow condominium use on the property.

Administrative Approvals
 Building Permit

11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Surrounding land uses are commercial and residential (see Exhibits 2 through 4). 1087
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -5- City of Hermosa Beach, California

12. Approvals Required From Other Public Agencies:

Los Angeles County Fire Department

13. Have Native American tribes requested consultation? No

14. Documents & References:
 California Department of Conservation, 1999. State Hazards Map, Redondo Beach Quadrangle.
 City of Hermosa Beach, 2014. PLAN Hermosa, Existing Conditions Report.  City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Code
 City of Hermosa Beach, 2017a, PLAN Hermosa (General Plan)  City of Hermosa Beach, 2017b, PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2015081009)
 City of Torrance, 2019. Solana Residential Development Project. SCH No. 2017071061.  Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
 Institute of Transportation (ITE), 2017. Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition.  Leymaster Environmental Consulting, LLC, 2016. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report. Prepared for Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc.
 Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.  South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), December 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.  TIN Engineering Company, 2018. Soil Engineering Investigation and Report for Proposed Nine-Unit, Two-Story Single Family House Development with Semi-Subterranean Parking Garage at 911-1st Street, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc.

15. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Hazards & Hazardous
Mats. Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning
Mineral Resources Noise & Vibration Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation
Utilities & Service Systems Energy
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

16. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation:
1088
1089
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -7- City of Hermosa Beach, California 3) Once the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Include a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted. 8) This form is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and all Initial Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify, a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State-designated scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1090
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -8- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Scenic vistas in Hermosa Beach consist of expansive public views of the Pacific Ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or inland views of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The most prominent scenic vistas in the city are from the beach and The Strand (the boardwalk) and other areas immediately adjacent to the coast. A few scenic vistas exist in the upper elevations of the city. The City’s General Plan identifies a Prominent Public Viewpoint at the southern gateway to the City at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Herondo Street (Hermosa Beach, 2017a, Figure 5.3). The project site is not visible from the gateway view at the intersection and only a very small portion of the site is briefly visible to travelers on Pacific Coast Highway. The visible portion of the site does not constitute a significant part of the viewshed from Pacific Coast Highway. There are no other designated Prominent Public Viewpoints near the project site. Like most east-west trending streets in Hermosa Beach, First Street provides a narrow public view of the ocean and horizon viewed along the length of First Street towards the west. The proposed development will not obstruct this view. A partial view of the ocean is also visible from the public right-of-way at First Street viewed diagonally across the site from immediately adjacent to the site to the northwest and to the north of the Frontier Building which otherwise obstructs views to the ocean. But this view is small and further obscured by more distant buildings. It is not a Prominent Public Viewpoint, nor is it an expansive view that contributes significantly to the public viewshed. Views across the site from the public right-of-way would be mostly blocked by the proposed buildings, with a narrow landscaped open space strip along the project site’s western property line. There are no other public views of the ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or the San Gabriel Mountains from the project site. The proposed development will not obstruct significant views of the Pacific Ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or inland views of the San Gabriel Mountains from any significant public viewing area. The proposed project would have no effect on public views or scenic vistas.
(b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed development would not affect any adjacent or nearby scenic resources. The site is not within or near a state scenic highway. The project would have no impact on scenic resources.
(c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The visual character of the site reflects the current use, a vacant, paved parking lot. Three large ornamental pine trees, ice plant, low-level masonry block walls and asphalt are the features on-site. The proposed development will fundamentally alter the visual 1091
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -9- City of Hermosa Beach, California character from its current state to that of a multi-family residential use, but the change in land use does not constitute a degradation in visual character. The site’s surroundings have the visual character of a residential neighborhood ranging from medium to high density residential, with the Frontier building immediately to the west. The proposed condominium development is similar in visual character to its surroundings. The project will not significantly degrade the visual character or quality of the site, or its surroundings.
(d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. Under current conditions, sources of light or glare on the site are limited to security lighting. Sources of light and glare near the site are typical of urban environments in Southern California. Artificial night lighting in the vicinity is produced from streetlights and ambient lighting from commercial buildings on Pacific Coast Highway and elsewhere in the vicinity. The proposed project will introduce new exterior light sources located on the building and in exterior common areas. Lighting for residential uses in Hermosa Beach is regulated through a standard condition of approval that will be enforced through the City’s process of review and approval for the project’s Precise Development Plan (PDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City’s standard condition requires that:

All exterior lighting shall be downcast, fully shielded and illumination shall be contained within the property boundaries. Lighting shall be energy conserving and motion detector lighting shall be used for all lighting except low-level (3 feet or less in height) security lighting and porch lights. Lamp bulbs and images shall not be visible from within any onsite or offsite residential unit. Exterior lighting shall not be deemed finally approved until 30 days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming or modification of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant or impacting to nearby properties.

Implementation of this standard condition through the project’s Precise Development Plan (PDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval process will effectively ensure that adverse light and glare impacts are avoided.

Aesthetics Summary: The proposed project will have no significant impact on aesthetics and visual resources.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
1092
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -10- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. No portion of the site is Prime Agricultural Land (as defined by Government Code Section 51201(c) and 56064) or Agricultural Land (as defined by Government Code Section 56016).

(b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact. The site is not zoned for agricultural use. No Williamson Act contracts pertain to the site.

(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands on or near the site. (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands on or near the site. (e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed project will not generate changes that might directly or indirectly result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

Agricultural Resources Summary: The project will have no impact on agricultural resources, forests or timberland.
1093
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -11- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Land use and development projects commonly have two major sources of air quality impacts: (1) pollutant emissions generated during construction of the new project, and (2) long-term operational emissions generated after construction. (See Section 18.8 for a separate assessment of the potential for impacts resulting from emission of greenhouse gases.) The activities proposed for this project are of a very small scale relative to the air basin and the level of emissions considered significant by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Construction activities are limited to the 0.46-acre lot and will not require the prolonged use of heavy, emission-generating equipment except for the excavation phase, which is expected to last approximately four weeks. The number of new vehicular trips generated by proposed uses after development, which is the principal source of post-development operational emissions, will be relatively small (approximately 88 estimated daily trips).

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for construction (and demolition) emissions for six categories of pollutants. These thresholds are based on their potential adverse short-term health effects. The scale of the proposed development is not nearly great enough to exceed these thresholds.
75 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC)
100 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
150 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 10 mm (PM10) 55 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 25 mm (PM25) 150 pounds per day of Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
3 pounds per day of Lead
The same is true of the project’s relationship to Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). These are thresholds established by the SCAQMD to examine the potential for on-site emissions generated during construction to adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors, such as residential neighbors or schools. LSTs reflect only those construction-related emissions that would occur on-site (not vehicular emissions generated by construction workers travelling to and from the site). The emissions they assess are therefore even smaller in magnitude than overall construction emissions (which do include construction worker trip emissions) and are even less likely to exceed established thresholds. Emissions generated on-site are likely to be highest during the excavation phase when heavy diesel equipment is in use. The use of an excavator and loader during the excavation phase 1094
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -12- City of Hermosa Beach, California will not generate emissions in excess of LST screening thresholds and will not adversely impact neighboring residences.

LONG TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The principal sources of operational emissions of new development projects are vehicular trips generated by the project, combustion of natural gas for water and space heating, the use of landscaping equipment, and architectural coatings during maintenance. None of these sources is expected to generate significant levels of emissions as a result of the project. While the proposed uses will generate new vehicular trips (see Section 18.16 for discussion) the estimated 88 daily trips are not great enough to generate new emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The proposed uses will also consume energy, but the amount of energy consumed by the 12 units will not be great enough to result in emissions that exceed thresholds of significance. None of the major sources of long-term emissions will increase significantly over current conditions as a result of the project, nor will the combined sources exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for operational emissions presented below.1
55 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC)
55 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
150 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 10 mm (PM10) 55 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 25 mm (PM25) 150 pounds per day of Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
3 pounds per day of Lead
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project’s long-term emissions are not great enough to exceed the thresholds of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) (see above discussion). Because the proposed construction will not substantially increase any sources of air pollutant emissions, the project will not result in significant local or regional air quality impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance.

The project’s development and long-term use will not obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Nor do the proposed improvements in any way conflict with the AQMP’s underlying assumptions. The AQMP is based on emissions projections which assume land use composition and intensity expressed in local general plan Land Use Elements. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." The current land use designation under the General Plan is Community Commercial. This designation allows for ‘retail stores, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and personal services’ (PLAN Hermosa, Table 2.1, Land Use Designations). Community Commercial uses are intended to be ‘Locally-oriented’ and therefore relatively low generators of vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT). For this reason, it is therefore probable that development of the project site under the current land use designation would likely be a low VMT generator. (It is also probable that such a development would meet the criteria of established VMT screening thresholds and would not result

1 Model runs of emissions for various land use types (performed for the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department) indicate that a considerably larger project of up to 20 dwelling units (single or multifamily) would not generate emissions that exceed the AQMD operational thresholds. 1095
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -13- City of Hermosa Beach, California in significant VMT impacts. See discussion in Section 18.16, Transportation, below.) Even so, Community Commercial uses generally generate higher levels of vehicular trips than a medium-rise residential use. For example, a general office use of 15,000 square feet on the 20,137 square foot site would generate 165 average daily trips, compared to the proposed residential project’s 88 daily trips. Other Community Commercial uses with higher trip generation rates are allowed under the current General Plan. AQMP regional emissions assumptions, being based on the General Plan, are likely to be higher than the emissions that would be generated by the relatively low number of vehicular trips anticipated under the project and its proposed land use designation change from the current Community Commercial designation to a High Density (HD) residential use. While the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan, and therefore may be inconsistent with projected emissions of the AQMP, its emissions can be expected to be lower than assumed under the General Plan. Rather than adversely impact regional air emissions, the project is likely to reduce emissions compared to AQMP assumptions, thus resulting in a net reduction in air quality impacts. (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant cumulative impact would occur if a project would, in conjunction with other projects, result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment with respect to federal or state pollutant standards. Because the region is in non-attainment with respect to ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10 and PM2.5, there could be a cumulatively significant impact if the project and related projects led to an exceedance of these standards or contributed to an existing exceedance. For determining the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impact, SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Because the proposed project would not generate construction or operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, the construction and operational emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and would result in a less than significant impact. Refer to discussion above. (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors typically include residences, hospitals and schools. Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the project vicinity. Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. However, as described in Section 18.16, Transportation, below, the project is not anticipated to cause any significant increase in traffic volumes or contribute to degradation of traffic conditions. The project will not generate vehicular emissions in sufficient quantities to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Although construction may result in low levels of criteria air pollutants, these temporary emissions will not result in significant pollutant concentrations (see discussion above) and would not affect sensitive receptors. Temporary construction emissions generated on the site will not be significant enough to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Toxic Air Contaminants2 (TACs) are often a source of pollutants associated with specific activities.

2 TACs refers to a diverse group of air pollutants regulated at the regional, state, and federal level because of their 1096
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -14- City of Hermosa Beach, California TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., benzene near a freeway). Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). As discussed above, the use of heavy diesel equipment for one or two days during site preparation will generate diesel-fueled emissions for a very brief time.

These short-term emissions are not great enough to constitute a substantial source of TACs. Nor will other construction-generated emissions that might be anticipated to occur on-site. (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No impact. The residential use proposed by the project does not include any activities that would generate objectionable odors.

Air Quality Summary: The project will not result in significant impacts to air quality at the regional or local levels.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

ability to cause adverse effects on human health. Ambient air quality standards have not been set for TACs because of the diverse number of air toxics and the fact that their effects on health tend to be localized rather than regional.
1097
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -15- City of Hermosa Beach, California Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site has already been developed and has been used as a private parking lot. There is no native habitat onsite that could support sensitive native plant or wildlife species. The project is in an urbanized area and there are no locally designated species, natural habitats or wetlands or associated environments at or near the site. (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. There is no riparian habitat and no other sensitive natural communities on or near the site.
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. No federally protected wetlands exist on or near the site. (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. No native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species exist at the project site. There are no migratory corridors on site or in the vicinity. There is no native habitat onsite that might be used by native wildlife as a nursery site. Migratory or native birds could potentially nest in the three non-native trees on-site. Policy 9.6 of the City’s General Plan calls for the protection of trees “that may provide temporary or permanent bird habitat”. This policy is enforced through the condition of approval presented below which will be applied to the project at PDP review to ensure avoidance of impacts to resident or migratory birds that might use the trees on-site.

Nesting Birds. If vegetation clearing or other project construction is to be initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), pre-construction/grading surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall be conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work. If a nesting bird or special-status species is located, consultation with the local California Department of Fish and Wildlife representative shall occur to determine what avoidance actions may be taken. If any active non-raptor bird nests are found, a suitable buffer area (varying from 250-300 feet), depending on the particular species found, shall be established from the nest, and that area shall be avoided until the nest becomes inactive (vacated). If any active raptor bird nests are found, a suitable buffer area of typically 250-500 feet from the nest shall be established, and that area shall be avoided until the nest becomes inactive (vacated). The limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area by a qualified biologist hired by the project proponent and endorsed by the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department. Encroachment into buffers 1098
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -16- City of Hermosa Beach, California around active nests must be conducted at the discretion of a qualified biologist. The applicant shall record the results of the recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable State and federal laws pertaining to the protection of nesting birds and provide documentation of compliance prior to issuance of building permits. (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no significant biological resources onsite or near the site that might be impacted by the project. The project will be required to comply with Section 12.36 of the Municipal Code which requires granting of a permit for the removal of trees with a trunk diameter greater than 12 inches.
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No impact. Neither the site nor its surroundings are governed by a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or any other habitat conservation plan.

Biological Resources Summary: The project will not have a significant impact on biological resources.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the project:
1099
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -17- City of Hermosa Beach, California (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No impact. There are no historical resources on the project site. Nor are there any identified historical resources in the immediate vicinity that might be adversely affected by the proposed development.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no recorded archaeological sites on the site or within the project vicinity. The probability of encountering archaeological resources on the previously disturbed

0.46-acre site is extremely low. Implementation of adopted General Plan policy (Implementing Action LU-21, Land Use Element, PLAN Hermosa) which requires measures to reduce or eliminate the risk of disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources, will ensure that impacts to cultural and tribal resources are less than significant.

LU-21- All discretionary projects that include ground disturbance or excavation activities on previously undisturbed land shall be required to conduct archaeological investigations in accordance with CEQA regulations to determine if the project is sensitive for cultural resources.

Additionally, the Lead Agency for future discretionary projects, the city is required under AB 52 to notify tribal organizations of proposed projects and offer to consult with those tribal organizations that indicate interest. Following any tribal consultation or archaeological investigation, the City shall weigh and consider available evidence to determine whether there is a potential risk for disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources and whether any precautionary measures can be required to reduce or eliminate that risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to complete training on archaeological and tribal resources before any ground disturbance activity and/or required a qualified archaeologist or tribal representative to monitor some or all of the ground disturbance activities. The City shall require the preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.
(c) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than significant impact. Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB 52), adopted by the California State Legislature in September 2014, identifies procedures for the evaluation of environmental impacts to 1100
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -18- City of Hermosa Beach, California tribal cultural resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AB 52 requires lead agencies to consult with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if the tribe requested, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed project in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation.

In compliance with Assembly Bill 52, the City of Hermosa Beach sent certified letters to eight designated representatives of tribes in Los Angeles County identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The City did not receive any responses from any of the eight representatives.

In the course of previous consultation (April 12, 2018) with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Manager and CEQA consultant met with the tribal chairperson, Andrew Salas, and tribal biologist, Matt Teutimezto to discuss potentially sensitive locations in Hermosa Beach. Information provided during that meeting and through subsequent correspondence included maps and information documenting the presence of a regionally important trade route utilized by members of the Kizh Nation in the prehistoric and historic past. Native American activities associated with this trade route are linked to the site of the prehistoric village of “Engnovangia” (“place of the salt lake”) which was located in what is now northwest Redondo Beach, not far from the municipal boundary with Hermosa Beach. The natural springs and salt beds at this site were an important resource that stimulated trade and transport of commodities along the “Old Salt Road” trade route. Although the alignment of the trade route is not known, it is generally thought to be along the Greenbelt (former railroad route). The significance of this trade route, and its high level of activity, suggest that some portions of the city, generally east of Manhattan Avenue and within proximity of the prehistoric village site, may still have the potential for yielding significant tribal resources, particularly at depths where non-sandy substrate is undisturbed. The 911 First Street site is approximately 0.15 mile from the prehistoric village site.

