Hermosa Beach City Council
April 25, 2023

CEQA Transportation Evaluation
Impact Criteria
Pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, impacts to transportation would be considered significant if the proposed Project were found to:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy (PPOP) addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) includes the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects, as follows: Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

4. Result in inadequate emergency access.

Impact Analysis
The following details the qualitative evaluation of the proposed Project under these impact criteria.

Criterion 1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy The proposed Project is not expected to conflict with any local or regional programs, plans, ordinances or policies when adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach.

Criterion 2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) The ultimate level of vehicle miles travelled generated by the proposed Project will depend on the types of restaurant uses that apply for and are granted approval for outdoor dining, as well as whether or not they are locally or regionally serving uses, which would affect mode choice (how many drive, take transit, bike or walk to a use), as well as the average vehicle trip length.

Guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA1 provides recommended screening thresholds to determine whether VMT analysis would be required, based on project characteristics, including:
• Locally serving retail
• Small project
• Transit Priority Area (TPA)
1 https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed 1.6.2023. 410
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023

• Low VMT Area
The proposed Project is expected to qualify for the locally serving retail screening criteria as discussed below. It is not expected to qualify for small project or TPA screening, and low VMT area screening applies only to office and residential uses.

As recommended by OPR, 50,000 square feet of retail uses can be considered locally serving.

Locally serving retail may include specialty retail, shopping center, grocery store, pharmacy, financial services/banks, fitness center or health club, restaurant, and café. According to OPR’s Guidance, the proposed Project is considered locally serving and presumed to have a less than significant impact related to VMT, and no further quantitative VMT analysis is required.

Criterion 3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature The proposed Project will not alter street design, it will simply allow for the continuation of the temporary outdoor dining program on a permanent basis. Consistent with the temporary outdoor dining program, this will occur primarily within on-street parking stalls, which will be protected by jersey barriers, or other traffic safety devices subject to the approval of the City’s Traffic Engineer to ensure safe separation between outdoor diners and vehicles on City roadways. Outdoor dining areas will not impede on sight distance for motorists and pedestrians, as protective jersey barriers are lower than the height of drivers and pedestrian lines of sight. Therefore, the proposed Project’s impact under this criterion will be less than significant.

Criterion 4: Result in inadequate emergency access.

The proposed project will not alter street design or parcel access that could affect emergency access. It will solely modify existing on-street parking stalls to allow for outdoor dining, which will have no effect on access. Additionally, the proposed Project will add negligible traffic volumes to roadways in the City as further detailed below. Therefore, the proposed Project’s impact under this criterion will be less than significant.

Proposed Project Trip Generation
While a quantitative VMT impact analysis is not needed because the proposed Project can be screened as locally serving, to support CEQA impact analyses associated with air quality and noise impact areas, Fehr & Peers prepared trip generation estimates for the proposed Project. The ultimate trip generation will vary based on the types of restaurant uses that apply for and are approved for permanent outdoor dining under this program. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, was used to estimate daily and AM and PM peak hour trips reflecting the different restaurant uses that are present in Downtown Hermosa Beach. They include:
• Fast Casual Restaurant (example: Chipotle on Pacific Coast Highway) 411
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023

• Fine Dining Restaurant (example: Zane’s on Pier Avenue) • High Turnover- Sit Down Restaurant (example: Fritto Misto on Pier Avenue • Drinking Place (example: Hennessey’s Tavern on Pier Plaza) Table 1 presents the daily and AM and PM peak hour estimates for the proposed Project.

Scenario 1 presents the worst-case trip generation estimates for the proposed Project, assuming that 100% of the 9,500 square feet of outdoor dining are associated with the High-Turnover Sit Down Restaurant trip rate, which has the highest daily trip rate compared with the other restaurant categories. Daily trip generation estimates for this scenario are 1,072 trips, with 96 trips in the AM peak hour, and 91 trips in the PM peak hour. In addition to using the highest trip rate, this analysis likely also overestimates the number of trips because it does not account for potential walk/bike access to Downtown Hermosa Beach, or for visitors to the coastal zone also choosing to patronize a local restaurant, which would both result in reduced trip generation compared with standard ITE rates. Additionally, because outdoor dining uses will be incidental to existing indoor restaurants, they are unlikely to generate vehicle trips at the level of trip generation accounted for in ITE rates. However, the numbers are presented here for a potential worst-case trip generation estimate.

Scenario 2 presents a more realistic scenario with the variety of restaurant use types in Hermosa Beach. For this scenario, the spit is assumed to be equal across the four categories. As with Scenario 1, it is still expected to be an overestimation of potential vehicle trips, as it does not account for walk/bike access and internalization of trips from visitors to the coastal zone. Daily trip generation for this scenario is 749 trips, with 30 AM peak hour and 102 PM peak hour trips.

Table 1: Proposed Project Daily AM and PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates [a] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation 11th Edition, analysis by Fehr & Peers, 2023, StreetLight Data, 2022.

Proposed Project Trip Assignment
In order to estimate the worst-case trip generation estimates on roadways used to access Downtown Hermosa Beach, Fehr & Peers used StreetLight Data, a cell phone based origin destination data set to evaluate the share of total travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach on various roadways. Due to changes in transportation conditions over the COVID-19 pandemic, data 412
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023

for Summer 2019, 2020 and 2021 were analyzed to determine if there were varying travel patterns across those years. Table 2 presents the percentage share of total travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach at nine study locations on 27th Street, 8th Street, Hermosa Avenue, Manhattan Avenue, Monterey Boulevard, and Pier Avenue. While the table presents the minor variations in the StreetLight Data share of travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach over the three years analyzed, Summer 2021 is considered the most typical, as most businesses had reopened from the temporary closures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, Summer 2021 distribution was used to estimate trips on the study locations.