In evaluating the potential for the project to impact tribal resources, the City evaluated information from multiple sources in addition to consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, including a Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for PLAN Hermosa (PCR, 2014). No Sacred Lands have been recorded for the site with the Sacred Lands Inventory. There are no recorded archaeological sites at the project site or in the vicinity of the site. The project site has been previously disturbed by anthropogenic activities in modern times and the area that would be disturbed as a result of the project is limited to a footprint of approximately 20,000 square feet. The City has weighed all available evidence in the record and determined that although the potential risk for destroying or damaging any cultural or tribal resources is low, the project site’s proximity to the prehistoric village site warrants site disturbance monitoring during the project’s brief excavation phase, consistent with the City’s standard requirement for monitoring in sensitive areas (PLAN Hermosa, Implementation Action LAND USE 21), the potential for the project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in Public Resource Code 21074 will be less than significant.
(e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact. The entire site has already been disturbed and graded. The probability of encountering human remains is extremely low. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during excavation activities, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would result in notification of the County Coroner. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15054.5(a) and (e) would take effect. The implementation of these applicable laws and standard procedures would ensure that 1101
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -19- City of Hermosa Beach, California impacts resulting from the discovery of human remains would be reduced to a level below significant. (See City of Hermosa Beach, 2017a, Page 4.4-17.) Cultural Resources Summary: The project will not adversely affect cultural resources. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.6 ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Would the project:
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is development of a conventional residential land use with no extraordinary energy demands or uses that would result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. As an infill project in an area of mixed commercial and residential use, the 12 proposed residences will generate a relatively low number of vehicle trips (see Section 18.16, Transportation) with a corresponding low consumption of energy. The project will comply with State and local energy standards.
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The project will comply with the California Green Building Code. Compliance will ensue that the project’s long-term energy use does not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Energy Summary: The project will not have a significant impact related to energy. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?; or, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction?; or, (iv) landslides? 1102
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -20- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Would the project:
(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse seismic effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or other known fault zone. Nor is the site within the potential hazard zones (liquefaction) identified on the State Hazards Map (TIN Engineering, August 2018; City of Hermosa Beach, 2017, Figure 4.5-2; California Department of Conservation, Redondo Beach Quadrangle, 1999). As is the case throughout Southern California, the site is subject to potential ground shaking from seismic activity. Structural seismic hazards are mitigated through compliance with the California Building Code.
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant impact. The project will not create the potential for soil erosion except during the excavation and site preparation phases of construction. Compliance with the City’s standard requirement to prepare and comply with an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan (SWPPP) will significantly reduce the potential for substantial erosion or topsoil loss to occur (City of Hermosa Beach, 2017b, Page 4.5-12).
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No impact. The site is not geologically unstable or subject to instability as a result of landslide. Nor is the site subject to severe lateral spreading or subsidence, both of which are addressed in the Soil Engineering Investigation and Report for the project (TIN Engineering, 2018). Compliance with recommendations of the Soil Engineering Investigation Report will effectively avoid impacts related to hazards. See above discussion on liquefaction and related hazards. (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial risks to life or property?
1103
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -21- City of Hermosa Beach, California No impact. The site is underlain by silty sands which are not expansive soils (TIN Engineering, 2018, Page 7).
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact. The project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The site is underlain by Miocene older dune sands which have a low probability of yielding significant fossil remains (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010; City of Hermosa Beach 2017b, Section 4.4). Although Quaternary marine terrace deposits, a geologic formation with a history of yielding fossils in the region, also underlies the site at depth, the project will not disturb soils to a depth greater than approximately six feet and therefore will not encounter the deeper Quaternary deposits. There is a very low potential to encounter paleontological resources during construction activities.

Geology and Soils Summary: The project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to geology and soils.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (“MMT CO2EQ”) units. A metric ton is approximately 2,205 lbs. Some GHGs emitted into the atmosphere are naturally occurring, while others are caused solely by human activities. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation, and deforestation, as well as the manufacturing of cement.
 Methane (CH4) is emitted through the production and transportation of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as from livestock. Other agricultural activities influence methane emissions as well as the decay of waste in landfills.
 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is released most often during the burning of fuel at high temperatures. This greenhouse gas is caused mostly by motor vehicles, which also include non-road vehicles, such as those used for agriculture. 1104
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -22- City of Hermosa Beach, California  Fluorinated Gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which often include hydrofluorocarbons (HRC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Though they are often released in smaller quantities, they are referred to as High Global Warming Potential Gases because of their ability to cause global warming.

These gases have different potentials for trapping heat in the atmosphere, called global warming potential (“GWP”). For example, one pound of methane has 21 times more heat capturing potential than one pound of carbon dioxide. When dealing with an array of emissions, the gases are converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2EQ) for comparison purposes.

The greatest source of GHG emissions associated with development projects in California, by far, is vehicular emissions. The second greatest source is emissions from energy consumption (both natural gas and electrical). The project’s emissions would be considered significant if they exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) screening threshold of 3,500 MTCO2EQ per year for residential uses, as reflected in the SCAQMD’s interim significance thresholds (SCAQMD, 2008).

Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted previously in Section 18.3, Air Quality, total air emissions from the project (construction and operational) are expected to be well below daily emission thresholds for criteria pollutants, owing to the relatively small scale of the project. While the project will generate emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases, the magnitude of emissions is also anticipated to be well under the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold for residential projects of 3,500 MTCO2EQ/year.3

(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project’s GHG emissions are expected to be less than the screening threshold identified by the SCAQMD. In this respect, it is consistent with state, regional and local strategies to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary: The project’s GHG impacts will be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

17.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

3 By comparison, a 248-unit apartment complex generates an estimated 3,065 MT CO2e per year, below the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e per year. (City of Torrance, 2019, Pg. 5.6-33, Table 5.6- 3).
1105
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -23- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within 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 result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Responses to some of the questions below are derived from a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the project site (Leymaster Environmental Consulting, 2016). The Environmental Site Assessment found “No evidence of environmental conditions associated with the Property” and that “No further investigation is required” (Leymaster, 2016. Page 19).

Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No impact. The proposed residential use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials and by its nature would not introduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area. Nor would activities associated with construction of the project involve the routine transport, use or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No impact. Neither the project site nor the nature of the proposed uses present any foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. The operations associated with the proposed residences will not emit hazardous emissions, nor will they involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste.
1106
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -24- City of Hermosa Beach, California (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site (Leymaster, 2016). (e) For a project located within 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 result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. There are no public or private airports on or adjacent to the site. The nearest airport is Los Angeles International Airport, located approximately five miles north of the project site. (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact. The proposed project would not change alignment or access of streets serving the project site or surrounding area, and thus would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No impact. There are no wildlands in the vicinity of the project; therefore the project will not expose people or structures to injury or death involving wildland fires.

Hazards Summary: The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hazards or hazardous materials.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d. Substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
1107
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -25- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, result in release of pollutants due to project inundation?
g. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Would the project:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No impact. The project will comply with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements through its compliance with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements which in turn implement the Municipal NPDES Permit. The LID Ordinance (Ordinance No. 15-1351) requires the project to “control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area” and by “controlling runoff through infiltration, bio retention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. Project plans must include a storm water mitigation plan (SWMP) to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary to control storm water pollution from the completed project. All BMPs must meet performance standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. These requirements not only ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met, they also are effective in mitigating the project’s water quality impacts to a level that is less than a significant impact. The project’s LID Plan will be reviewed by the City to ensure that it complies with the LID Ordinance and other applicable requirements.
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No impact. The project will have no impact on groundwater, either by inhibiting groundwater recharge, introducing pollutants to the groundwater, or by withdrawing groundwater from an underlying aquifer. The project does not propose grading or any intrusion to groundwater depths. It will reduce rather than increase impermeable surface area onsite. The proposed residential land use will not introduce any pollutants that have the potential to substantially affect groundwater. (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? No impact. The project will alter the manner in which storm water is directed and managed on-site through integration of catch basins and increased permeable surface area, in compliance with the City’s LID requirements (see response to (a) above). This small-scale alteration is expected to have a beneficial though immeasurably small effect on the management of storm water volume and water 1108
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -26- City of Hermosa Beach, California quality discharged from the site because the site is entirely paved and impervious under current conditions. The project will not alter the course of a stream or river, or otherwise modify local or regional drainage patterns, in a way that results in substantial erosion or siltation. (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
No impact. The rate and amount of surface runoff during and after project development will be controlled by standard regulatory mechanisms. See above response to (a). (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No impact. The project can be expected to result in a slight reduction in the amount of runoff from the site that would enter the storm drain system, due to the beneficial effects of design measures and BMPs in compliance with the City’s LID requirements. (See response to (a) above). (d) In a flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zone, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No impact. The site is not within an area with the potential for adverse flooding impacts (see Leymaster, 2016, Page 11), is not in the Tsunami Hazard Zone and is not subject to seiche hazard. (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No impact. See above response to (a).

Hydrology and Water Quality Summary: The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hydrology and water quality.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Would the project:
(a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The project is construction of an infill residential development and does not have the potential to divide a community.
1109
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -27- City of Hermosa Beach, California (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No impact. The project will be required to comply with all applicable land use plans, policies and regulations, including policies of the City’s General Plan and regulations of the zoning ordinance through the discretionary approval process (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Subdivision Map). If approved, the discretionary permits will be consistent with the existing land use patterns.

Land Use Summary: The project will have no significant impacts related to land use. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No impact. Most of Hermosa Beach, including the project site, is underlain by Holocene-age dune sands. Although “sand, gravel and crushed stone” are identified among construction aggregate resources important to the region, the sand deposits underlying Hermosa Beach are not identified as an aggregate deposit of prime importance to meet the region’s future need for construction quality aggregates. The urbanized conditions that exist throughout the City reflect a long-standing land use commitment that effectively precludes mineral extraction at a significant scale either on the project site or within city limits.
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. There are no mineral resource recovery sites within the city. As mapped by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMBG), most of Hermosa Beach lies within the San Fernando Valley Production-Consumption Region in Los Angeles County. A small portion of Hermosa Beach south of 2 nd Street lies in the San Gabriel Valley Production-Consumption Region. A review of the Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County- South Half (DOC 1994) shows that all of the planning area is designated as MRZ-3 land. The MRZ-3 classification indicates areas of undetermined mineral resource significance.

Mineral Resources Summary: The project will have no impact on mineral resources. 1110
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -28- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.12 NOISE. Would the project result 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?
The project will generate temporary construction noise. The noisiest event is likely to be site preparation when some heavy equipment is used. The project applicant anticipates use of a 315 excavator and a 953 track loader along with haul trucks to export earth material. These pieces of equipment are diesel fueled and therefore generate noise above ambient levels. They can also generate groundborne vibration, though the magnitude of vibration anticipated from these machines is less than earth moving equipment and other machinery that would be required for larger projects.

According to the applicant, construction activities that produce extremely high levels of noise or vibration, such as jackhammers and pile driving, will not be used. The site preparation phase is expected to last 4 weeks, during which approximately 1,000 to 1,750 cubic yards of earth material will be excavated and exported from the site. The export of soil will require from 70 to 130 truckloads over the four-week period. Haul trucks and construction worker vehicles will add to the ambient noise level in the project vicinity on First Street and on other local and regional roadways as vehicles come and go from the site. However, this temporary increase in roadway noise will not be great enough to significantly increase ambient roadway noise levels.

During the remaining 10 months of the construction period the subsequent construction activities will generate noise temporarily at various levels depending on the activity. The magnitude of noise generated by these actions is not great enough to violate local standards provided such activity complies with the workday and work hour restrictions of the City’s Municipal Code Noise Ordinance.

Noise standards applied to land use and development projects consider the duration of noise (averaging the noise level over time) along with the volume of the noise event. The short duration of noise events reduces the overall effect of noise on the environment. Although there are residences immediately adjacent to the site to the east and north and other residences in the immediate neighborhood on First Street, the noise impact of the construction phase will affect these sensitive land uses only temporarily for a relatively brief period. The City’s Noise Ordinance limits construction and demolition hours to 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sunday or on national holidays. Compliance with the ordinance would ensure the project’s conformance with adopted noise thresholds and avoidance of any significant adverse impacts related to noise during the construction phase.

The site is subject to noise from traffic on First Street, but traffic noise is not significant enough to adversely impact the proposed land use. This is true for current traffic levels as well as for future traffic conditions. The number of vehicular trips generated by the project is very small and not great enough to result in a measurable increase in roadway noise (see discussion of traffic in Section 1111
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -29- City of Hermosa Beach, California

18.16). An increase in traffic volumes of at least 26 percent is necessary to cause a 1 dB increase in noise. (An increase of 1 dB is well below the level of increase in noise detectable by the human ear; a 3 dB increase is usually applied as the threshold level at which noise might be considered to have an impact.) The project’s estimated increase in traffic volumes of 88 trips per day will not approach a 26 percent increase over current traffic volumes. The proposed residential use will have no longterm effect that would increase the exposure of persons using the site to adverse noise.

Would the project:
(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? Less than significant impact. Neither the construction nor the long-term activities associated with the project will generate significant noise. The site is not currently exposed to noise levels in excess of established standards and the project will not alter this condition. See above discussion. (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than significant impact. The use of some diesel powered equipment (excavator, loader and haul trucks) during site preparation has the potential to generate groundborne vibration on-site. A peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.01 is considered to be a vibration level that is barely perceptible by humans and well below the level of vibration that would incur structural damage. A vibration level of

0.04 inches per second PPV is considered the threshold at which vibration has the potential to cause annoyance to occupants of nearby residences. A PPV of 0.2 inches per second is the threshold at which there is a potential to incur structural damage. A vibration velocity level that exceeds 0.04 inches per second PPV at the property line of any neighboring use is therefore an effective screening threshold for avoidance of both human and structural impacts. Impacts related to groundborne vibration are considered significant if the vibration velocity level exceeds 0.04 inches per second at the property line of any neighboring use. None of the construction activities or equipment that will be used on-site are expected to generate vibration levels that exceed the 0.04 threshold at neighboring property lines (FTA 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment) (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?
No impact. The site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Noise and Vibration Summary: The project will not result in significant noise or vibration impacts. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.13 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
1112
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -30- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the project:
(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. The project proposes construction of 12 new dwelling units, which would result in an increase in the local population of about 48 persons. This number of new residents does not represent a substantial level of population growth for Hermosa Beach whose current population is approximately 20,000 persons. The population of Hermosa Beach is expected to grow by 661 persons between 2015 and 2040. This level of growth is anticipated by the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa EIR, page 4.12-7) and represents less than 0.006 percent of the population projected for the year 2040 within the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCOG) planning area (see PLAN Hermosa Final EIR, page 4.12-9). The project’s additional 48 person increase is not great enough to be considered ‘substantial population growth’. The project will not induce indirect population growth through the extension of roads or infrastructure. (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project proposes to create housing on an existing private parking lot. No persons or housing will be displaced.

Population and Housing Summary: The project will not have significant impacts on population and housing.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1113
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -31- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
The project’s 12 residences do not present a substantial increase in the demands for public services. The project will thus not result in substantial adverse physical impacts resulting from the alteration of public service facilities or construction of new public service facilities. 1) Fire protection? No impact. The project will not impact fire protection services. The proposed use does not significantly increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions.
2) Police protection? No impact. There will be no significant impacts related to police services associated with the proposed use. The project will not significantly increase the demand for police services, nor will it induce the need for new or expanded police facilities. 3) Schools? No impact. The proposed uses will not result in a significant increase in student population or otherwise affect school services.
4) Parks? No impact. The project will not result in a substantial increase in the demand or use of parks.
5) Other public facilities? No impact. The proposed uses will not result in a significant increase in the resident population or an increase in employees great enough to substantially increase the demand for public facilities.