Table 3 details the worst-case daily proposed Project-only trips expected at each of these study locations. They were estimated by applying the 2021 StreetLight Data trip distribution percentage to daily trip generation for Scenarios 1 and 2. Pier and Hermosa Avenues are expected to carry the vast majority of trips to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach associated with outdoor dining. The other corridors will experience negligible increases in trips per day. To be conservative 100% of the outdoor dining is assumed to occur in Downtown Hermosa Beach in order to estimate the worst-case traffic volume increases that could occur on roadway segments in the City.

Table 2: StreetLight Data Daily Distribution of Travel to/from Downtown Hermosa Beach
Study Corridor Location
Summer 2019
Daily % of Total
Travel
Summer 2020
Daily % of Total
Travel
Summer 2021
Daily % of Total
Travel

1. 27th Street (west of Morningside) 7.0% 5.9% 6.2%

2. 8th Street (west of Valley 7.4% 7.2% 6.0%

3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th) 17.2% 16.9% 17.1%

4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th) 21.7% 22.7% 22.6%

5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 2.9% 1.6% 2.0%

6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier) 2.5% 2.0% 2.1%

7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier) 2.2% 2.0% 1.6%

8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 3.0% 2.3% 2.5%

9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 36.1% 39.4% 39.9%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023, StreetLight Data, 2022.
413
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023

Table 3: Proposed Project Daily Trips on Corridors Serving Downtown Hermosa Beach
Study Corridor Location Scenario 1 Daily
Project Only Trips
Scenario 2 Daily
Project Only Trips

1. 27th Street (west of Morningside) 64 44

2. 8th Street (west of Valley 61 42

3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th) 174 122

4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th) 230 161

5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 21 15

6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier) 22 15

7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier) 16 11

8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 25 18

9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 405 283
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023
Baseline + Project ADT Volumes
In order to estimate pre-project (2019) pre-pandemic baseline conditions, StreetLight Data were used to estimate average daily traffic (ADT) for 2019, as no in-field collected traffic counts were available for pre-pandemic conditions.

StreetLight Data applies proprietary machine-learning algorithms to measure travel patterns and makes them available on-demand via StreetLight InSight®, the world’s first SaaS platform for mobility. StreetLight provides powerful analyses for a wide variety of transportation studies including volume, counts, Origin-Destination (O-D) and more. StreetLight algorithmically transforms trillions of location data points into contextualized, aggregated, and normalized travel pattern data to deliver unique insights into how vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, and bus and rail passengers move on virtually every road and Census Block. StreetLight Data collects all its transportation data as Location Based Services (LBS) data which are services based on the location of a mobile device. They obtain “low fidelity” cell phone data scrubbed of all Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and pair it with data with “high fidelity” data from GPS devices.

StreetLight Data were used to estimate ADT for summer (July & August) weekend days in 2019.

ADT on the study segments are presented in Table 4, which also includes proposed Project trips, and the expected percent change in daily traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project. As shown in the table, under Scenario 1, the maximum change in daily segment traffic volumes change is expected to be approximately 2.3%. Under Scenario 2, the maximum change is approximately 1.6%.
414
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023

Cumulative Conditions
In order to assess the potential for increased traffic volumes under cumulative conditions, Fehr & Peers reviewed the traffic analysis conducted for the PLAN Hermosa environmental impact report.

Based on analysis from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) forecasting model, as well as the modelling conducting for PLAN Hermosa, regional traffic volumes are not expected to increase, as land use patterns change to focus more on urban infill housing, as the regional transportation network is developed, and as transportation demand management (TDM) measures become more commonplace. As noted in the PLAN Hermosa Drafty EIR, “PLAN Hermosa would guide future development and reuse projects in the city in a manner that would not increase overall demand for travel within Hermosa Beach… Regional population and employment growth will not result in increased vehicular travel demand.”2 Therefore, the Baseline plus Project traffic volumes contained in this memorandum represent the expected worst-case scenario.

While the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR noted that vehicular travel demand is expected to reduce Citywide, due to some localized travel pattern changes, the PLAN Hermosa EIR projected an increase in peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Manhattan Avenue & 27th Street.

However, PLAN Hermosa would reduce traffic volumes at that location compared to the Future without PLAN Hermosa scenario. Appendix G to the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR includes peak hour traffic volume changes at study intersections. The primary change to traffic volumes forecast in the PLAN Hermosa Draft EIR were on the eastbound left movement, so most of the increased volumes would not travel on 27th Street, and instead would continue northbound on Manhattan Avenue. Therefore, even under Cumulative conditions, traffic volumes on 27th Street west of Morningside Drive are not expected to substantially increase.

While not needed for CEQA transportation impact analysis, the volumes provided in this memorandum serve as input data for the air quality and noise impact analysis of the proposed Project.
2 PLAN Hermosa Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Hermosa Beach, 2016. Page 4.14-45. Accessed 2/20/23 from https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8538/637001018228830000 415
Douglas Krauss & Ed Almanza
February 21, 2023

Table 4: Baseline plus Proposed Project Daily Trips on Corridors Serving Downtown Hermosa Beach Study Corridor Location
Baseline
(2019)
ADT
Scenario 1
Project Only
ADT
Scenario 2
Project Only
ADT
Baseline +
Scenario 1
ADT
Baseline +
Scenario 2
ADT
Scenario 1
Delta (%)
Scenario 2
Delta (%)

1. 27th Street (west of Morningside) 8,081 64 44 8,145 8,125 0.8% 0.5%

2. 8th Street (west of Valley) 6,256 61 42 6,317 6,298 1.0% 0.7%

3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th) 14,466 174 122 14,640 14,588 1.2% 0.8%

4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th) 15,003 230 161 15,233 15,164 1.5% 1.1%

5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier) 2,334 21 15 2,355 2,349 0.9% 0.6%

6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier) 2,121 22 15 2,143 2,136 1.0% 0.7%

7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier) 3,839 16 11 3,855 3,850 0.4% 0.3%

8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier) 4,014 25 18 4,039 4,032 0.6% 0.4%

9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley) 17,563 405 283 17,968 17,846 2.3% 1.6% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023
416
AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256 Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: 0AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
April 3, 2023
To: Ed Almanza & Associates
From: MD Acoustics, LLLC
Subject: Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project –Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation, City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) has completed a focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation for the proposed Hermosa Beach Downtown Post-Pilot Installation Vehicular Changes Project located in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. The purpose of this focused study is to evaluate the air quality and greenhouse gas operational emissions as well as energy consumption of the proposed project, and to compare projected emissions and energy consumption to the relevant thresholds of significance. A list of definitions and terminology is located in Appendix A.

1.0 Project Description
The project proposes that certain commercial establishments may provide outdoor dining in public rightof-way areas (including on-street parking areas and sidewalks) in the downtown area of Hermosa Beach.

The project would reconfigure travel lanes to accommodate areas where outdoor dining would be allowed and to provide lanes for bicycles and other zero-emission modes of transportation.

2.0 AQ/GHG Thresholds of Significance

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

2.2 GHG Significance Thresholds
The project emissions were compared to the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e draft threshold for all land uses3.

3.0 Evaluation Procedure/Methodology
MD utilized the latest version of CalEEMod (2022.1) to calculate the operational emissions from the project site4. The project was modeled to be operational in 2023. Regional emissions were based on an increase of 1,018 trips per day, based on the maximum scenario generated by the traffic analysis from Fehr & Peers, with a ten-mile trip length for a conservative estimate, and localized emissions were based on a two-mile trip length to approximately cover the project area twice. As stated by Fehr & Peers, the project is not anticipated to increase traffic regionally, and the estimates used in this analysis are a worstcase scenario. CalEEmod defaults were utilized. Assumptions and output calculations are provided in Appendix C.

1 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf 2 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds 3 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2 4 https://www.caleemod.com/
417
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final

4.0 Local Ambient Conditions
The project site is located in South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) in the Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source Receptor Area (SRA) 3
5 . The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is the Los AngelesWestchester Parkway Monitoring Station. Historical air quality data for the vicinity can be found both at CARB and SCAQMD’s websites
6,7
. Temperature and historical precipitation data can be found at the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC)
8 .

5.0 Findings
The following outlines the emissions for the project:

5.1 Regional Operational Emissions
The operating emissions were based on year 2023, which is the anticipated opening year for the project.

The number of trips was based on the transportation assessment from Fehr & Peers9 and a trip length of 10 miles.

The summer and winter emissions created by the proposed project’s long-term operations were calculated and the highest emissions from either summer or winter are summarized in Table 1. The data in Table 1 shows that the operational emissions for the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds.

Table 1: Regional Significance – Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Activity
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources2 4.00 3.47 38.60 0.08 2.89 0.56
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
2 Mobile sources consist of emissions from vehicles and road dust.

5.2 Localized Operational Emissions
Table 2 indicates that the local operational emission would not exceed the LST thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors, located adjacent to the project. This was based on trip lengths of two miles and localized significance thresholds for a 25-meter distance to the nearest sensitive receptor and a one-acre project size, which is a highly conservative comparison as the project is spread over more than 100 acres across Hermosa Beach. Therefore, the project will not result in significant Localized Operational emissions.

5 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf?sfvrsn=6 6 https://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/air-quality-data-studies/historical-data-by-year 7 https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/
8 https://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmsca.html
9 Fehr & Peers. CEQA Transportation Assessment for City of Hermosa Beach Outdoor Dining Program. February 21, 2023. 418
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Table 2: Localized Significance –Operational Emissions (lbs/day) Phase
On-Site Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources2 0.69 7.72 0.58 0.11
SCAQMD Threshold2 91 664 1 1
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Source: Calculated from CalEEMod and SCAQMD’s Mass Rate Look-up Tables for one-acre, to be conservative, in Southwest Coastal Los Angeles Source Receptor Area (SRA 3).
2 The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses located along the multiple routes being studied; therefore, the 25-meter threshold was utilized.

5.3 GHG Emissions
Table 3 outlines the construction and operational GHG emissions for the project. The project’s emissions are below (1,386 MTCO2e) the SCAQMD’s draft screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e for all land uses and; therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Table 3: Opening Year Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Category
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)1
Bio-CO2 NonBio-CO2 CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources4 0.00 1,365.00 1,365.00 0.07 0.06 1,386.00 SCAQMD Draft Screening Threshold 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? No
Notes:
1 Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
4 Mobile sources consist of GHG emissions from vehicles.

5.4 CO Hotspot Analysis
CO is the pollutant of major concern along roadways because the most notable source of CO is motor vehicles. For this reason, CO concentrations are usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a roadway network and are used as an indicator of potential local air quality impacts. Local air quality impacts can be assessed by comparing future without and with project CO levels to the State and Federal CO standards which can be found from the CARB website.
10 To determine if the proposed project could cause emission levels in excess of the CO standards, a sensitivity analysis is typically conducted to determine the potential for CO “hot spots” at a number of intersections in the general project vicinity. Because of reduced speeds and vehicle queuing, “hot spots” potentially can occur at high traffic volume intersections with a Level of Service E or worse.

Micro-scale air quality emissions have traditionally been analyzed in environmental documents where the air basin was a non-attainment area for CO. However, the SCAQMD has demonstrated in the CO attainment redesignation request to EPA that there are no “hot spots” anywhere in the air basin, even at intersections with much higher volumes, much worse congestion, and much higher background CO levels

10 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health 419
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
than anywhere in Riverside County. If the worst-case intersections in the air basin have no “hot spot” potential, any local impacts will be below thresholds.