Public Services Summary: The project will have no impact related to public services. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.15 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1114
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -32- City of Hermosa Beach, California (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No impact. The project will not substantially increase the local population or increase the demand for local parks or recreational facilities, either directly or indirectly. It will have no impact on recreational facilities or parks.
(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The project does not include recreational facilities, nor will it require construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Recreation Summary: The project will have no impact related to recreation. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/Mitigation IncludedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.16 TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No impact. The project will not conflict with plans, policies or ordinances related to other modes of transportation (mass transit, pedestrian, bicycle). It will not alter or obstruct existing or planned bike paths. Nor will it alter or impede access to mass transit facilities. (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the appropriate measure of transportation impacts and prescribes criteria for analyzing VMT impacts, including the use of qualitative analysis in some cases. Analysis of the proposed project’s VMT impact applies the screening thresholds developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR, 2018), 1115
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -33- City of Hermosa Beach, California specifically the screening threshold of small projects which supports a finding that “projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-thansignificant transportation impact” (OPR, 2018, Page 12).

The First Street Residences project is estimated to generate 88 average daily trips (based on trip generation rates of a low-rise, multi-family land use per the Institute of Transportation (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, 2017). Because the project’s 88 daily trips are well below the 110 trips per day screening threshold, the project can be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No impact. The project does not propose any features, modifications to circulation facilities or uses that would introduce hazards.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. The project’s proposed modifications will not impact emergency access to the site.

Emergency access, fire lanes and ingress and egress points will be maintained in full compliance with the Building and Safety Code and Fire Code.

Summary: The project will have no adverse impacts on transportation. Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
1116
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -34- City of Hermosa Beach, California Would the project:
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No impact. The project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities except for connections to the site from existing local facilities which would not result in significant environmental effects.
(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No impact. Water availability for proposed uses will be verified through the City’s requirement for a Will Serve letter from the water purveyor. Water use will not result in environmental impacts. The project’s water demand is not large enough to exceed existing entitlements or the capacities of existing facilities.
(c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No impact. The proposed use will not require construction or expansion of treatment facilities. The current capacity of wastewater treatment facilities is sufficient to accommodate the wastewater generated by the project. Available treatment capacity will be verified through the City’s requirement for a Will Serve letter for the proposed uses.
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No impact. The project will generate solid waste during construction. Proposed new uses will generate increased amounts of solid waste, however the increase is not great enough to impact regional landfill capacity. Sufficient landfill capacity is available and is expected to be available through the lifetime of the proposed uses (20 years) (City of Hermosa Beach, June 2014). (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact. Policy 4.5 of the City’s Sustainability and Conservation Element requires that projects “use sustainable building checklists to minimize or eliminate waste and maximize recycling in building design, demolition, and construction activities.” Compliance with this policy will be enforced through the building permit approval process.

Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The project will have no impact on utilities and service systems.
1117
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -35- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.18 WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
(a) through (d)
No impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.

Wildfire Summary: The project will have no impacts related to wildfire. Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means the project’s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)?
1118
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -36- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact. The project has no potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of longterm, environmental goals? No Impact. The project does not jeopardize long-term environmental goals in favor of short-term environmental goals. If the General Plan Change request is approved, the proposal to develop residences at this site would be consistent with the long-term goals established by the City as reflected in the General Plan.
c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means the project’s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)? No impact. The project would not result in incremental effects of this type. Potential impacts are limited to those that are less than significant and which do not have un-mitigable incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed and with implementation of all standard conditions of approval and compliance with current City ordinances and policies will have no significant impacts to humans, directly or indirectly.

18. PREPARATION. This initial study was prepared by the City of Hermosa Beach with assistance from Ed Almanza & Associates, an environmental consultant under contract to the City.

Principal City staff participants include Melanie Emas Hall, Assistant Planner; Ken Robertson, Community Development Director; Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney.

The project’s vehicle trip generation projections were provided by the City’s traffic consultant, Seth Contreras of Fehr & Peers.
1119
CC
CC
HD
LD
LD
HD
LD
HD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
CC
LD
HD
OS
HD
HD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
LD
HD
CC
CC
LD
HD
CC
CC
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
HD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
CC
HD
CC
LD
CC
LD
CC
LD
CC
CC
CC
HD
HD
HD
CC
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
CC
LD
LD
CC
LD
CC
LD
LD
HD
LD
LD
MD
LD
1st St
Meyer Ct
3rd St
2nd St
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
R-P
OS
R-P
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
SPA-7
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-P
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
1st St
Meyer Ct
3rd St
2nd St
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
R-P
OS
R-P
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
SPA-7
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-P
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
1st St
Meyer Ct
3rd St
2nd St
CC
CC
HD
LD
LD
HD
LD
HD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
CC
LD
HD
OS
HD
HD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
LD
HD
CC
CC
LD
HD
CC
CC
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
HD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
CC
HD
CC
LD
CC
LD
CC
LD
CC
CC
CC
HD
HD
HD
CC
LD
LD
LD
HD
CC
LD
LD
CC
LD
CC
LD
LD
HD
LD
LD
MD
LD
HD
1st St
Meyer Ct
3rd St
2nd St
Proposed: Residential-Professional (R-P)
General Plan Designation
Current: Community Commercial (CC) Proposed: High Density Residential (HD) 911 1st St
Zoning Designation
Current: Specific Plan 7 (SPA-7)
C
CC
SPA-7
R-P
HD
1120

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
ORDINANCE NO. 22-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,

APPROVING A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 7 (SPA-7) TO RESIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL (R-P) AT 911 1ST STREET (APN 4186-026-047)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:

A. An application was filed on December 2, 2020, by the applicant Luigi Schiappa Development Inc., for development of a property located at 911 1st Street requesting, among other things a Zone Text Amendment amending the zoning designation from Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) to Residential Professional (R-P) at 911 1st Street (APN 4186-026-047.

B. An Initial Study (“IS”) was prepared by the City in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The IS indicated that the Project would not have an impact on the environment. As such, a Negative Declaration (“ND”) was prepared.

C. On March 15, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a 12-unit condominium project. There was discussion regarding the current Housing Element process being updated and whether there was an opportunity to consider affordable housing or other public benefit within this project. The project was continued for further study. The Housing Element Process has been lengthier than expected and mechanisms to require affordable housing or other public benefit have not been implemented. The Planning Commission held a dully noticed public hearing on November 15th and deliberated on the project. All interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.

D. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-17 recommending, among other things, adoption of the Zoning Text Amendment amending the 1121

zoning designation from Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) to Residential Professional (R-P) and adoption of the IS/ND.

E. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the 29th day of November, 2022. All interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.

F. The City Council has approved Resolution No. 22-XX, which adopted the IS/ND for, among other things, the zone text amendment.

SECTION 2. Approval.

The Zoning Map is hereby amended as attached as Exhibit A which changes the Zoning Designation from Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) to Residential Professional (R-P) for 911 1st Street (APN 4186-026-047).

SECTION 3. Environmental Review.

The City Council has adopted Resolution No. 22-XX finding that the IS/ND was prepared pursuant with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there was no substantial evidence that there may be significant environmental impacts on specific environmental areas as a result of the Project.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and adoption pursuant to California Government Code section 36937.

SECTION 5. Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law. 1122

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 29th day of November, 2022.

Michael Detoy, PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ________________________________ Myra Maravilla Michael Jenkins
City Clerk City Attorney
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-XX was adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 29th day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Myra Maravilla
City Clerk
1123
CC
CC
HD
LD
LD
HD
LD
HD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
CC
LD
HD
OS
HD
HD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
LD
HD
CC
CC
LD
HD
CC
CC
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
HD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
CC
HD
CC
LD
CC
LD
CC
LD
CC
CC
CC
HD
HD
HD
CC
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
CC
LD
LD
CC
LD
CC
LD
LD
HD
LD
LD
MD
LD
1st St
Meyer Ct
3rd St
2nd St
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
R-P
OS
R-P
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
SPA-7
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-P
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
1st St
Meyer Ct
3rd St
2nd St
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
R-P
OS
R-P
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
SPA-7
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
SPA-7
SPA-7
R-P
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-P
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
SPA-7
R-1
R-1
R-P
R-1
R-1
R-1
1st St
Meyer Ct
3rd St
2nd St
CC
CC
HD
LD
LD
HD
LD
HD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
CC
LD
HD
OS
HD
HD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
LD
HD
CC
CC
LD
HD
CC
CC
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
HD
LD
LD
LD
LD
HD
LD
CC
HD
CC
LD
CC
LD
CC
LD
CC
CC
CC
HD
HD
HD
CC
LD
LD
LD
HD
CC
LD
LD
CC
LD
CC
LD
LD
HD
LD
LD
MD
LD
HD
1st St
Meyer Ct
3rd St
2nd St
Proposed: Residential-Professional (R-P)
General Plan Designation
Current: Community Commercial (CC) Proposed: High Density Residential (HD) 911 1st St
Zoning Designation
Current: Specific Plan 7 (SPA-7)
C
CC
SPA-7
R-P
HD
1124

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH

CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 22- XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CON 20-05), PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 20-10) AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 83011 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWELVE (12) – UNIT ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 911 1ST STREET (APN 4186-026-047)

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds as follows:

A. An application was filed on December 2, 2020, by the applicant Luigi Schiappa Development Inc, for development of a property located at 911 1st Street requesting a General Plan Amendment amending the land use designation from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density Residential (HD), a Zoning Code Change changing the zoning designation from Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) to Residential- Professional (R-P) and approval of Conditional Use Permit (CON 20-05), Precise Development Plan (PDP 20- 10), and Tentative Parcel Map No. 83011 for a proposed twelve-unit attached residential condominium project (collectively, the “Project”).

B. An Initial Study (“IS”) was prepared by the City in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the state CEQA guidelines. The IS indicated that the project would not have an impact on the environment. As such, A Negative Declaration (“ND”) was prepared.

C. On November 15, 2022 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-17 recommending, among other things, approval of Conditional Use Permit (CON 20-05), Precise Development Plan (PDP 20-10), and Tentative Parcel Map No. 83011 for the Project.
1125

D. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the 29th day of November, 2022. All interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.

E. The City Council has approved Resolution No. 22-XX, which adopted the IS/ND for the Project.

F. The City Council has approved Resolution No. 22-XX and approved the first reading of Zone Text Amendment 22-XX for the Project.

SECTION 2. Conditional Use Permit Findings. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the City Council hereby further finds, determines and declares pertaining to the application for Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.40.020.

A. Distance from existing residential uses: Residential development is directly to the north, south and east of the subject site. The proposed 12-unit condominium development will blend in cohesively with the existing streetscape of multi-family residential uses.

B. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking facilities, and its distance from the proposed use: Based on the proposed development, the R-P zone requires 24 enclosed parking spaces (2 per unit) and 1 guest space for every 2 units (6 guest spaces total). The applicant is proposing 24 enclosed parking spaces and seven guest parking spaces, exceeding the required six guest parking spaces, to alleviate the demand for on-street parking. All proposed parking will be located on site.

C. Location of and distance to churches, schools, hospitals and public playgrounds: The two units fronting 1st Street are designed with entrances facing 1st Street to promote a more inviting pedestrian environment and neighborhood transition. By orienting the front doors towards the street, it creates pathways that follow the most direct route from sidewalk to the front door.

D. The combination of uses proposed; The subject site is zoned R-P Residential Professional with The subject site is bounded by Single-Family (R-1) zoned properties to the north, Residential- Professional (R-P) zoned properties to 1126

the east and south, and Specific Plan 7 (SPA 7) commercially zoned properties to the west. Similar residential development is found in the surrounding area comprised primarily of multi-story, multi-family residences with some single-story single-family residences. The proposed layout of the building is consistent with multiple-family residential buildings in the immediate neighborhood consisting of both attached and detached multi-unit condominiums on a lot with shared driveways.

E. Precautions taken by the owner or operator of the proposed establishment to assure compatibility of the use with surrounding uses; This finding is not applicable as if the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved, the site would be maintained and utilized as a residential use which is consistent with the surrounding area.

F. The relationship of the proposed business-generated traffic volume and the size of streets serving the area; Commercial uses typically generate higher traffic volumes versus residential uses which could negatively impact a neighborhood that currently experiences traffic and parking related concerns. The Traffic Impact Analysis (use title) prepared for the project found that vehicular trip generation for the proposed use would be approximately 88 daily trips. As an example, this number was compared to a general office use of 15,000 square feet on the 20,137 square foot site that would generate 165 average daily trips. The example of office was used however, the existing commercial zoning allows for higher intensity uses that may generate additional traffic.

G. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area; The proposed architecture would be compatible with the surrounding area as there are existing developments that incorporated a contemporary architectural theme and is consistent with the bulk and massing of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project’s building configuration is consistent with the neighborhood’s development pattern and the overall character of the neighborhood.

H. The number of similar establishments or uses within close proximity to the proposed establishment; This finding is not applicable as residential uses are established to the north, east and south and commercial uses established to the south of the property.
1127

I. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use; Most of the noise, odor, and vibration impacts would be temporary and limited to the construction involved with the roof deck expansion.

Therefore, adverse impacts are not anticipated due to increased noise levels being temporary during construction and there being no long-term ambient noise impacts.

J. Impact of the proposed use to the city’s infrastructure, and/or services; The proposed twelve-unit condominium can connect to the existing utilities that service the residential uses in the immediate neighborhood. If the proposal is approved. the Public Works Department would determine if the site has the capacity to serve the proposed development as part of the civil sheet submittal. The submitted plans were preliminarily reviewed by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Building & Safety Division, and no major concerns were identified.

K. Will the establishment contribute to a concentration of similar outlets in the area; Varying residential and commercial zoning designations are established in the neighborhood and are substantially developed based on the assigned zoning designations. Any new development or use in the surrounding area are subject to the development standards set forth in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.

L. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the planning commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the city as a whole. This approval is contingent on the City Council approval of a request for a General Plan Amendment 20-1 amending the land use designation from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density Residential (HD), a Zone Change changing the zoning designation from Specific Plan Area 7 (SPA-7) to Residential- Professional (R-P) as noted in Resolution 22- XX.

SECTION 3. Precise Development Plan Findings. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the City Council hereby further finds, determines and declares pertaining to the application for Precise Development Plan pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Section 17.58.030.
1128

A. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects:

Residential development is directly to the north, south and east of the subject site. The proposed 12-unit condominium development will blend in with the existing streetscape of multi-family residential uses. Therefore, negative impacts to existing residential uses on-site and in the surrounding area are not anticipated.

B. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need: Based on the proposed development, the R-P zone requires 24 enclosed parking spaces (2 per unit) and 1 guest space for every 2 units (6 guest spaces total). The applicant is proposing 24 enclosed parking spaces and seven guest parking spaces, exceeding the required six guest parking spaces to alleviate the demand for on-street parking.

C. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility: If the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are approved, the subject site would be zoned R-P Residential-Professional Zone with similar multifamily residentially zoned properties to the east and south and R-1 Single-Family zoned properties to the north. The surrounding residential area is comprised of multi-story, multi-family residences with some single-story single-family residences. The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding area as it would be a multi-story residential development. The existing properties on 1st Street are developed with four to sixteen dwelling units and are similar in dwelling unit per acre (du/ac). The average dwelling unit per acre on this street is 32.8 du/ac. The proposed project is consistent with the existing du/ac and proposes 12-units or 25.9 du/ac.

D. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity and safety of streets serving the area: Commercial uses typically generate higher traffic volumes versus residential uses which could negatively impact a neighborhood that currently experiences traffic and parking related concerns. The Traffic Analysis prepared for the Initial Study/Negative Declaration found that vehicular trip generation for the proposed use would be approximately 88 daily trips. As an example, this number was compared to a general office use of 15,000 square feet on the 20,137 square foot site that would generate 165 average daily trips. The example of office was used however, the existing commercial zoning allows for higher intensity uses that may generate additional traffic. 1129

E. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area: The proposed architecture would be compatible with the surrounding area as there are existing developments that incorporated a contemporary architectural theme and is consistent with the bulk and massing of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project’s building configuration is consistent with the neighborhood’s development pattern and the overall character of the neighborhood.

F. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools: The two units fronting 1st Street are designed with entrances facing 1st Street to promote a more inviting pedestrian environment and neighborhood transition. By orienting the front doors towards the street, it creates pathways that follow the most direct route from sidewalk to the front door.

G. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use: Most of the noise, odor, and vibration impacts would be temporary and limited to the construction involved with the roof deck expansion.

Therefore, adverse impacts are not anticipated due to increased noise levels being temporary during construction and there being no long-term ambient noise impacts.

H. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services:

There are currently two driveway access points from 1st Street. The proposed project would create a 28’-0” curb cut to access the shared driveway that leads to the garages. The new curb cut does not result in a loss of on-street parking since the project is removing the existing curb cuts and replacing on-street parking. The applicant is proposing seven guest parking spaces, which is one more than the required six guest parking spaces to alleviate the demand for on-street parking. Modifications and encroachments in the public right-of-way would require permits from the Department of Public Works.

I. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms: In accordance with CEQA and Section 21080 (c) of the Public Resources Code, preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND) may 1130

occur if the City, as lead agency, finds that there is no evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment.

J. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the City as a whole. As noted in the above criteria, approval of the proposed project will not result in the creation of an impact to the surrounding uses and/or the City as a whole. The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding buildings.

SECTION 4. Subdivision Findings. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the City Council hereby further finds, determines and declares pertaining to the application for a Tentative Parcel Map pursuant to the California Government Code Section 66474 and Section 16.08.060 of the Municipal Code.

A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan in that it does not impede the City’s ability to meet its General Plan goals and purpose of the High Density (HD) Residential designation that allows for multiple dwellings. The proposal meets the HD designation because it would provide twelve-units on a 20,137 square foot lot and is within the intended dwelling unit per acre range (25.1-33) of the HD designation in the General Plan. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with applicable development standards set forth in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) for the R-P zone.

B. The site is physically suitable for a two-unit attached residential condominium project. The two-unit attached residential condominium project contains a total of seven on-site parking spaces with four spaces located within garages and three guest parking spaces. This development complies with all development standards and does not require approval of a deviation.

C. The subdivision and improvements provide for adequate drainage, sanitation and potable water, underground utilities, parking and construction requirements, and therefore are not likely to cause public health problems. The project as conditioned would provide permeable surfacing and storm water retention facilities to the maximum extent feasible per HBMC Section 8.44.095 and any additional non-percolated or retained storm water would be conveyed to an onsite subsurface infiltration 1131

system as required by HBMC Section 8.44.095 subject to maintenance agreements.

D. The proposed subdivision would front on a public street, would provide vehicular access from 1st Street, and does not exhibit dedicated public easements. Therefore, the subdivision and improvements would not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

E. The project, as conditioned, would conform to all zoning requirements including, but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage, open space, building height, and parking. The project also conforms to all condominium standards including, but not limited to private storage space, minimum unit sizes, architecture and building layout, landscaping, and would be compatible with neighboring properties that are developed with similar multi-story multi-family residences.

F. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Planning Commission adopted the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project finding that no evidence that the project would have significant impacts on the environment.

G. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the prevailing lot patterns and dwelling unit per acre and is not likely to reduce property values in the surrounding neighborhood area because the project is similar to surrounding development, consists only of the division of airspace at less than the maximum density allowed, and conditions have been placed on the project to ensure compatibility.

SECTION 5. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 83011. The foregoing findings constitute sufficient grounds for the approval of the requested Tentative Parcel Map No. 83011- for a proposed twelve-unit attached residential condominium project.

SECTION 6. Approval.
1132

The City Council finds, that based on the foregoing findings, evidence in the record testimony provided at the hearing, and the adoption of the IS/ND, that approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CON 20-5), Precise Development Plan (PDP 20-10), and Tentative Parcel Map No. 83011 for the Project is appropriate.

Therefore, Conditional Use Permit (CON 20-5), Precise Development Plan (PDP 20- 10), and Tentative Parcel Map No. 83011 are hereby APPROVED.

These approvals are granted subject to the following conditions, which must be met at all times, unless otherwise stated, in order to enjoy the use of the subject property for any and all uses permitted by the granting of the requested approvals.

1. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the subject property is proposed to be amended from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density (HD) Residential.

2. The zoning map is proposed to change from Specific-Plan 7 (SPA-7) to Residential-Professional (R-P).

3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Change are deemed to be in the public interest for the following reasons:
a. The distance of the Community Commercial designation from Pacific Coast Highway extends further into the residential neighborhood than any other property on either side of Pacific Coast Highway. b. The subject property is under separate ownership from the Pacific Coast Highway -facing commercial property at 102 Pacific Coast Highway, making it unlikely to be developed as part of a greater commercial project.
c. It is unlikely t a commercial use would be compatible at entrance of the residential neighborhood. A retail or office building would be out of place since the property is not easily visible from Pacific Coast Highway and is surrounded by residential uses on three sides. d. The topography of the site is sloping up away from Pacific Coast Highway, separating it from the Pacific Coast Highway -adjacent properties physically upward along the residential street. e. A residential use would be compatible with the surrounding area which is comprised of multiple-family developments.
1133

4. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans received and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 15, 2022. Minor modifications that do not affect scale, type, location or intensity of uses or impacts thereof may be approved by the Community Development Director when not in conflict with the findings or conditions of this permit.

5. The project shall fully comply with all requirements of the R-P Zone as applicable and the Condominium Ordinance in Chapter 17.22 of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to:
a) Height, including required roof deck railings, shall fully comply with the 30-foot height limit. Precise building height compliance shall be reviewed at the time of Plan Check, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
b) Design and construction shall comply with HBMC Section 17.22.060 except as specifically stated in this Resolution.
c) Conduit to accommodate roof mounted alternative energy equipment for solar energy and solar thermal shall also be supplied per HBMC Section 15.32.140.
d) The requirements of HBMC Sections 17.22.060(F) and (G) shall be shown on structural plans and reviewed at the time of Building Division Plan Check.
e) A minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage area shall be provided for each unit in accordance with HBMC Section 17.22.060(E).
f) Designated, screened solid waste storage area for a shared common trash facility shall be shown on the site plan compliance with HBMC Chapter 8.12.

6. The submitted Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director in conformance with HBMC Section 17.22.050 and conditions of this approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
a) Proof of recordation of approved CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
1134

b) Thirty-one parking spaces (twenty-four garage spaces and seven guest parking spaces) shall be maintained on-site. All parking spaces shall remain available for parking and shall not be used for storage or other purposes. Storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles shall not be allowed and the CC&Rs shall reflect this condition.
c) The CC&Rs shall require the Home Owners Association to maintain a list of the year, make, and license number of all personal vehicles owned by the residents. This list shall be subject to City review.

7. The project shall comply with all requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach Building Division, Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department, and the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.

8. Two copies of a Final Landscape Plan, consistent with landscape plans approved by the Planning Commission, indicating size, type, quantity, and characteristics of landscape materials shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The Final Landscape Plan shall also include the following:
a) The applicant shall provide a landscape plan to comply with HBMC Sections 17.22.060(H), 8.60.060, and 8.60.070 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. b) An automatic landscape sprinkler system consistent with HBMC Section

17.22.060(H) shall be provided and shall be shown on plans (Building Permits are required).

9. Architectural treatments and accessory facilities shall be as shown on building elevations, site, and floor plans. Precise building height compliance shall be reviewed at the time of Plan Check, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. In addition:
a) All parking dimensions shall comply with HBMC Chapter 17.44. Roll-up automatic garage doors shall be installed on all garage door openings and clearly indicated on floor plans.
b) Driveway transitions shall comply with HBMC Section 17.44.120(D). c) All exterior lighting shall be downcast, fully shielded and illumination shall be contained within the property boundaries. Lighting shall be energy 1135

conserving and motion detector lighting shall be used for all lighting except low-level (3 feet or less in height) security lighting and porch lights. Lamp bulbs and images shall not be visible from within any onsite or offsite residential unit. Exterior lighting shall not be deemed finally approved until 30 days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming or modification of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant or impacting to nearby properties.
d) Any satellite dish antennas and/or similar equipment shall comply with HBMC Section 17.46.240.

10. The plans shall comply with HBMC Section 8.44.095 and install permeable surfaces in the driveway, guest parking space and other non-landscaped areas to the maximum extent feasible. If providing water-permeable surfaces on at least 50% of exterior surface area is not feasible and incorporating measures in 8.44.095 to the extent practicable to infiltrate the volume of runoff produced by a 0.80 inch twenty four (24) hour rain event, then the applicant shall infiltrate runoff on-site. In the event that subsurface infiltration is required, plans shall designate the exact location of the subsurface infiltration system, the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City (prior to final map approval) for the ongoing infiltration, and provide a surety bond to the City to guarantee that on-site, subsurface infiltration is achieved. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Building Division. All other drainage shall be routed to an off-site facility or on-site permeable area approved by the City. To the extent possible, a portion of roof drainage shall be routed to on-site permeable areas. No drainage shall flow over any driveway or sidewalk.

If the drainage of surface waters onto the property requires a sump pump to discharge waters onto the street, the property owner(s) shall record an agreement to assume the risk associated with use and operation of said sump pump, release the City from any liability, and indemnify the City regarding receipt of surface waters from the property. The recorded agreement must be filed with the City prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
1136

11. The plans and construction shall comply with all requirements of the Building Code in Title 15 and Green Building Standards in Chapter 15.48.

Water conservation practices set forth in Section 8.56.070 shall be complied with and noted on construction plans.

12. Two copies of final construction plans, including site, elevation, and floor plans, which are consistent with the conditions of approval of this conditional use permit, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division for consistency with Planning Commission approved plans and this Resolution prior to the submittal to the Building Division for Plan Check.

13. Prior to the submittal of structural plans to the Building Division for Plan Check the permittee and the owners of the property involved shall file at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department an Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of, and agree to and accept, all of the conditions of this permit. The permittee shall record with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office the Affidavits of Acceptance and Resolution(s), and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.

14. The applicant shall submit all required plans and reports to comply with the City’s construction debris recycling program including manifests from both the recycler and County landfill; at least 65% of demolition debris associated with demolition of the existing improvements and new construction shall be recycled.

15. The address of each condominium unit shall be conspicuously displayed on the street side of the buildings with externally or internally lit numbers and the method for illumination shall be shown on plans. Address numbering and display shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Department.

16. Civil engineering plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and conceptually approved by the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department prior to submitting an application for Building Permits to the Community Development Department. Complete civil engineering plans shall address grading, undergrounding of all utilities, pavement, sidewalk, curb and 1137

gutter improvements, on-site and off-site drainage (no sheet flow permitted), installation of utility laterals, and all other improvements necessary to comply with the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and Public Works specifications, and shall be filed with the Community Development Department.

17. Civil engineering plans shall include adjacent properties/structures, sewer laterals, and storm drain main lines on street.

18. A minimum of five 24-inch box size tree shall be provided within the public right-of-way on 1st Street and the tree species shall be listed on the Public Works Department’s Approved Tree List.

19. Project construction shall protect private and public property in compliance with HBMC Sections 15.04.070 and 15.04.140. No work in the public right of way shall commence unless and until all necessary permits are attained from the Public Works Department including if required, an approved Residential or Commercial Encroachment Permit.

20. Sewer flow rate for upstream and downstream manhole along with manhole rim/lid elevations must be submitted prior to grading and plan check. Sewer lateral video must be submitted with plan check submittal, if the developer plans to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required after review of the sewer lateral video.

21. Sewer lateral video must be submitted with plan check submittal, if the developer plans to use the existing sewer lateral. Sewer lateral work may be required after review of the sewer lateral video.

22. Sewer main work may be required after review of sewer lateral video.

23. The project must comply with Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations (HBMC Chapter 8.44) and must implement Low Impact Development Standards, and submit at time of grading and plan check along with an erosion control plan.

24. The Final Map shall comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 16.08 of the Municipal Code.
1138

25. Prior to filing of the Final Map, applicant shall pay to the City of Hermosa Beach Park and Recreation Area Dedication fees per unit in lieu of onsite parkland dedication pursuant to Chapter 16.12.

26. Prior to approval of the Final Map, and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, outstanding assessments must either be paid in full or apportioned to any newly created parcels. Notice of same shall be provided to the Community Development Director. Assessment payoff amounts may be obtained by calling the City’s Assessment Administrator at (800) 755-6864. Applications for apportionment may be obtained in the Public Works Department.

27. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, abutting property owners and residents within 100 feet of the project site shall be notified of the anticipated date for commencement of construction.
a) The form of the notification shall be provided by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department.
b) Building permits would not be issued until the applicant provides an affidavit certifying mailing of the notice.

28. Project construction shall conform to the Noise Control Ordinance requirements in HBMC Section 8.24.050. Allowed hours of construction shall be printed on the building plans and posted at construction site.

29. Traffic control measures, including flagmen, shall be utilized to preserve public health, safety, and welfare.

30. Approval of these permits shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission, unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration would be provided.
1139

31. The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Map and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use.

32. The subject property shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this permit and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions.

33. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.

34. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition.

35. The Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Tentative Map shall be recorded with the Affidavit of Acceptance, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.

36. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.
1140

SECTION 7. Environmental Review.

The City Council has adopted Resolution No. 22-XX finding that the IS/ND was prepared pursuant with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there was no substantial evidence that there may be significant environmental impacts on specific environmental areas as a result of the Project
SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remainder of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof is declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 9. Record of Proceedings. The City Clerk is directed to certify to the adoption of this Resolution and to keep a copy of same along with such other documents and records of proceedings as may be designated by the City Manager. This Resolution shall only become effective upon the adoption and effective date of Ordinance No. 2022-XX. The effective date of this Resolution shall be the same as the effective date of Ordinance No. 2022-XX PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 29th day of November 2022.

Michael Detoy, PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1141

________________________________ ________________________________ Myra Maravilla Michael Jenkins
City Clerk City Attorney
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-XX was adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a regular meeting held thereof on the 29th day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________
Myra Maravilla
City Clerk
1142
911
911 1st Street,Hermosa Beach, CA, 90254
dlR Design Inc.

Ricky de la Rosa
2040 Lomita Blvd., Suite 104,
Lomita, CA, 90717

1.310.972.9050
[email protected]
CLIENTLuigi Schiappa Dev ppa Development, Inc.2040 Lomita Blvd., ta Blvd., Suite 100,Lomita, CA, 90717 ita, CA, [email protected]

HERMOSA
SD PACKAGECLIENTLuigi Schiappa Development, Inc.2040 Lomita Blvd., Suite 100,Lomita, CA, [email protected] SHEET INDEX:01 Cover Sheet02.1 Tabulations / Site Plan02.2 Fire Access Plan03.1 Conceptual Diagrams03.2 Parking & Open Space04 Site Plan (1st Floor)05 Site Plan (2nd Floor)06 Site Plan (3rd Floor)07 Site Plan (Roof / Deck)08 Elevations 1, 2, 309 Elevations 4, 5, 610 Elevations 7, 8 11 Plan A12 Plan B13 Plan C14 Plan D15 Plan E16 Plan F17 Plan G18 Plan H19 Building Sections20 Site Photographs21 Conceptual Imagery22 3D Renderings 01 20-01
R+S
1143
Building ( 3 Units )

BUILDING LEGEND

SITE PLAN

F IREL ANE

ZONING SUMMARY

PROJECT ANALYSIS

UNIT SUMMARYOPEN SPACE / AMENITY SUMMARYPARKING SUMMARYPROJECT SITE INFORMATIONSETBACKS PLAN

PROJECT UNITS TOTAL

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY GROSS AREA GROSS AREA SUBTOTAL DECK AREA DECK AREA SUBTOTAL RATIO NUMBER OF UNITS ??? 12
26 DU/AC20,362 SF1.013 STORIES
30’ ABOVE EXISTING GRADE MAX. <30’ ABOVE EXISTING GRADE FAR DOES NOT INCLUDE GARAGE100 SF MIN. ADJACENT TO PRIMARYLIVING AREA100 SF MAX. ON ROOF DECKS MAYCOUNT AS OPEN SPACE DENSITY 33 DU/AC (1,320 SF/DU MIN.)
65% MAX. (13,089 SF) 46% (9,258 SF)200 C.F PER UNIT3 STORY TOWNHOME - TYPE V-B 396-476 C.F PER UNIT
300 SF/DU (MIN. DIMENSION OF 7’)100 SF/DU ADDITIONAL (5+ UNIT DEVELOPMENTS) = 400 SF/DU * 12 UNITS = 4,800 SF 4,430 SF PUBLIC + 1,200 PRIVATE= 5,630 SF
BUILDING FLOOR AREALOT COVERAGEFLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.)BUILDING HEIGHTA 3 UNITS ± 1,565 SF 4,695 SF 405 SF 1,215 SF 25.9% ± 1,623 SF 1,623 SF 407 SF 407 SF 25.1%± 1,802 SF 1,802 SF 432 SF 432 SF 24.0%± 1,808 SF 1,808 SF 432 SF 432 SF 23.9%± 1,627 SF 4,881 SF 473 SF 1,419 SF 29.1%± 1,830 SF 1,830 SF 479 SF 479 SF 26.2%± 1,862 SF 1,862 SF 513 SF 513 SF 27.6%± 1,861 SF 1,861 SF 516 SF 516 SF 20,362 SF 5,413 SF 26.6%