The traffic impact analysis showed that the project would generate a maximum total of 1,018 trips per day, and the maximum daily trips in a single corridor would be 17,968 along Pier Avenue (west of Valley).

The 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan) showed that an intersection which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day would not violate the CO standard. The volume of traffic at project buildout would be well below 100,000 vehicles and below the necessary volume to even get close to causing a violation of the CO standard. Therefore, no CO “hot spot” modeling was performed and no significant long-term air quality impact is anticipated to local air quality with the on-going use of the proposed project.

5.5 Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts
Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area.

However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well out of the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project’s air quality must be generic by nature.

The project area is out of attainment for both ozone and PM10 particulate matter. Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell will be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. Therefore, as the project does not exceed any of the thresholds of significance, the project is considered less than significant. Additionally, per the project traffic analysis from Fehr & Peers (and the PLAN Hermosa EIR), cumulative traffic volumes are expected to decrease regionally, in addition to a long-term decease in local traffic volumes as a result of implementation of the City’s General Plan.

5.6 Consistency with Applicable Plans
Consistency with AB32 Scoping Plan
The ARB Board approved a Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2008. The Scoping Plan outlines the State’s strategy to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions limit. The Scoping Plan “proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve our environment, reduce our dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health” (California Air Resources Board 2008). The measures in the Scoping Plan have been in place since 2012.
420
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
This Scoping Plan calls for an “ambitious but achievable” reduction in California’s greenhouse gas emissions, cutting approximately 30 percent from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 10 percent from today’s levels. In May 2014, the CARB released its First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014). This Update identifies the next steps for California’s leadership on climate change. In November 2017, the CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan. This Scoping Plan incorporates, coordinates, and leverages many existing and ongoing efforts and identifies new policies and actions to accomplish the State’s climate goals, and includes a description of a suite of specific actions to meet the State’s 2030 GHG limit. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets.

As the project was found to not increase traffic regionally by Fehr & Peers in the project traffic assessment, the project is consistent with the Scoping Plan.

Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
At the regional level, the 2020-2045 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy represent the region’s Climate Action Plan that defines strategies for reducing GHGs. In order to assess the project’s potential to conflict with the RTP/SCS, this section analyzes the project’s land use profile for consistency with those in the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Generally, projects are considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable City and regional land use plans and regulations, such as SCAG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, if they are compatible with the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of their primary goals.

Table 4 demonstrates the project’s consistency with the Actions and Strategies set forth in the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 4, the project would be consistent with the GHG reduction related actions and strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.0 Table 4: Project Consistency with SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS1 Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Land Use Strategies
Reflect the changing population and demands,
including combating gentrification and displacement,
by increasing housing supply at a variety of
affordability levels.

Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants and
will not impact housing.

Focus new growth around transit. Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants that
would be consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS
focus on growing near transit facilities.

Plan for growth around livable corridors, including
growth on the Livable Corridors network.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion of
outdoor dining space for local restaurants that
would be consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS
focus on growing along the 2,980 miles of Livable
Corridors in the region.

Provide more options for short trips through
Neighborhood Mobility Areas and Complete
SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project would help
further jobs/housing balance objectives. The
421
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 6
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Communities. proposed project is also consistent with the Complete Communities initiative that focuses on
creation of mixed-use districts in growth areas.

Support local sustainability planning, including
developing sustainable planning and design policies,
sustainable zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans.

Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on local
governments to adopt General Plan updates,
zoning codes, and Climate Action Plans to further
sustainable communities. The proposed project
would not interfere with such policymaking and
would be consistent with those policy objectives.

Protect natural and farmlands, including developing
conservation strategies.

SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project is an expansion to
outdoor dining for local restaurants that would
help reduce demand for growth in urbanizing
areas that threaten green fields and open
spaces.

Transportation Strategies
Preserve our existing transportation system.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls on investing in
the maintenance of our existing transportation
system. The proposed project would not
interfere with such policymaking.

Manage congestion through programs like the
Congestion Management Program, Transportation
Demand Management, and Transportation Systems
Management strategies.

County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The proposed project is an expansion
to outdoor dining for local restaurants that will
minimize congestion impacts on the region
because of its proximity to public transit and
general density of population and jobs.

Promote safety and security in the transportation
system.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy aims to improve
the safety of the transportation system and
protect users from security threats. The
proposed project would not interfere with such
policymaking.

Complete our transit, passenger rail, active
transportation, highways and arterials, regional
express lanes goods movement, and airport ground
transportation systems.

SCAG, County
Transportation
Commissions,
Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy calls for
transportation planning partners to implement
major capital and operational projects that are
designed to address regional growth. The
proposed project would not interfere with this
larger goal of investing in the transportation
system.

Technological Innovation and 21st Century Transportation Promote zero-emissions vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Consistent. The project includes lane
reconfigurations which would provide new lanes
for bikes and other zero-emissions
transportation modes.

Promote neighborhood electric vehicles. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Not applicable. The proposed project would not
interfere with the goal of promoting
neighborhood electric vehicles.

Implement shared mobility programs. SCAG, Local
Jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy is designed to
integrate new technologies for last-mile and
alternative transportation programs. The
proposed project would not interfere with these
emerging programs.
422
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 7
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
Actions and Strategies
Responsible
Party(ies) Consistency Analysis
Notes:
1 Source: Southern California Association of Governments; 2020–2045 RTP/SCS; September 3, 2020.

6.0 Energy
Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would consist of transportation energy demands (energy consumed by employee and patron vehicles accessing the project site). Additional energy that would be consumed by the construction or operation of the additional outdoor dining is assumed to be negligible as no additional buildings are to be built.