27.7%
3 BR / 2.5 BA
B 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAC 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAD 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAE 3 UNITS 3 BR / 2.5 BAF 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAG 1 UNIT 3 BR / 2.5 BAH 1 UNIT 12 UNITS
3 BR / 2.5 BA

OPEN SPACE (USABLE)STORAGE SPACE (PRIVATE)PROJECT CONSTRUCTION TYPE

REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED

COMMON OPEN SPACEREQUIREDPROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL/GUEST (2) STANDARD 18’x20’ SPACE / UNIT (12 UNITS) 24 SPACES (1) GUEST SPACE / 2 UNITS (12 UNITS) 6 SPACES

RESIDENTIAL/GUEST
TOTAL(2) STANDARD 18’x20’ SPACES / UNIT (12 UNITS) 24 SPACES(1) 10’x20’ GUEST SPACE 1 SPACES(0) 17’x20’ GUEST SPACE - H.C. 0 SPACES(1) 8’x20’ / 9’x20’ GUEST SPACE - COMPACT 6 SPACESTOTAL 31 SPACES 30 SPACES
4,800 SF 2,482 SF
LANDSCAPED AREA = 3,658 SF200 SF/DU OF ROOF DECK AREA MAY COUNT400 SF/DU REQUIRED (12 UNITS) 2,400 SF4,882 SF

REQUIRED PROPOSED NOTES

PRIVATE OPEN SPACETOTAL OPEN SPACE
NOTES

APN NUMBER
4186-026-047
FRONT - SOUTH 10’
5’5’5’
10’10’10’8’ - 10’

SIDE - EASTSIDE - WESTREAR - NORTH
911 1ST STREET, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 SPA (COMMERCIAL) R-P 20,137 0.46

ADDRESS EXISTING ZONE PROPOSED NEW ZONE LOT AREA (ACRE) LOT AREA (SF) 2 N D S T R E E T

PACIFI C COA ST HWY(BEYOND)
N
1 S T S T R E E T
0 32
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
64 128 96

SITE PLAN
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 4

DRIVE AISLE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

TRASH /

RECYCLE

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

VEHICULAR ACCESS
GUEST

PARKING
PLAN
A
PLAN
A
PLAN
A
PLAN
D
PLAN
C
PLAN
B
PLAN
E
PLAN
E
PLAN
E
PLAN
H
PLAN
G
PLAN
F
( EXISTING PARKING )
( EXISTING R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY )
( EXISTING R-P PROFESSIONAL )
Tabulations / Site & Building Plan

02.1 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1144

EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING
0 32
SCALE: 1/32” = 1’-0”
64 128 96
N
Hose PullHose Pull - Start/EndNo Parking Fire Lane
LEGEND
Fire Hydrant - NewFire Hydrant - Existing
150’ HOSE PULL
120’ HOSE PULL
100’ HOSE PULL
150’ HOSE PULL
55’ HOSE PULL
150’ HOSE PULL
80’ HOSE PULL
60’ HOSE PULL
150’ HOSE PULL
90’-0”

FIRE TRUCK ACCESS / NO PARKING FIRE LANE

TRASH /

RECYCLE
B.1 & B.3 - 1ST STREET - SOUTH ELEVATION
1 ST STREE T 1 ST STREE T
28'-0"

CLEAR AT GROUND
26'-0"26'-0"

CLEAR TO SKY

DRIVE AISLE
28'-0"

CLEAR AT GROUND

CURB CUT

CLEAR TO SKY
32'-9"
30'-0"
29'-0"
29'-0"

P EDE S TRIAN A CC E SS
A
RECY
S
CLE
N
17'-10"
SPACE 1
25'-0"
SPACE 4
39'-0"
SPACE 2-3
Fire Access Plan + Existing On-Street Parking

02.2 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1145
16’ RISE ACROSS SITE
13’ RISE ALONG FRONT
5’

16.5’
16’

2. SLOPE

7.9%

2.9%

13.4%
115.00’ DATUM
103.60’ DATUM

98.60’ DATUM
114.60’ DATUM0
10’
10’
10’
5’
5’
5’
5’
10’
10’ FRONT REQ / 10‘ PROVIDED
5’ BACK REQ / 8’-10‘ PROVIDED
5’ SIDES REQ / 10’ PROVIDED

3. SETBACKS
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 3
119’-7” x 168’-4” = 20,137 SF
119’-7”
168’-4”

1. LOT SIZE
30’ ABOVE NATURAL GRADE
( CONSIDERING CROSS-SITE SLOPE )

4. MAX HEIGHT
30’
4 144.60’ DATUM
145.00’ DATUM
133.60’ DATUM
128.60’ DATUM
4,882 SF TOTAL2,482 SF PUBLIC2,400 SF PRIVATE = 200 SF/DU

7. OPEN SPACE
LOT AREA = 20,137 SF
65% MAX. LOT AREA = 13,089 SF
( 45% PROVIDED = 8,986 SF )

5. LOT COVERAGE
1,420 SF LIVING
405 SF GARAGE
100 SF DECK

8. PROGRAM

GARAGEENTRYEATINGSLEEPINGSLEEPINGDECKLIVINGDINING
B1
B2
B3
B4
3RD FLOOR2ND FLOOR1ST FLOORPARTY WALL
8’-1” GROUND FLOOR
8’-1“ & 9‘-1” UPPER FLOORS

6. FLOOR HEIGHTS
8’-1”8’-1”9’-1”
8’-1”8’-1”
8’-6”
9’-1”
8’-6”
8’-1”
9’-1”8’-1”
9’-1”

MAXIMIZE BUILDABLE ENVELOPE

CAPITALIZE ON OCEAN VIEWS

PRIVACY B/W UNITS & NEIGHBORS

9. CONCEPT

ROOF DECKACCESSPRIVACY WALL(OBSCURED)VIEWS

PUBLICPRIVATE

PUBLICPRIVATE
30’ CLIPPING PLANEMINIMAL OPENINGS/ VIEWS
Conceptual Diagrams

03.1 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1146
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48
TOTAL UNITS: 12 DU
A. REQUIRED OPEN SPACE: 300SF/DU + 100SF/DU ADDITIONAL (FOR 5+ UNIT DEVELOPMENTS) = 400SF/DU 400SF/DU * 12 DU = 4,800 SF
B. PROVIDED OPEN SPACE = 2,482 SF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE + 2,400 SF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (200SF MAX. PER UNIT * 12) = 4,882 SF
C. PROVIDED ON-STREET PARKING = 4 SPACES (STANDARD 8’x20’ SPACE) N
Roof3rd Floor1st Floor
LEGEND

GUEST GUEST GUESTGUEST
GUEST

GUEST GUEST
3RD: 207 SF 3RD: 200 SF 3RD: 200 SF 3RD: 205 SF 3RD: 232 SF 3RD: 232 SF3RD: 100 SF ROOF: 179 SF
3RD: 100 SF
ROOF: 173 SF
UNIT E1
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 100 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 473 SF
UNIT E2
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 100 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 473 SF
UNIT H
ROOF: 199 SF
3RD: 117 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 516 SF
UNIT G
ROOF: 199 SF
3RD: 114 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 513 SF
UNIT E3
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 100 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 473 SF
UNIT F
ROOF: 179 SF
3RD: 100 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 479 SF
UNIT A1
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 205 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 405 SF
UNIT A2
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 200 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 400 SF
UNIT D
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 232 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 432 SF
UNIT C
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 232 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 432 SF
UNIT A3
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 200 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 400 SF
UNIT B
ROOF: 0 SF
3RD: 207 SF
1ST: 200 SF
TOTAL: 407 SF
3RD: 100 SF
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 100 SF
ROOF: 173 SF
3RD: 117 SF
ROOF: 199 SF
3RD: 114 SF
ROOF: 199 SF
1ST: 1,197 SF1ST: 1,285 SF
On-Street Parking & Open Space

03.2 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1147
Garage
DownspoutElect. MeterGas MeterAir-Conditioning Unit( Screened From View ) AC
M Mailbox
T Trash
R Recycle
EntryLEGEND
E
Garage Floor Slope
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48
N
FS 105.20’
105.60’
FS 105.30’ FS 104.70’ FS 103.95’
@ DOOR
FS 105.30’
@ DOOR
FS 105.30’
@ DOOR
FS 105.30’
@ DOOR
FS 105.10’
@ DOOR
FS 104.90’
@ DOOR
9’-0” 9’-0” 8’-05/16”
105.80’

GUEST GUEST GUESTGUEST
GUEST
TR
GUEST

99.86’
105.32’
105.40’
FF 100.80’FF 108.73’
.2 .2 .1
OPEN
SPACE
1,285 SF
OPEN
SPACE
1,197 SF
FF 108.73’ FF 108.73’ FF 108.73’ FF 108.73’ FF 108.73’
FF 104.30’ FF 103.30’ FF 102.30’ FF 101.80’ FF 101.30’
105.80’ 105.60’
106.73’ 106.73’ 106.73’ 106.73’ 106.73’ 106.73’
105.80’ 105.80’ 105.80’
FS 107.48’
TOW [103.42’]TOW [110.67’] TOW [111.67’]TOW [113.67’]TOW [115.67’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [116.00’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [115.00’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [114.00’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [114.00’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [115.10’] TOW [111.23’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [109.00’] TOW [102.13’] TOW [104.92’]TOW [106.42’]
108.23’ 108.23’ 108.23’
TW [116.00’][103.00’]
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
FS 106.23’@ DOOR
103.80’ 101.80’ 101.30’
10’-311/16”
18’-0”
119’-75/16”
119’-75/16
”
8’-311/16
”
10’-311/16”
8’-311/16” 38’-6”
35’-6” 35’-6”
2’-0” 2’-0” 1’-0” 1’-0”
38’-6” 26’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
8’-05/16” 10’-0”
23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
66’-6” 65’-10”
8’-0 18’-0” 5/16” 66’-6” 65’-10” 10’-0”

CLEAR TO SKY

OVERHANG OVERHANG

DRIVE AISLE SIDE

SETBACK
SIDE

SETBACK

CLEAR AT GROUND
28’-0”
108.23’

PROPERTYCORNER

PROPERTYCORNERPROPERTYCORNER

PROPERTYCORNER
9 8
8 9
6 5
23467
EE E
M
M
E
EE
E

E E E E E
TOW [114.50’]TOW [113.00’]TOW [108.00’]
TOW [108.00’]
TOW [106.80’]TOW [112.23’]TOW [111.73’]
168’-4 5/16”
168’-4 5/16”
5’-0”
5’-0”
5’-0”
5’-0”

ELEVATION KEY PLAN
SHEET 08-10
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
Existing curb & gutterKEY NOTES

1.2. (E) Landscape3. (E) Concrete walk4. New 4’-0” wide concrete walk5. New concrete steps New board-formed concretewall

6.7. New landscape8. (E) CMU wall9. New concrete retaining wall

AC AC AC AC AC ACAC AC AC AC AC AC
19 B
19 5
1 8 23 108 23
9 108 2
Site Plan (1st Floor)
04 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1148
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48

ELEVATION KEY PLAN
SHEET 08-10
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
N
18’-0”
119’-75/16”
8’-311/16
” 8’-311/16” 38’-6” 38’-6” 26’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
8’-05/16” 10’-0”
23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
66’-6” 65’-10”
8’-0 18’-0” 5/16” 66’-6” 65’-10” 10’-0”

DRIVE AISLE

CLEAR TO SKY
SIDE

SETBACK
SIDE

SETBACK

SITE WIDTH
.2 .2 .1
A
19 B
19 Site Plan (2nd Floor)
05 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1149
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48

ELEVATION KEY PLAN
SHEET 08-10
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
N
18’-0”
119’-75/16”
8’-311/16
” 8’-311/16” 38’-6” 38’-6” 26’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
8’-05/16” 10’-0”
23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
66’-6” 65’-10”
8’-0 18’-0” 5/16” 66’-6” 65’-10” 10’-0”

DRIVE AISLE

CLEAR TO SKY
SIDE

SETBACK
SIDE

SETBACK

SITE WIDTH
.2 .2 .1
A
19 B
19 Site Plan (3rd Floor)
06 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1150
0 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
32 64 48

DOWNSPOUT
18’-0”
119’-75/16”
8’-311/16” 8’-311/16” 38’-6” 38’-6” 26’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
8’-05/16” 10’-0”
23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0”
21’-8” 21’-0” 23’-8” 23’-8” 21’-0” 21’-0”
66’-6” 65’-10”
8’-0 18’-0” 5/16” 66’-6” 65’-10” 10’-0”

DRIVE AISLE

CLEAR TO SKY
SIDE

SETBACK
SIDE

SETBACK

SITE WIDTH
.2 .2 .1
N

ELEVATION KEY PLAN
SHEET 08-10
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
DownspoutLEGENDSlope to drain
A
19 B
19 EL 130.84’
EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 136.73’ EL 133.72’ EL 132.72’ EL 131.72’ EL 131.72’ EL 131.25’
MH141.43’CP9139.73’MH136.04’CP8134.23’
MH133.53’CP4132.23’
MH140.12’CP11139.73’
MH140.16’CP10139.73’
MH134.07’CP6132.23’
MH132.39’CP2130.23’
MH134.79’CP7133.23’
MH132.28’CP3131.23’
MH132.82’CP5131.23’
MH130.63’CP1129.23’
MH139.96’CP12139.73’
Site Plan (Roof & Deck)
07 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1151
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
B.2 & B.1 - WEST ELEVATION
B.1 & B.3 - SOUTH ELEVATION
B.4 & B.2 - NORTH ELEVATION

SITE KEY PLAN
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N

PAINT LEGEND
12345678
P1P2P3P4
Metal Coping (3”)

MATERIAL LEGEND
Wood RailCement Plaster( 20/30 Sand Finish )Recessed Vinyl Windows( Milgard Espresso )Clear Douglas Fir DoorsVinyl Sliding Door( Milgard Espresso )Stucco Expansion JointsMetal Shade 9 Wood Privacy Screen
Dunn Edwards Paint:Igloo (DEW379)Dunn Edwards Paint:Formal Gray (DE6382)Dunn Edwards Paint:Bank Vault (DE6383) P5 Dunn Edwards Paint:

Unspecified (DEXXXX)Dunn Edwards Paint:Unspecified (DEXXXX)

PLAN A PLAN E

PLAN B PLAN A PLAN C PLAN A PLAN A

PLAN F PLAN B
PLAN D
1 29'-5"
8'-6" 9'-1" 8'-1"
29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
108.23’
112.23’
114.60’
104.70’104.48’

98.80’
100.36’

98.60’95.00’
106.23’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
(E) ELEV.
( EXISTING )
( R-P )
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"

98.60’
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE 108.23’
106.23’
115.00’
( EXISTING )
( R-P )

95.00’
DATUM
105.80’
102.48’
2 3
1 3 4 6 7
P3
2 P1
3 P2
2 P5
5 P5
8 P4
3 P2
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
101.30’110.63’120.39’130.72’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
103.30’112.63’122.39’131.72’
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
106.30’115.63’125.39’134.72’
101.30’110.63’120.39’130.72’
104.30’113.63’123.39’133.72’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’

SIDEWALK
103.80’
101.80’ 101.80’
100.36’ 103.60’

95.00’

98.60’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
30’ ABOVE GRADE

EXISTING GRADE
129.23’
102.13’
TOW
115.00’
TOW
115.10’
TOW
136.23’
133.23’
139.73’
137.23’
130.23’
131.23’
133.23’
136.23’
139.73’
137.23’
129.23’
131.23’
134.23’
130.23’
108.00’
TOW
109.00’
TOW
(
'
Elevations 1, 2, 3
08 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1152
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
B.4 & B.3 - WEST ELEVATION
B.3 & B.4 - EAST ELEVATION

SITE KEY PLAN
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N
B.2 & B.4 - SOUTH ELEVATION

PAINT LEGEND
12345678
P1P2P3P4
Metal Coping (3”)

MATERIAL LEGEND
Wood RailCement Plaster( 20/30 Sand Finish )Recessed Vinyl Windows( Milgard Espresso )Clear Douglas Fir DoorsVinyl Sliding Door( Milgard Espresso )Stucco Expansion JointsMetal Shade 9 Wood Privacy Screen
Dunn Edwards Paint:Igloo (DEW379)Dunn Edwards Paint:Formal Gray (DE6382)Dunn Edwards Paint:Bank Vault (DE6383) P5 Dunn Edwards Paint:

Unspecified (DEXXXX)Dunn Edwards Paint:Unspecified (DEXXXX)

PLAN E PLAN G PLAN E PLAN E

PLAN C PLAN G
PLAN F

PLAN E PLAN E PLAN H PLAN G PLAN E PLAN F
PLAN H
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
108.23’
108.23’ 108.23’ 108.23’
114.60’

95.00’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE

SIDEWALK
4 29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1" 108.23’ 115.00’
105.30’
101.80’

95.00’
106.23’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE
( EXISTING )
( R-P )
5 30'-0"
9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-1" 106.23’ 106.23’ 106.23’ 106.23’

95.00’
DATUM
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE

DRIVE AISLE
6 1
6 4 7
3 P4
2 P5
3 P3
3 P1
3 P5
8 P1
8 P4
3 P1
3 P2
3 P3
5 P5
3 P2
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
104.30’113.63’122.97’133.30’
102.30’111.63’121.39’131.72’
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
115.67’
TOW
109.00’
TOW
115.10’
TOW
115.10’
TOW
137.23’
139.73’
136.23’
139.73’
131.23’
139.73’
137.23’139.73’
132.23’
136.23’ 137.23’
139.73’
136.23’
137.23’
137.23’
113.00’
TOW
00 Elevations 4, 5, 6
09 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1153
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
B.1 & B.2 - EAST ELEVATION

SITE KEY PLAN
B1B2
B3B4
4 8
2 6
1 5
3 7
N B.3 & B.1 - NORTH ELEVATION

PAINT LEGEND
12345678
P1P2P3P4
Metal Coping (3”)

MATERIAL LEGEND
Wood RailCement Plaster( 20/30 Sand Finish )Recessed Vinyl Windows( Milgard Espresso )Clear Douglas Fir DoorsVinyl Sliding Door( Milgard Espresso )Stucco Expansion JointsMetal Shade 9 Wood Privacy Screen
Dunn Edwards Paint:Igloo (DEW379)Dunn Edwards Paint:Formal Gray (DE6382)Dunn Edwards Paint:Bank Vault (DE6383) P5 Dunn Edwards Paint:

Unspecified (DEXXXX)Dunn Edwards Paint:Unspecified (DEXXXX) PLAN H

PLAN A PLAN A PLAN A PLAN D PLAN B PLAN C
PLAN D
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1" 101.80’ 105.80’ 108.23’ 115.00’

95.00’
105.30’
DATUM
(E) ELEV.
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE
( EXISTING )
( R-P )
7 104.70’ 105.30’ 105.30’ 105.30’

95.00’
DATUM
30’ ABOVE GRADEEXISTING GRADE

DRIVE AISLE
8 1 2 3 4 5 7
P1
3 P5
3 P2
3 P1
8 P1
3 P2
2 P5
5 P5
3 P2
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
105.42’114.75’124.51’133.84’
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
104.30’113.63’123.39’132.72’
102.30’111.63’121.39’131.72’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
131.23’
139.73’
137.23’
130.23’
132.23’ 133.23’
132.23’
136.23’
131.23’ 132.23’
134.23’
108.00’
TOW
109.00’
TOW
115.00’
TOW
15 Elevations 7, 8
10 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1154
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
ST
166 CF
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 376 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:
1,565 Plan A 11
1st Street, Hermosa Beach,CA HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1155
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
ST
166 CF
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 376 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:
1,623
Plan B
12 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1156
03/26 - 2:30PM
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 376 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
166 CF
1,802
Plan C
13 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1157
06/26 - 6:30AM
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 376 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
166 CF
1,808
Plan D
1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1158
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 396 CF
100 SF
13’-4” x 7’-6” SF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
166 CF
1,627
Plan E
1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1159
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 410 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
180 CF
1,830
100 SF
13’-3” x 7’-6” SF
Plan F
1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1160
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 466 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
236 CF
1,862
114 SF
15’-3” x 7’-6” SF
Plan G
17 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1161
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24
GarageBedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
PRIVATE STORAGE: 466 CF
Proposed interior stairway will have a minimum of one open wallthat is not more than forty-two (42) inches in height open guardrail pursurant to HBMC Section 17.04.040 (General Definitions).

NOTE:

ST
236 CF
1,861
117 SF
15’-8” x 7’-6” SF
Plan H
18 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1162
Garage
Bedroom
Master BedroomBathroom
Master Bathroom
C Coat Closet
CL Closet
BA
P Powder
BR
MBR MBA Walk-In Closet
Linen Closet
WIC
LN
Kitchen Washer/DryerLiving Room
DN Den
DK
DR Dining Room
Deck
K
LR
W/D
ST Storage
G
Entry

ROOM LEGEND
E
08 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
16 32 24

SITE KEY PLAN
B1B2
B3B4
N
A
B1
A
B
34 B.1 & B.3 B - SECTION A-A
B.3 & B.4 - SECTION B-B
( EXISTING )
( R-P )

RECESSED WINDOW DETAIL
29'-5"
8'-1" 8'-6" 9'-1"
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1"
28'-5"
8'-6" 8'-1" 8'-1"
30'-0"
8'-1" 9'-1" 9'-1"
106.73’116.06’126.40’136.73’
108.73’118.06’128.40’137.73’
103.57’112.90’123.24’133.57’
102.57’111.90’122.24’132.57’
29'-0"
9'-1" 8'-1" 8'-1" 2'-0" 108.73’ 118.06’ 128.40’
137.73’
Building Sections
19 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1163
1ST STREET. LOOKING NORTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE
1ST STREET. LOOKING NORTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE
1ST STREET. LOOKING NORTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE
1ST STREET. LOOKING SOUTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE 1ST STREET. LOOKING SOUTH-WEST - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE 1ST STREET. LOOKING WEST 1ST STREET. LOOKING NORTH - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE
PROJECT AERIAL + KEY MAP (N.T.S.)
1ST STREET
2ND STREET
3RD STREET
PACIFIC COAST HWY. N
1 2
3 5
6 4
7 42
3 1
5 6 7
Site Photographs
20 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA
HB12 DECEMBER 23
, 2021 Design Inc.
20-01
R+S
1164
Conceptual Imagery
21 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA HB12 DECEMBER 23, 2021 Design Inc. 20-01 R
+
S
1165
VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON 1ST STREET - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE AERIAL LOOKING NORTH ON 1ST STREET - SOUTH SIDE OF SITE VIEW LOOKING NORTH-WEST - DRIVE COURT VIEW LOOKING WEST ON 1ST STREET - EAST SIDE OF SITE 3D Renderings
22 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, CA HB12 DECEMBER 23, 2021 Design Inc. 20-01 R+S
1166
NORTH
DATE: 11/03/20
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 4' 8' 16'
12 1167

CREPE MYRTLE

CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE
12 1168
1169
1170
65270.00001\34395204.1
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES
Public Review Draft
Initial Study and
Negative Declaration
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
February 14, 2022
1171
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -2- City of Hermosa Beach, California 1172
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -3- City of Hermosa Beach, California

INITIAL STUDY

1. Project Title: 911 First Street Residences

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director (310) 318-0242
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The 0.46-acre site is a paved lot on First Street, approximately 500 feet northeast of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Heronda Street in the City of Hermosa Beach.

See Exhibits 1 through 5.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc. 2040 Lomita Blvd.

Lomita, CA 90717

6. General Plan
Designation: CC, Community Commercial

7. Zoning: SPA-7, Specific Plan Area-7

8. Description of Project:

The Project consists of 12 attached condominium units to be developed in four separate three-story buildings. The four buildings will be separated by a common two-way driveway in the center of the property. Each of the 12 units will have three bedrooms and two bathrooms and will range from 1,517 to 1,807 square feet. Each unit will have three floors, a roof deck and an enclosed two-car garage. The project includes eight shared guest parking spaces.

Proposed Uses
The project’s proposed use is high density residential, in the form of 12 attached condominium units.

Project Schedule
Estimated start date: January 1st, 2022
Estimated completion and occupancy: 14 months from start of construction Construction Phases:

1. Excavation – 4 weeks

2. Foundation\Retaining walls - 8 weeks
1173
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 1
Regional Location
N
Source: Google Maps

PROJECT

LOCATION
1174
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 2
Project Vicinity
N
Source: Google Maps
1st Street
Anita Street

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
PACIFIC COAST HWY.

Frontier
Switching
Facility
1175
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 3
Current Land Uses
N
Source: City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa, 2017

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
Single Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential
Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks
General Office
Commercial and Services
Facilities
Education
Industrial
Transportation, Communications, Utilities
Mixed Commercial and Industrial
Mixed Residential and Commercial
Open Space and Recreation
Vacant
1176
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 4
General Plan Designation
Source: City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa, 2017

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
1177
911 FIRST STREET RESIDENCES | CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Exhibit 5
Zoning
N
Source:City of Hermosa Beach

PROPOSED
911 FIRST
STREET

RESIDENCES
1178
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -4- City of Hermosa Beach, California

3. Framing - 12 weeks

4. Rough Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing - 8 weeks

5. Lath, Stucco and Drywall - 8 weeks

6. Interior Finishes - 12 weeks

7. Exterior Hardscape\Landscape - 8 weeks

9. Project Site Characteristics
The project site is located in a mixed commercial and residential area in the city of Hermosa Beach, California. Topography is sloped to the west with a commercial development (Frontier Communications) on the west adjacent to the site and residential housing on the north, east and south adjacent properties. The site consists of three parcels encompassing approximately 0.46 acres. Concrete block walls and rolling steel gates bound the site and a concrete wall bisects the site in a north/south direction. There are no structures on-site and the site is covered with an asphalt surface. The site has recently been used as an automobile storage lot for a nearby Mitsubishi Motors dealership. The site was previously occupied by single family residences from approximately 1927 until 1966 when the residential structures were demolished, and a parking lot developed.

10. Requested Approvals
Discretionary Approvals
Implementation of the project requires the following discretionary actions by the City of Hermosa Beach:
 General Plan land use designation change from Community Commercial (CC) to High Density (HD) Residential.
 Zone designation change from Specific Plan Area-7 (SPA-7) to Residential-Professional (R-P).
 Subdivision Tract Map approval to combine three existing lots.  Approval of a Precise Development Plan (PDP) to allow construction of the new buildings and modifications to the site.
 Approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow condominium use on the property.

Administrative Approvals
 Building Permit

11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

Surrounding land uses are commercial and residential (see Exhibits 2 through 4). 1179
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -5- City of Hermosa Beach, California

12. Approvals Required From Other Public Agencies:

Los Angeles County Fire Department

13. Have Native American tribes requested consultation? No

14. Documents & References:
 California Department of Conservation, 1999. State Hazards Map, Redondo Beach Quadrangle.
 City of Hermosa Beach, 2014. PLAN Hermosa, Existing Conditions Report.  City of Hermosa Beach, Municipal Code
 City of Hermosa Beach, 2017a, PLAN Hermosa (General Plan)  City of Hermosa Beach, 2017b, PLAN Hermosa Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2015081009)
 City of Torrance, 2019. Solana Residential Development Project. SCH No. 2017071061.  Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
 Institute of Transportation (ITE), 2017. Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition.  Leymaster Environmental Consulting, LLC, 2016. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report. Prepared for Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc.
 Office of Planning and Research (OPR), 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.  South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), December 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans.  TIN Engineering Company, 2018. Soil Engineering Investigation and Report for Proposed Nine-Unit, Two-Story Single Family House Development with Semi-Subterranean Parking Garage at 911-1st Street, Hermosa Beach, California. Prepared for Luigi Schiappa Development, Inc.

15. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages:

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & Soils Hazards & Hazardous
Mats. Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning
Mineral Resources Noise & Vibration Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation
Utilities & Service Systems Energy
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

16. DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation:
1180
1181
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -7- City of Hermosa Beach, California 3) Once the City has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Include a source list and list of individuals contacted or consulted. 8) This form is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and all Initial Studies performed on projects within the city must use this format. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify, a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State-designated scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1182
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -8- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Scenic vistas in Hermosa Beach consist of expansive public views of the Pacific Ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or inland views of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The most prominent scenic vistas in the city are from the beach and The Strand (the boardwalk) and other areas immediately adjacent to the coast. A few scenic vistas exist in the upper elevations of the city. The City’s General Plan identifies a Prominent Public Viewpoint at the southern gateway to the City at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Herondo Street (Hermosa Beach, 2017a, Figure 5.3). The project site is not visible from the gateway view at the intersection and only a very small portion of the site is briefly visible to travelers on Pacific Coast Highway. The visible portion of the site does not constitute a significant part of the viewshed from Pacific Coast Highway. There are no other designated Prominent Public Viewpoints near the project site. Like most east-west trending streets in Hermosa Beach, First Street provides a narrow public view of the ocean and horizon viewed along the length of First Street towards the west. The proposed development will not obstruct this view. A partial view of the ocean is also visible from the public right-of-way at First Street viewed diagonally across the site from immediately adjacent to the site to the northwest and to the north of the Frontier Building which otherwise obstructs views to the ocean. But this view is small and further obscured by more distant buildings. It is not a Prominent Public Viewpoint, nor is it an expansive view that contributes significantly to the public viewshed. Views across the site from the public right-of-way would be mostly blocked by the proposed buildings, with a narrow landscaped open space strip along the project site’s western property line. There are no other public views of the ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or the San Gabriel Mountains from the project site. The proposed development will not obstruct significant views of the Pacific Ocean, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Monica Mountains or inland views of the San Gabriel Mountains from any significant public viewing area. The proposed project would have no effect on public views or scenic vistas.
(b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. There are no scenic resources on the site. The proposed development would not affect any adjacent or nearby scenic resources. The site is not within or near a state scenic highway. The project would have no impact on scenic resources.
(c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The visual character of the site reflects the current use, a vacant, paved parking lot. Three large ornamental pine trees, ice plant, low-level masonry block walls and asphalt are the features on-site. The proposed development will fundamentally alter the visual 1183
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -9- City of Hermosa Beach, California character from its current state to that of a multi-family residential use, but the change in land use does not constitute a degradation in visual character. The site’s surroundings have the visual character of a residential neighborhood ranging from medium to high density residential, with the Frontier building immediately to the west. The proposed condominium development is similar in visual character to its surroundings. The project will not significantly degrade the visual character or quality of the site, or its surroundings.
(d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. Under current conditions, sources of light or glare on the site are limited to security lighting. Sources of light and glare near the site are typical of urban environments in Southern California. Artificial night lighting in the vicinity is produced from streetlights and ambient lighting from commercial buildings on Pacific Coast Highway and elsewhere in the vicinity. The proposed project will introduce new exterior light sources located on the building and in exterior common areas. Lighting for residential uses in Hermosa Beach is regulated through a standard condition of approval that will be enforced through the City’s process of review and approval for the project’s Precise Development Plan (PDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The City’s standard condition requires that:

All exterior lighting shall be downcast, fully shielded and illumination shall be contained within the property boundaries. Lighting shall be energy conserving and motion detector lighting shall be used for all lighting except low-level (3 feet or less in height) security lighting and porch lights. Lamp bulbs and images shall not be visible from within any onsite or offsite residential unit. Exterior lighting shall not be deemed finally approved until 30 days after installation, during which period the building official may order the dimming or modification of any illumination found to be excessively brilliant or impacting to nearby properties.

Implementation of this standard condition through the project’s Precise Development Plan (PDP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval process will effectively ensure that adverse light and glare impacts are avoided.

Aesthetics Summary: The proposed project will have no significant impact on aesthetics and visual resources.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the CA. Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?
1184
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -10- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No impact. No portion of the site is Prime Agricultural Land (as defined by Government Code Section 51201(c) and 56064) or Agricultural Land (as defined by Government Code Section 56016).