This energy analysis is based upon Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines which states that any project that results in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources would have a significant impact.

6.1 Transportation Fuel Consumption
The largest source of operational energy use would be vehicle operation of customers. The site is located in an urbanized area just in close proximity to transit stops. Using the CalEEMod output, it is assumed that an average trip for all vehicles were assumed to be 10 miles. To show a worst-case analysis, it was assumed that vehicles would operate 365 days per year. Table 5 shows the worst-case estimated annual fuel consumption for all classes of vehicles from autos to heavy-heavy trucks. Table 5 shows that an estimated 155,002 gallons of fuel would be consumed per year for the operation of the proposed project.

Table 5: Estimated Vehicle Operations Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type Vehicle Mix
Number
of
Vehicles1
Average
Trip
(miles)2
Daily
VMT
Average
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Total
Gallons
per Day
Total Annual
Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)
Light Auto Automobile 518 10 5,184 31.82 162.92 59,467
Light Truck Automobile 56 10 559 27.16 20.56 7,506
Light Truck Automobile 183 10 1,832 25.6 71.56 26,121
Medium Truck Automobile 174 10 1,737 20.81 83.47 30,468 Light Heavy Truck 2-Axle Truck 37 10 369 13.81 26.73 9,755 Light Heavy Truck 10,000 lbs + 2-Axle Truck 9 10 92 14.18 6.52 2,380 Medium Heavy Truck 3-Axle Truck 11 10 114 9.58 11.87 4,331 Heavy Heavy Truck 4-Axle Truck 29 10 293 7.14 41.03 14,975 Total 1,018 -- 10,180 -- 424.66 --
Total Annual Fuel Consumption 155,002
Notes:
1 Per the trip generation assessment, the project is to generate 1,018 total net new tripsin the maximum scenario. Default CalEEMod vehicle fleet mix utilized. 2Based on the size of the site and relative location, trips were assumed to be local rather than regional.

Trip generation of the proposed project is consistent with other similar commercial uses of similar scale and configuration as reflected in the traffic analysis from Fehr & Peers. That is, the proposed project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips, nor 423
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project
Focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 8
JN: AQ etc. 4.12.23 final
associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Additionally, as stated by Fehr & Peers, the project is not anticipated to increase traffic regionally, and the estimates shown in this analysis are a worst-case scenario. Therefore, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

7.0 Conclusions
Operational project emissions were evaluated and compared to both regional and localized SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. In addition, project GHG emissions were evaluated and compared to SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year for all land uses. Project emissions are anticipated to be below SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance with no mitigation and project energy usage was found not to be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

MD is pleased to provide this focused Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Impact Evaluation. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please don’t hesitate to call us at (805) 426-4477.

Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Tyler Klassen, EIT
Air Quality Specialist
424
Appendix A
Glossary of Terms
425
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CNG Compressed natural gas
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
DPM Diesel particulate matter
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
LST Localized Significant Thresholds
MTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MMTCO2e Million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
N2O Nitrous oxide
O3 Ozone
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PM Particle matter
PM10 Particles that are less than 10 micrometers in diameter PM2.5 Particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter PMI Point of maximum impact
PPM Parts per million
PPB Parts per billion
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SRA Source/Receptor Area
TAC Toxic air contaminants
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
426
Appendix B
Project Map
427
Appendix C
CalEEMod Output
428
AZ Office CA Office
4960 S. Gilbert Road, Ste 1-461 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Ste C-256 Chandler, AZ 85249 Simi Valley, CA 93065
p. (602) 774-1950 p. (805) 426-4477
www.mdacoustics.com
MD Acoustics, LLC 1
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
April 11, 2023
To: Ed Almanza & Associates
From: MD Acoustics, LLLC
Subject: Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining – Noise Assessment – City of Hermosa Beach, CA MD Acoustics, LLC (MD) is pleased to provide this noise assessment for the Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining Project in the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. The project proposes that certain commercial establishments may provide outdoor dining in public right-of-way areas (including on-street parking areas and sidewalks) in the downtown area of Hermosa Beach. The project identifies areas where outdoor dining would be allowed. This assessment analyzes the baseline and baseline plus project traffic noise conditions for nine (9) street segments that were identified by the technical traffic consultants as the key routes for vehicular access to and from the project area. It provides a quantitative analysis of outdoor dining noise and compares projected roadway and outdoor dining noise levels to the City’s applicable noise standards. For your reference, Appendix A contains a glossary of acoustical terms.

1.0 Assessment Overview
This assessment evaluates the baseline noise conditions and the baseline + project noise conditions experienced along the following streets:

1. 27th Street (west of Morningside)

2. 8
th Street (west of Valley)

3. Hermosa Avenue (north of 16th Street)

4. Hermosa Avenue (north of 8th Street)

5. Manhattan Avenue (north of Pier)

6. Manhattan Avenue (south of Pier)

7. Monterey Boulevard (north of Pier)

8. Monterey Boulevard (south of Pier)

9. Pier Avenue (west of Valley)
The nine analyzed roadways will be the most affected by the project and represent the worst-case scenario.

Baseline traffic conditions for each roadway were provided by Fehr & Peers (February 2023 in Appendix B of this report). The traffic noise level has been compared to the City’s noise standards. All modeling assumptions follow FHWA traffic noise modeling protocols. The study also assesses the stationary noise impact on adjacent land uses due to outdoor dining. Exhibit A identifies the roadway segments that were assessed. The eligible outdoor dining areas are shown in Exhibit B.