(b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact. The site is not zoned for agricultural use. No Williamson Act contracts pertain to the site.

(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands on or near the site. (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There are no forest lands or timberlands on or near the site. (e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed project will not generate changes that might directly or indirectly result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

Agricultural Resources Summary: The project will have no impact on agricultural resources, forests or timberland.
1185
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -11- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.3 AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard)? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Land use and development projects commonly have two major sources of air quality impacts: (1) pollutant emissions generated during construction of the new project, and (2) long-term operational emissions generated after construction. (See Section 18.8 for a separate assessment of the potential for impacts resulting from emission of greenhouse gases.) The activities proposed for this project are of a very small scale relative to the air basin and the level of emissions considered significant by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Construction activities are limited to the 0.46-acre lot and will not require the prolonged use of heavy, emission-generating equipment except for the excavation phase, which is expected to last approximately four weeks. The number of new vehicular trips generated by proposed uses after development, which is the principal source of post-development operational emissions, will be relatively small (approximately 88 estimated daily trips).

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for construction (and demolition) emissions for six categories of pollutants. These thresholds are based on their potential adverse short-term health effects. The scale of the proposed development is not nearly great enough to exceed these thresholds.
75 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC)
100 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
150 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 10 mm (PM10) 55 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 25 mm (PM25) 150 pounds per day of Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
3 pounds per day of Lead
The same is true of the project’s relationship to Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs). These are thresholds established by the SCAQMD to examine the potential for on-site emissions generated during construction to adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors, such as residential neighbors or schools. LSTs reflect only those construction-related emissions that would occur on-site (not vehicular emissions generated by construction workers travelling to and from the site). The emissions they assess are therefore even smaller in magnitude than overall construction emissions (which do include construction worker trip emissions) and are even less likely to exceed established thresholds. Emissions generated on-site are likely to be highest during the excavation phase when heavy diesel equipment is in use. The use of an excavator and loader during the excavation phase 1186
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -12- City of Hermosa Beach, California will not generate emissions in excess of LST screening thresholds and will not adversely impact neighboring residences.

LONG TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
The principal sources of operational emissions of new development projects are vehicular trips generated by the project, combustion of natural gas for water and space heating, the use of landscaping equipment, and architectural coatings during maintenance. None of these sources is expected to generate significant levels of emissions as a result of the project. While the proposed uses will generate new vehicular trips (see Section 18.16 for discussion) the estimated 88 daily trips are not great enough to generate new emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The proposed uses will also consume energy, but the amount of energy consumed by the 12 units will not be great enough to result in emissions that exceed thresholds of significance. None of the major sources of long-term emissions will increase significantly over current conditions as a result of the project, nor will the combined sources exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for operational emissions presented below.1
55 pounds per day of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC)
55 pounds per day of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
550 pounds per day of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
150 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 10 mm (PM10) 55 pounds per day of Particulates of less than 25 mm (PM25) 150 pounds per day of Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
3 pounds per day of Lead
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project’s long-term emissions are not great enough to exceed the thresholds of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) (see above discussion). Because the proposed construction will not substantially increase any sources of air pollutant emissions, the project will not result in significant local or regional air quality impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance.

The project’s development and long-term use will not obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Nor do the proposed improvements in any way conflict with the AQMP’s underlying assumptions. The AQMP is based on emissions projections which assume land use composition and intensity expressed in local general plan Land Use Elements. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." The current land use designation under the General Plan is Community Commercial. This designation allows for ‘retail stores, restaurants, professional and medical offices, and personal services’ (PLAN Hermosa, Table 2.1, Land Use Designations). Community Commercial uses are intended to be ‘Locally-oriented’ and therefore relatively low generators of vehicle-miles-travelled (VMT). For this reason, it is therefore probable that development of the project site under the current land use designation would likely be a low VMT generator. (It is also probable that such a development would meet the criteria of established VMT screening thresholds and would not result

1 Model runs of emissions for various land use types (performed for the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department) indicate that a considerably larger project of up to 20 dwelling units (single or multifamily) would not generate emissions that exceed the AQMD operational thresholds. 1187
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -13- City of Hermosa Beach, California in significant VMT impacts. See discussion in Section 18.16, Transportation, below.) Even so, Community Commercial uses generally generate higher levels of vehicular trips than a medium-rise residential use. For example, a general office use of 15,000 square feet on the 20,137 square foot site would generate 165 average daily trips, compared to the proposed residential project’s 88 daily trips. Other Community Commercial uses with higher trip generation rates are allowed under the current General Plan. AQMP regional emissions assumptions, being based on the General Plan, are likely to be higher than the emissions that would be generated by the relatively low number of vehicular trips anticipated under the project and its proposed land use designation change from the current Community Commercial designation to a High Density (HD) residential use. While the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan, and therefore may be inconsistent with projected emissions of the AQMP, its emissions can be expected to be lower than assumed under the General Plan. Rather than adversely impact regional air emissions, the project is likely to reduce emissions compared to AQMP assumptions, thus resulting in a net reduction in air quality impacts. (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant cumulative impact would occur if a project would, in conjunction with other projects, result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment with respect to federal or state pollutant standards. Because the region is in non-attainment with respect to ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), PM10 and PM2.5, there could be a cumulatively significant impact if the project and related projects led to an exceedance of these standards or contributed to an existing exceedance. For determining the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impact, SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Because the proposed project would not generate construction or operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, the construction and operational emissions would not be cumulatively considerable and would result in a less than significant impact. Refer to discussion above. (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors typically include residences, hospitals and schools. Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the project vicinity. Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. However, as described in Section 18.16, Transportation, below, the project is not anticipated to cause any significant increase in traffic volumes or contribute to degradation of traffic conditions. The project will not generate vehicular emissions in sufficient quantities to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Although construction may result in low levels of criteria air pollutants, these temporary emissions will not result in significant pollutant concentrations (see discussion above) and would not affect sensitive receptors. Temporary construction emissions generated on the site will not be significant enough to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Toxic Air Contaminants2 (TACs) are often a source of pollutants associated with specific activities.

2 TACs refers to a diverse group of air pollutants regulated at the regional, state, and federal level because of their 1188
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -14- City of Hermosa Beach, California TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., benzene near a freeway). Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). As discussed above, the use of heavy diesel equipment for one or two days during site preparation will generate diesel-fueled emissions for a very brief time.

These short-term emissions are not great enough to constitute a substantial source of TACs. Nor will other construction-generated emissions that might be anticipated to occur on-site. (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No impact. The residential use proposed by the project does not include any activities that would generate objectionable odors.

Air Quality Summary: The project will not result in significant impacts to air quality at the regional or local levels.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy/ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

ability to cause adverse effects on human health. Ambient air quality standards have not been set for TACs because of the diverse number of air toxics and the fact that their effects on health tend to be localized rather than regional.
1189
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -15- City of Hermosa Beach, California Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site has already been developed and has been used as a private parking lot. There is no native habitat onsite that could support sensitive native plant or wildlife species. The project is in an urbanized area and there are no locally designated species, natural habitats or wetlands or associated environments at or near the site. (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. There is no riparian habitat and no other sensitive natural communities on or near the site.
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. No federally protected wetlands exist on or near the site. (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. No native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species exist at the project site. There are no migratory corridors on site or in the vicinity. There is no native habitat onsite that might be used by native wildlife as a nursery site. Migratory or native birds could potentially nest in the three non-native trees on-site. Policy 9.6 of the City’s General Plan calls for the protection of trees “that may provide temporary or permanent bird habitat”. This policy is enforced through the condition of approval presented below which will be applied to the project at PDP review to ensure avoidance of impacts to resident or migratory birds that might use the trees on-site.

Nesting Birds. If vegetation clearing or other project construction is to be initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), pre-construction/grading surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall be conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work. If a nesting bird or special-status species is located, consultation with the local California Department of Fish and Wildlife representative shall occur to determine what avoidance actions may be taken. If any active non-raptor bird nests are found, a suitable buffer area (varying from 250-300 feet), depending on the particular species found, shall be established from the nest, and that area shall be avoided until the nest becomes inactive (vacated). If any active raptor bird nests are found, a suitable buffer area of typically 250-500 feet from the nest shall be established, and that area shall be avoided until the nest becomes inactive (vacated). The limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area by a qualified biologist hired by the project proponent and endorsed by the City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department. Encroachment into buffers 1190
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -16- City of Hermosa Beach, California around active nests must be conducted at the discretion of a qualified biologist. The applicant shall record the results of the recommended protective measures described above to document compliance with applicable State and federal laws pertaining to the protection of nesting birds and provide documentation of compliance prior to issuance of building permits. (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no significant biological resources onsite or near the site that might be impacted by the project. The project will be required to comply with Section 12.36 of the Municipal Code which requires granting of a permit for the removal of trees with a trunk diameter greater than 12 inches.
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No impact. Neither the site nor its surroundings are governed by a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or any other habitat conservation plan.

Biological Resources Summary: The project will not have a significant impact on biological resources.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the project:
1191
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -17- City of Hermosa Beach, California (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No impact. There are no historical resources on the project site. Nor are there any identified historical resources in the immediate vicinity that might be adversely affected by the proposed development.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no recorded archaeological sites on the site or within the project vicinity. The probability of encountering archaeological resources on the previously disturbed

0.46-acre site is extremely low. Implementation of adopted General Plan policy (Implementing Action LU-21, Land Use Element, PLAN Hermosa) which requires measures to reduce or eliminate the risk of disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources, will ensure that impacts to cultural and tribal resources are less than significant.

LU-21- All discretionary projects that include ground disturbance or excavation activities on previously undisturbed land shall be required to conduct archaeological investigations in accordance with CEQA regulations to determine if the project is sensitive for cultural resources.

Additionally, the Lead Agency for future discretionary projects, the city is required under AB 52 to notify tribal organizations of proposed projects and offer to consult with those tribal organizations that indicate interest. Following any tribal consultation or archaeological investigation, the City shall weigh and consider available evidence to determine whether there is a potential risk for disturbing or damaging any cultural or tribal resources and whether any precautionary measures can be required to reduce or eliminate that risk. Those precautions may include requiring construction workers to complete training on archaeological and tribal resources before any ground disturbance activity and/or required a qualified archaeologist or tribal representative to monitor some or all of the ground disturbance activities. The City shall require the preservation of discovered archaeologically significant resources (as determined based on city, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible or provide mitigation (avoidance, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.
(c) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

(1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less than significant impact. Assembly Bill No. 52 (AB 52), adopted by the California State Legislature in September 2014, identifies procedures for the evaluation of environmental impacts to 1192
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -18- City of Hermosa Beach, California tribal cultural resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AB 52 requires lead agencies to consult with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if the tribe requested, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed project in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation.

In compliance with Assembly Bill 52, the City of Hermosa Beach sent certified letters to eight designated representatives of tribes in Los Angeles County identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. The City did not receive any responses from any of the eight representatives.

In the course of previous consultation (April 12, 2018) with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, the City of Hermosa Beach Planning Manager and CEQA consultant met with the tribal chairperson, Andrew Salas, and tribal biologist, Matt Teutimezto to discuss potentially sensitive locations in Hermosa Beach. Information provided during that meeting and through subsequent correspondence included maps and information documenting the presence of a regionally important trade route utilized by members of the Kizh Nation in the prehistoric and historic past. Native American activities associated with this trade route are linked to the site of the prehistoric village of “Engnovangia” (“place of the salt lake”) which was located in what is now northwest Redondo Beach, not far from the municipal boundary with Hermosa Beach. The natural springs and salt beds at this site were an important resource that stimulated trade and transport of commodities along the “Old Salt Road” trade route. Although the alignment of the trade route is not known, it is generally thought to be along the Greenbelt (former railroad route). The significance of this trade route, and its high level of activity, suggest that some portions of the city, generally east of Manhattan Avenue and within proximity of the prehistoric village site, may still have the potential for yielding significant tribal resources, particularly at depths where non-sandy substrate is undisturbed. The 911 First Street site is approximately 0.15 mile from the prehistoric village site.

In evaluating the potential for the project to impact tribal resources, the City evaluated information from multiple sources in addition to consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, including a Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for PLAN Hermosa (PCR, 2014). No Sacred Lands have been recorded for the site with the Sacred Lands Inventory. There are no recorded archaeological sites at the project site or in the vicinity of the site. The project site has been previously disturbed by anthropogenic activities in modern times and the area that would be disturbed as a result of the project is limited to a footprint of approximately 20,000 square feet. The City has weighed all available evidence in the record and determined that although the potential risk for destroying or damaging any cultural or tribal resources is low, the project site’s proximity to the prehistoric village site warrants site disturbance monitoring during the project’s brief excavation phase, consistent with the City’s standard requirement for monitoring in sensitive areas (PLAN Hermosa, Implementation Action LAND USE 21), the potential for the project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined in Public Resource Code 21074 will be less than significant.
(e) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact. The entire site has already been disturbed and graded. The probability of encountering human remains is extremely low. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered during excavation activities, compliance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would result in notification of the County Coroner. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15054.5(a) and (e) would take effect. The implementation of these applicable laws and standard procedures would ensure that 1193
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -19- City of Hermosa Beach, California impacts resulting from the discovery of human remains would be reduced to a level below significant. (See City of Hermosa Beach, 2017a, Page 4.4-17.) Cultural Resources Summary: The project will not adversely affect cultural resources. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.6 ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Would the project:
(a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is development of a conventional residential land use with no extraordinary energy demands or uses that would result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. As an infill project in an area of mixed commercial and residential use, the 12 proposed residences will generate a relatively low number of vehicle trips (see Section 18.16, Transportation) with a corresponding low consumption of energy. The project will comply with State and local energy standards.
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The project will comply with the California Green Building Code. Compliance will ensue that the project’s long-term energy use does not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Energy Summary: The project will not have a significant impact related to energy. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to DM&G Pub. 42)?; or, (ii) strong seismic ground shaking?; or, (iii) seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction?; or, (iv) landslides? 1194
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -20- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Would the project:
(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse seismic effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or other known fault zone. Nor is the site within the potential hazard zones (liquefaction) identified on the State Hazards Map (TIN Engineering, August 2018; City of Hermosa Beach, 2017, Figure 4.5-2; California Department of Conservation, Redondo Beach Quadrangle, 1999). As is the case throughout Southern California, the site is subject to potential ground shaking from seismic activity. Structural seismic hazards are mitigated through compliance with the California Building Code.
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant impact. The project will not create the potential for soil erosion except during the excavation and site preparation phases of construction. Compliance with the City’s standard requirement to prepare and comply with an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan (SWPPP) will significantly reduce the potential for substantial erosion or topsoil loss to occur (City of Hermosa Beach, 2017b, Page 4.5-12).
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
No impact. The site is not geologically unstable or subject to instability as a result of landslide. Nor is the site subject to severe lateral spreading or subsidence, both of which are addressed in the Soil Engineering Investigation and Report for the project (TIN Engineering, 2018). Compliance with recommendations of the Soil Engineering Investigation Report will effectively avoid impacts related to hazards. See above discussion on liquefaction and related hazards. (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the 1994 UBC, creating substantial risks to life or property?
1195
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -21- City of Hermosa Beach, California No impact. The site is underlain by silty sands which are not expansive soils (TIN Engineering, 2018, Page 7).
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact. The project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. The site is underlain by Miocene older dune sands which have a low probability of yielding significant fossil remains (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 2010; City of Hermosa Beach 2017b, Section 4.4). Although Quaternary marine terrace deposits, a geologic formation with a history of yielding fossils in the region, also underlies the site at depth, the project will not disturb soils to a depth greater than approximately six feet and therefore will not encounter the deeper Quaternary deposits. There is a very low potential to encounter paleontological resources during construction activities.

Geology and Soils Summary: The project does not have the potential to result in significant impacts related to geology and soils.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are measured in million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (“MMT CO2EQ”) units. A metric ton is approximately 2,205 lbs. Some GHGs emitted into the atmosphere are naturally occurring, while others are caused solely by human activities. The principal GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities are:
 Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), agriculture, irrigation, and deforestation, as well as the manufacturing of cement.
 Methane (CH4) is emitted through the production and transportation of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as from livestock. Other agricultural activities influence methane emissions as well as the decay of waste in landfills.
 Nitrous oxide (N2O) is released most often during the burning of fuel at high temperatures. This greenhouse gas is caused mostly by motor vehicles, which also include non-road vehicles, such as those used for agriculture. 1196
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -22- City of Hermosa Beach, California  Fluorinated Gases are emitted primarily from industrial sources, which often include hydrofluorocarbons (HRC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Though they are often released in smaller quantities, they are referred to as High Global Warming Potential Gases because of their ability to cause global warming.

These gases have different potentials for trapping heat in the atmosphere, called global warming potential (“GWP”). For example, one pound of methane has 21 times more heat capturing potential than one pound of carbon dioxide. When dealing with an array of emissions, the gases are converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2EQ) for comparison purposes.

The greatest source of GHG emissions associated with development projects in California, by far, is vehicular emissions. The second greatest source is emissions from energy consumption (both natural gas and electrical). The project’s emissions would be considered significant if they exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) screening threshold of 3,500 MTCO2EQ per year for residential uses, as reflected in the SCAQMD’s interim significance thresholds (SCAQMD, 2008).

Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. As noted previously in Section 18.3, Air Quality, total air emissions from the project (construction and operational) are expected to be well below daily emission thresholds for criteria pollutants, owing to the relatively small scale of the project. While the project will generate emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases, the magnitude of emissions is also anticipated to be well under the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold for residential projects of 3,500 MTCO2EQ/year.3

(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project’s GHG emissions are expected to be less than the screening threshold identified by the SCAQMD. In this respect, it is consistent with state, regional and local strategies to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary: The project’s GHG impacts will be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

17.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

3 By comparison, a 248-unit apartment complex generates an estimated 3,065 MT CO2e per year, below the SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,500 MT CO2e per year. (City of Torrance, 2019, Pg. 5.6-33, Table 5.6- 3).
1197
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -23- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within 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 result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Responses to some of the questions below are derived from a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the project site (Leymaster Environmental Consulting, 2016). The Environmental Site Assessment found “No evidence of environmental conditions associated with the Property” and that “No further investigation is required” (Leymaster, 2016. Page 19).

Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No impact. The proposed residential use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials and by its nature would not introduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area. Nor would activities associated with construction of the project involve the routine transport, use or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No impact. Neither the project site nor the nature of the proposed uses present any foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. The operations associated with the proposed residences will not emit hazardous emissions, nor will they involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste.
1198
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -24- City of Hermosa Beach, California (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site (Leymaster, 2016). (e) For a project located within 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 result in safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. There are no public or private airports on or adjacent to the site. The nearest airport is Los Angeles International Airport, located approximately five miles north of the project site. (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact. The proposed project would not change alignment or access of streets serving the project site or surrounding area, and thus would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No impact. There are no wildlands in the vicinity of the project; therefore the project will not expose people or structures to injury or death involving wildland fires.

Hazards Summary: The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hazards or hazardous materials.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d. Substantially increase the rate of amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
1199
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -25- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, result in release of pollutants due to project inundation?
g. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Would the project:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
No impact. The project will comply with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements through its compliance with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements which in turn implement the Municipal NPDES Permit. The LID Ordinance (Ordinance No. 15-1351) requires the project to “control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing the impervious surface area” and by “controlling runoff through infiltration, bio retention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. Project plans must include a storm water mitigation plan (SWMP) to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) necessary to control storm water pollution from the completed project. All BMPs must meet performance standards set forth in the Municipal NPDES Permit. These requirements not only ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met, they also are effective in mitigating the project’s water quality impacts to a level that is less than a significant impact. The project’s LID Plan will be reviewed by the City to ensure that it complies with the LID Ordinance and other applicable requirements.
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No impact. The project will have no impact on groundwater, either by inhibiting groundwater recharge, introducing pollutants to the groundwater, or by withdrawing groundwater from an underlying aquifer. The project does not propose grading or any intrusion to groundwater depths. It will reduce rather than increase impermeable surface area onsite. The proposed residential land use will not introduce any pollutants that have the potential to substantially affect groundwater. (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? No impact. The project will alter the manner in which storm water is directed and managed on-site through integration of catch basins and increased permeable surface area, in compliance with the City’s LID requirements (see response to (a) above). This small-scale alteration is expected to have a beneficial though immeasurably small effect on the management of storm water volume and water 1200
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -26- City of Hermosa Beach, California quality discharged from the site because the site is entirely paved and impervious under current conditions. The project will not alter the course of a stream or river, or otherwise modify local or regional drainage patterns, in a way that results in substantial erosion or siltation. (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
No impact. The rate and amount of surface runoff during and after project development will be controlled by standard regulatory mechanisms. See above response to (a). (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No impact. The project can be expected to result in a slight reduction in the amount of runoff from the site that would enter the storm drain system, due to the beneficial effects of design measures and BMPs in compliance with the City’s LID requirements. (See response to (a) above). (d) In a flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zone, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No impact. The site is not within an area with the potential for adverse flooding impacts (see Leymaster, 2016, Page 11), is not in the Tsunami Hazard Zone and is not subject to seiche hazard. (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No impact. See above response to (a).

Hydrology and Water Quality Summary: The project will have no significant adverse effects relative to hydrology and water quality.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Would the project:
(a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The project is construction of an infill residential development and does not have the potential to divide a community.
1201
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -27- City of Hermosa Beach, California (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No impact. The project will be required to comply with all applicable land use plans, policies and regulations, including policies of the City’s General Plan and regulations of the zoning ordinance through the discretionary approval process (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Subdivision Map). If approved, the discretionary permits will be consistent with the existing land use patterns.

Land Use Summary: The project will have no significant impacts related to land use. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No impact. Most of Hermosa Beach, including the project site, is underlain by Holocene-age dune sands. Although “sand, gravel and crushed stone” are identified among construction aggregate resources important to the region, the sand deposits underlying Hermosa Beach are not identified as an aggregate deposit of prime importance to meet the region’s future need for construction quality aggregates. The urbanized conditions that exist throughout the City reflect a long-standing land use commitment that effectively precludes mineral extraction at a significant scale either on the project site or within city limits.
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. There are no mineral resource recovery sites within the city. As mapped by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMBG), most of Hermosa Beach lies within the San Fernando Valley Production-Consumption Region in Los Angeles County. A small portion of Hermosa Beach south of 2 nd Street lies in the San Gabriel Valley Production-Consumption Region. A review of the Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Los Angeles County- South Half (DOC 1994) shows that all of the planning area is designated as MRZ-3 land. The MRZ-3 classification indicates areas of undetermined mineral resource significance.

Mineral Resources Summary: The project will have no impact on mineral resources. 1202
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -28- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.12 NOISE. Would the project result 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?
The project will generate temporary construction noise. The noisiest event is likely to be site preparation when some heavy equipment is used. The project applicant anticipates use of a 315 excavator and a 953 track loader along with haul trucks to export earth material. These pieces of equipment are diesel fueled and therefore generate noise above ambient levels. They can also generate groundborne vibration, though the magnitude of vibration anticipated from these machines is less than earth moving equipment and other machinery that would be required for larger projects.

According to the applicant, construction activities that produce extremely high levels of noise or vibration, such as jackhammers and pile driving, will not be used. The site preparation phase is expected to last 4 weeks, during which approximately 1,000 to 1,750 cubic yards of earth material will be excavated and exported from the site. The export of soil will require from 70 to 130 truckloads over the four-week period. Haul trucks and construction worker vehicles will add to the ambient noise level in the project vicinity on First Street and on other local and regional roadways as vehicles come and go from the site. However, this temporary increase in roadway noise will not be great enough to significantly increase ambient roadway noise levels.

During the remaining 10 months of the construction period the subsequent construction activities will generate noise temporarily at various levels depending on the activity. The magnitude of noise generated by these actions is not great enough to violate local standards provided such activity complies with the workday and work hour restrictions of the City’s Municipal Code Noise Ordinance.

Noise standards applied to land use and development projects consider the duration of noise (averaging the noise level over time) along with the volume of the noise event. The short duration of noise events reduces the overall effect of noise on the environment. Although there are residences immediately adjacent to the site to the east and north and other residences in the immediate neighborhood on First Street, the noise impact of the construction phase will affect these sensitive land uses only temporarily for a relatively brief period. The City’s Noise Ordinance limits construction and demolition hours to 8 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction activities are not permitted on Sunday or on national holidays. Compliance with the ordinance would ensure the project’s conformance with adopted noise thresholds and avoidance of any significant adverse impacts related to noise during the construction phase.

The site is subject to noise from traffic on First Street, but traffic noise is not significant enough to adversely impact the proposed land use. This is true for current traffic levels as well as for future traffic conditions. The number of vehicular trips generated by the project is very small and not great enough to result in a measurable increase in roadway noise (see discussion of traffic in Section 1203
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -29- City of Hermosa Beach, California

18.16). An increase in traffic volumes of at least 26 percent is necessary to cause a 1 dB increase in noise. (An increase of 1 dB is well below the level of increase in noise detectable by the human ear; a 3 dB increase is usually applied as the threshold level at which noise might be considered to have an impact.) The project’s estimated increase in traffic volumes of 88 trips per day will not approach a 26 percent increase over current traffic volumes. The proposed residential use will have no longterm effect that would increase the exposure of persons using the site to adverse noise.

Would the project:
(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? Less than significant impact. Neither the construction nor the long-term activities associated with the project will generate significant noise. The site is not currently exposed to noise levels in excess of established standards and the project will not alter this condition. See above discussion. (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less than significant impact. The use of some diesel powered equipment (excavator, loader and haul trucks) during site preparation has the potential to generate groundborne vibration on-site. A peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.01 is considered to be a vibration level that is barely perceptible by humans and well below the level of vibration that would incur structural damage. A vibration level of

0.04 inches per second PPV is considered the threshold at which vibration has the potential to cause annoyance to occupants of nearby residences. A PPV of 0.2 inches per second is the threshold at which there is a potential to incur structural damage. A vibration velocity level that exceeds 0.04 inches per second PPV at the property line of any neighboring use is therefore an effective screening threshold for avoidance of both human and structural impacts. Impacts related to groundborne vibration are considered significant if the vibration velocity level exceeds 0.04 inches per second at the property line of any neighboring use. None of the construction activities or equipment that will be used on-site are expected to generate vibration levels that exceed the 0.04 threshold at neighboring property lines (FTA 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment) (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?
No impact. The site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Noise and Vibration Summary: The project will not result in significant noise or vibration impacts. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.13 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
1204
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -30- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the project:
(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. The project proposes construction of 12 new dwelling units, which would result in an increase in the local population of about 48 persons. This number of new residents does not represent a substantial level of population growth for Hermosa Beach whose current population is approximately 20,000 persons. The population of Hermosa Beach is expected to grow by 661 persons between 2015 and 2040. This level of growth is anticipated by the City’s General Plan (PLAN Hermosa EIR, page 4.12-7) and represents less than 0.006 percent of the population projected for the year 2040 within the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCOG) planning area (see PLAN Hermosa Final EIR, page 4.12-9). The project’s additional 48 person increase is not great enough to be considered ‘substantial population growth’. The project will not induce indirect population growth through the extension of roads or infrastructure. (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project proposes to create housing on an existing private parking lot. No persons or housing will be displaced.

Population and Housing Summary: The project will not have significant impacts on population and housing.

Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1205
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -31- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
The project’s 12 residences do not present a substantial increase in the demands for public services. The project will thus not result in substantial adverse physical impacts resulting from the alteration of public service facilities or construction of new public service facilities. 1) Fire protection? No impact. The project will not impact fire protection services. The proposed use does not significantly increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions.
2) Police protection? No impact. There will be no significant impacts related to police services associated with the proposed use. The project will not significantly increase the demand for police services, nor will it induce the need for new or expanded police facilities. 3) Schools? No impact. The proposed uses will not result in a significant increase in student population or otherwise affect school services.
4) Parks? No impact. The project will not result in a substantial increase in the demand or use of parks.
5) Other public facilities? No impact. The proposed uses will not result in a significant increase in the resident population or an increase in employees great enough to substantially increase the demand for public facilities.

Public Services Summary: The project will have no impact related to public services. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.15 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1206
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -32- City of Hermosa Beach, California (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No impact. The project will not substantially increase the local population or increase the demand for local parks or recreational facilities, either directly or indirectly. It will have no impact on recreational facilities or parks.
(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The project does not include recreational facilities, nor will it require construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Recreation Summary: The project will have no impact related to recreation. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/Mitigation IncludedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.16 TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? No impact. The project will not conflict with plans, policies or ordinances related to other modes of transportation (mass transit, pedestrian, bicycle). It will not alter or obstruct existing or planned bike paths. Nor will it alter or impede access to mass transit facilities. (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No impact. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the appropriate measure of transportation impacts and prescribes criteria for analyzing VMT impacts, including the use of qualitative analysis in some cases. Analysis of the proposed project’s VMT impact applies the screening thresholds developed by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR, 2018), 1207
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -33- City of Hermosa Beach, California specifically the screening threshold of small projects which supports a finding that “projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-thansignificant transportation impact” (OPR, 2018, Page 12).

The First Street Residences project is estimated to generate 88 average daily trips (based on trip generation rates of a low-rise, multi-family land use per the Institute of Transportation (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, 2017). Because the project’s 88 daily trips are well below the 110 trips per day screening threshold, the project can be assumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No impact. The project does not propose any features, modifications to circulation facilities or uses that would introduce hazards.
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. The project’s proposed modifications will not impact emergency access to the site.

Emergency access, fire lanes and ingress and egress points will be maintained in full compliance with the Building and Safety Code and Fire Code.

Summary: The project will have no adverse impacts on transportation. Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
1208
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -34- City of Hermosa Beach, California Would the project:
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No impact. The project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities except for connections to the site from existing local facilities which would not result in significant environmental effects.
(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? No impact. Water availability for proposed uses will be verified through the City’s requirement for a Will Serve letter from the water purveyor. Water use will not result in environmental impacts. The project’s water demand is not large enough to exceed existing entitlements or the capacities of existing facilities.
(c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No impact. The proposed use will not require construction or expansion of treatment facilities. The current capacity of wastewater treatment facilities is sufficient to accommodate the wastewater generated by the project. Available treatment capacity will be verified through the City’s requirement for a Will Serve letter for the proposed uses.
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No impact. The project will generate solid waste during construction. Proposed new uses will generate increased amounts of solid waste, however the increase is not great enough to impact regional landfill capacity. Sufficient landfill capacity is available and is expected to be available through the lifetime of the proposed uses (20 years) (City of Hermosa Beach, June 2014). (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact. Policy 4.5 of the City’s Sustainability and Conservation Element requires that projects “use sustainable building checklists to minimize or eliminate waste and maximize recycling in building design, demolition, and construction activities.” Compliance with this policy will be enforced through the building permit approval process.

Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The project will have no impact on utilities and service systems.
1209
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -35- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact

18.18 WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
(a) through (d)
No impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.

Wildfire Summary: The project will have no impacts related to wildfire. Potentially Significant ImpactLess Than significant w/ Mitigation IncorporatedLess than Significant Impact No Impact

18.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means the project’s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)?
1210
65270.00001\34395204.1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist -36- City of Hermosa Beach, California Potentially Significant Impact Less Than significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact d. Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?
No Impact. The project has no potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to decrease below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of longterm, environmental goals? No Impact. The project does not jeopardize long-term environmental goals in favor of short-term environmental goals. If the General Plan Change request is approved, the proposal to develop residences at this site would be consistent with the long-term goals established by the City as reflected in the General Plan.
c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means the project’s incremental effects are considerable when compared to the past, present, and future effects of other projects)? No impact. The project would not result in incremental effects of this type. Potential impacts are limited to those that are less than significant and which do not have un-mitigable incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed and with implementation of all standard conditions of approval and compliance with current City ordinances and policies will have no significant impacts to humans, directly or indirectly.

18. PREPARATION. This initial study was prepared by the City of Hermosa Beach with assistance from Ed Almanza & Associates, an environmental consultant under contract to the City.

Principal City staff participants include Melanie Emas Hall, Assistant Planner; Ken Robertson, Community Development Director; Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney.

The project’s vehicle trip generation projections were provided by the City’s traffic consultant, Seth Contreras of Fehr & Peers.
1211