2.0 City of Hermosa Beach Noise Standards
The City of Hermosa Beach outlines their noise regulations and standards within the Public Safety Element from the General Plan and the Noise Ordinance from the Municipal Code. Table 6.3 in the City’s Public Safety Element outlines the interior and exterior noise standards (Table 1 of this report). 429
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 2
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Exhibit A
Roadway Segments
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1. 27th Street
(west of Morningside)

2. 8
th Street
(west of Valley)

3. Hermosa Avenue
(north of 16th Street)

4. Hermosa Avenue
(north of 8th Street)

5. Manhattan Avenue
(north of Pier)

6. Manhattan Avenue
(south of Pier)

7. Monterey Boulevard
(north of Pier)

8. Monterey Boulevard
(south of Pier)

9. Pier Avenue
(west of Valley)
430
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 3
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Exhibit B
Project Area
431
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 4
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Table 1: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards1
Land Use Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Exterior Interior
Residential 65 dB 45 dB
Hotels/Motels 65 dB 45 dB
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes 65 dB 45 dB Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters 65 dB 45 dB
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports 65 dB N/A
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 dB N/A
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries 75 dB N/A Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional 70 dB 50 dB Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 75 dB 65 dB Notes:

1. Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single-family residences; private patios of multi-family residences that are accessed by a means of exit from inside the unit; mobile home park; hospital patio; park picnic area; school playground; and hotel and motel recreation area.

2. Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors. Noise level requirement is with windows closed. Mechanical ventilation system or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC).

3. See Table 6.3 Public Safety, PLAN Hermosa1

3.0 Study Method and Procedure
Traffic Noise Level Prediction Modeling
Traffic noise from the vehicular traffic was projected using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWARD-77-108). The software utilizes FHWA protocol and is similar to the Traffic Noise Model (TNM 2.5) algorithms to calculate noise level projections and are typically accurate within ± 3 dBA. The FHWA model arrives at the predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL).

Roadway volumes and project trip generation were obtained from Fehr & Peers. Fehr & Peers estimated pre-pandemic (2019) and post-pandemic (2020-2021) conditions using StreetLight Data. The estimates show that traffic volumes decreased significantly from 2019 to 2020 and began to increase in 2021, indicating that activity is returning to pre-pandemic conditions. Traffic volumes were analyzed during summer weekends to represent the loudest conditions. Temporary roadway diversions were put in place after 2019, and the project proposes to make the lane reconfigurations permanent. The baseline condition represents the worst-case noise before roadway diversions were put in place and without projectgenerated traffic. The baseline plus project condition represents the worst-case noise with projectgenerated traffic and with the roadway diversionsin place. 27th Street traffic volumes and vehicle distribution were monitored by Fehr & Peers on 12/15/2022, after roadway diversions were put in place. For this study, MD evaluated 27th Street separate from the other roadways to compare baseline conditions, existing conditions, and baseline plus project conditions. Baseline conditions represent pre-pandemic (2019) traffic volumes prior to lane reconfiguration. Existing conditions represent the current post-pandemic traffic volumes with roadway diversions put in place. Baseline plus project conditions represent 2019 traffic volumes, including the roadway diversions and project-generated 432
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 5
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
traffic. Fehr & Peers found that the lane reductions caused a 1% decrease in distribution on 27th Street, making it highly unlikely that the lane reductions diverted 27th Street traffic.

Fehr & Peers provided two trip generation scenarios. Scenario 1 provides the worst-case trip generation estimates and Scenario 2 provides more realistic estimates by accounting for the variety of restaurant uses.

For this analysis, MD utilized the trip generation estimates from Scenario 1 in order to calculate the absolute worst-case scenario.

The following outlines the key adjustments made to the REMEL for the roadway inputs:
 Roadway classification – (e.g. freeway, a major arterial, arterial, secondary, collector, etc),  Roadway Active Width – (distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway)
 Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT), Travel Speeds, Percentages of automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks
 Roadway grade and angle of view
 Site Conditions (e.g. soft vs. hard)
 Percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period  Vertical and horizontal distances (Sensitive receptor distance from noise source)  Noise barrier vertical and horizontal distances (Noise barrier distance from sound source and receptor).
 Traffic noise source spectra
 Topography
 The Model doesn’t include the noise reduction effects of the single family residencies Roadway modeling assumptions utilized for the technical study are provided in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2: Roadway Noise Modeling Parameters
Roadway Segment Limits Baseline
(2019) ADT1
Project
Only ADT1
Baseline +
Project
ADT1
Distance to
Centerline
(ft)2
Speed
(MPH)
8th Street West of Valley Dr 6,256 61 6,317 25 25
Hermosa Avenue North of 16th St 14,466 174 14,640 48 30 Hermosa Avenue North of 8th St 15,003 230 15,233 50 25
Manhattan Avenue North of Pier Ave 2,334 21 2,355 23 25 Manhattan Avenue South of Pier Ave 2,121 22 2,143 25 25 Monterey Boulevard North of Pier Ave 3,839 16 3,855 23 25 Monterey Boulevard South of Pier Ave 4,014 25 4,039 25 25 Pier Avenue West of Valley Dr 17,563 405 17,968 50 25
Notes:

1. Provided by Fehr & Peers (February 2023).

2. Distance from the nearest residential property to the centerline. 433
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 6
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
Table 3: Vehicle Mix Data
Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime %
(7 AM to 7 PM)1
Evening %
(7 PM to 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 97.42
Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 1.84
Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 0.74
Notes:
1 Typical Southern California Traffic Mix
Roadway modeling assumptions for 27th Street are provided in Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4: 27th Street Roadway Noise Modeling Parameters
Roadway Segment Baseline
(2019) ADT1
Existing
(2022) ADT2
Baseline +
Project ADT2
Distance to
Centerline
(ft)3
Speed
(MPH)
27th Street West of Morningside 6,036 8,081 8,145 16 30 Notes:
1 Baseline ADT volumes provided by Fehr & Peers, February 2023.

2. Existing ADT volumes and vehicle distribution provided by Fehr & Peers, 12/15/22.

3. Distance from the nearest residential property to the centerline.

Table 5: 27th Street Vehicle Mix Data
Motor-Vehicle Type Daytime %
(7 AM to 7 PM)
Evening %
(7 PM to 10 PM)
Night %
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Total % of
Traffic Flow
Automobiles 77.5 12.9 9.6 97.6
Medium Trucks 84.8 4.9 10.3 2.2
Heavy Trucks 86.5 2.7 10.8 0.2
Notes:
1 Existing ADT volumes and vehicle distribution provided by Fehr & Peers, 12/15/22.

Stationary Noise Prediction Modeling
MD utilized the inverse square law to calculate noise level projections due to outdoor dining noise. MD assumed that the maximum number of outdoor guests at any given restaurant would be 40 people. A typical voice would be 65 dBA at 3 feet away when speaking normally. As a worst-case scenario, the calculation assumes that all 40 guests are speaking simultaneously. MD analyzed the minimum allowable distance between an outdoor dining area and a sensitive receptor in order to meet the City’s code.

4.0 Findings
Traffic Noise
The potential off-site noise impacts caused by the increase in vehicular traffic as a result of the project were calculated at the nearest residential location for each affected road segment. The noise levels both with and without project-generated vehicle traffic were compared and the increase was calculated. The 434
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 7
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
distance to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also provided for reference (Appendix C).

Noise contours were calculated for the following scenarios and conditions (excluding 27th Street):
 Baseline Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline traffic noise condition (2019, prior to temporary roadway diversions) and is demonstrated in Table 6.  Baseline + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline plus project traffic noise condition (with roadway diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 6.

Table 6: Change in Noise Levels as a Result of Project Generated Traffic Roadway Segment
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) at Nearest Residence
Baseline
Without
Project
Baseline
With Project
Change in
Noise Level
Increase of 3
dB or more2
8th Street West of Valley Dr 62.8 62.9 0.1 No
Hermosa Avenue North of 16th St 66.4 66.4 0.0 No
Hermosa Avenue North of 8th St 64.3 64.4 0.1 No
Manhattan Avenue North of Pier Ave 59.1 59.1 0.0 No
Manhattan Avenue South of Pier Ave 58.1 58.2 0.1 No
Monterey Boulevard North of Pier Ave 61.2 61.2 0.0 No
Monterey Boulevard South of Pier Ave 60.9 60.9 0.0 No
Pier Avenue West of Valley Dr 64.5 64.6 0.1 No
Notes:
1 FHWA roadway noise modeling worksheets provided in Appendix C. 2 Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB As shown in Table 6, the baseline plus project noise will meet the residential noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL for every roadway segment except for Hermosa Avenue north of 16th Street. However, the noise due to the project will not increase the baseline noise and would not be significant. The baseline and baseline plus project conditions analyzed in this study represent the loudest conditions. 27th Street noise levels for existing, baseline, and baseline plus project traffic conditions were compared and the increase was calculated. The distance to the 55, 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours are also provided for reference (Appendix C). Noise contours for 27th Street were calculated for the following scenarios and conditions:
 Baseline Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline traffic noise condition (2019, prior to temporary roadway diversions) and is demonstrated in Table 7.  Existing Condition: This scenario refers to the current traffic noise condition (2022, with roadway diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 7.
435
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 8
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
 Baseline + Project Condition: This scenario refers to the baseline plus project traffic noise condition (with roadway diversions in place) and is demonstrated in Table 7.

Table 7: 27th Street Change in Noise Levels as a Result of Project Generated Traffic Roadway Segment
Modeled Noise Levels (dBA CNEL) at Nearest Residence
Baseline
(2019)
Without
Project
Existing
(2022)
Without
Project
Baseline
With
Project
Change in
Noise
Level3
Increase
of 3 dB
or
more2
27th Street West of Morningside 67.3 66.0 67.3 0.0 No
Notes:
1 FHWA roadway noise modeling worksheets provided in Appendix C. 2 Typically, the human ear can barely perceive the change in noise level of 3 dB.

3. Change in noise level between baseline noise conditions and baseline + project noise conditions.

As shown in Table 7, project-generated traffic noise will not increase the baseline traffic noise. Thus, the temporary roadway diversions do not have an impact on the existing or baseline traffic noise conditions.

Existing traffic noise along 27th Street has decreased by 1.3 dBA CNEL since 2019 due to a decrease in activity caused by the pandemic. The existing traffic noise will increase by a maximum of 1.3 dBA CNEL as traffic volumes increase to pre-pandemic conditions and will not be a noticeable change in loudness. Thus, the impact is less than significant.

Stationary Noise
Stationary noise at sensitive receptors cannot exceed the City’s noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL for residential properties, per City standards. As a worst-case scenario, stationary noise was calculated assuming that 40 guests are speaking simultaneously. The average speaking voice is 65 dBA from 3 feet away. 40 people speaking from 20 feet away would be 64 dBA. Thus, the impact due to stationary noise will not be significant if residential locations are located 20 feet or further from future outdoor dining areas.

Music (live or otherwise) is not going to be an impact assuming that the noise due to music does not extend past the dining area. Any additional noise sources (speakers, extra guests, etc.) must abide by the City code.

5.0 CEQA Analysis
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines establishes thresholds for noise impact analysis as presented below:
(a) Would the project result in the 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 Code, or applicable standards of other agencies? Transportation Noise Impacts
Traffic noise would be significant if levels are increased by more than 3 dBA to levels above 65 dBA CNEL in areas with sensitive uses. Baseline traffic represents the worst-case future traffic when activity returns to pre-pandemic conditions. The worst-case baseline plus project traffic noise levels will meet the residential noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL at seven of the nine roadway segments. Baseline plus project traffic volumes are 436
Hermosa Beach Downtown Outdoor Dining
Noise Assessment
City of Hermosa Beach, CA
MD Acoustics, LLC 9
JN: Noise_Letter Report 4.11.23 final
expected to be up to 0.1 dBA CNEL louder respectively than baseline traffic noise levels at existing land uses and will not result in a significant noise increase.

MD also compared baseline (2019) conditions, existing (2022) conditions, and baseline plus project noise conditionsfor one of the roadway segments. The project will not increase the baseline traffic noise and will not have an impact. Thus, the project will not have an impact on existing noise conditions and is not significant. However, the baseline plus project noise will increase the existing noise by a maximum of 1.3 dBA CNEL due to traffic volumes returning to pre-pandemic conditions. It takes a change of 3 dBA to perceive a change in loudness, thus, the impact is less than significant.

Stationary Noise Impacts
Stationary noise will be significant if it exceeds the levels outlined in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as outlined in Section 2.0. Assuming an outdoor dining area consists of 40 people speaking simultaneously, the noise level due to outdoor dining will meet the City’s standard of 65 dBA CNEL when sensitive receptors (residential locations) are at a minimum of 20 feet away from an outdoor dining area. Music (live or otherwise) is not going to be an impact assuming that the noise due to music does not extend past the dining area. Any additional noise sources (speakers, extra guests, etc.) must abide by the City code. The impact will not be significant.

5.0 Conclusions
MD is pleased to provide this noise assessmentfor the Outdoor Dining Projectin the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. The worst-case traffic noise due to the project will increase the baseline conditions by 0 to 0.1 dBA CNEL and will not be significant. A typical outdoor dining area will meet the City’s standard of 65 dBA CNEL. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please call our office at (805) 426-4477.

Sincerely,
MD Acoustics, LLC
Mike Dickerson, INCE Rachel Edelman
Principal Acoustic Consultant
437
Appendix A
Glossary of Acoustical Terms
438
Glossary of Terms
A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighted filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. A numerical method of rating human judgment of loudness.

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

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

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

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

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

Maximum Sound Level (LMAX): This is the highest sound level measured during a single noise event. Lmax does not consider the number and duration of these events, and cannot be totaled into a one-hour or 24-hour cumulative measure of impact.

Habitable Room: Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to be used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting 439
corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces.

Human Sensitivity to Sound: In general, the healthy human ear can hear between 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. Frequencies below 125 Hz are typically associated with low frequencies or bass. Frequencies between 125 Hz and 5,000 Hz are typically associated with mid-range tones. Finally, frequencies between 5,000 and 20,000Hz are typically associated with higher range tones.

The human ear is sensitive to changes in noise levels, depending on the frequency. Generally speaking, the healthy human ear is most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 Hz and 5,000 Hz (Aweighted scale) and perceives a sound within that range as being more intense than a sound with a higher or lower frequency with the same magnitude. At lower and higher frequencies, the ear can become less sensitive depending on a number of factors. Figure 1 provides a brief summary of how humans perceive changes in noise levels.

Figure 1: Change in Noise Level Characteristics1
Changes in Intensity Level, dBA Changes in Apparent Loudness 1 Not perceptible
3 Just perceptible
5 Clearly noticeable
10 Twice (or half) as loud
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polguide02.cfm L(n): The A-weighted sound level exceeded during a certain percentage of the sample time. For example, L10 in the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the sample time. Similarly, L50, L90 and L99, etc.

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

Percent Noise Levels: See L(n).

Sound Level (Noise Level): The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of the sound spectrum. Figure 2 provides the sound level associated with common noise sources. 440
Figure 2: Common Sound Levels
Sound Level Meter: An instrument, including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighting networks for the measurement and determination of noise and sound levels.

Single Event Noise Exposure Level (SENEL): The dB(A) level which, if it lasted for one second, would produce the same A-weighted sound energy as the actual event. 441
Appendix B
Fehr & Peers Traffic Counts
442
Appendix C
Traffic Noise Calculations
443

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
RESOLUTION NO. 23-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH

ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMANENT OUTDOOR DINING

AND RETAIL ENCROACHMENTS
WHEREAS, On June 9, 2020, the Hermosa Beach City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20-1410U, Implementing a Temporary Permit for Outdoor Dining/Seating and Outdoor Retail Display to Assist in the Reopening of Restaurants, Food, and Retail Establishments during COVID-19; and WHEREAS, In October 2021, City Council directed staff to develop permanent versions of the temporary extended outdoor dining and lane reconfiguration programs implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, In January of 2022, City Council approved new fees for the temporary encroachment areas allowed during COVID-19; and WHEREAS, On January 24, 2023 City Council considered a new market rate appraisal of both existing and temporary encroachment areas citywide; and WHEREAS, City staff has developed a new proposed fee schedule that factors in the value for private entities to use public right of way, the City’s cost to administer the program, and the desire for reasonable fees that encourage effective use of the program by the businesses; and
WHEREAS, City staff has gathered input from the City Council, neighboring agencies, local businesses, and community stakeholders to develop a fee schedule that is reasonable and that captures the variety of encroachment uses in the City.

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

SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby declare that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 444

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the following fees and directs City staff to incorporate into the City’s Master Fee schedule:

Encroachment Area Category Proposed Fee per square foot, per month
Pier Plaza, Late Night (Business that stay
open after midnight), serves alcohol
$6.00
Pier Plaza, non-late night, serves Alcohol $3.00
Pier Plaza, non-late night, no alcohol; offPier Plaza, On-street, sidewalk and retail $2.00 SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this resolution is found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Resolution.

SECTION 4. Environmental Review. The City Council’s adoption of the Resolution is not a project pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b)(4).

The Resolution is a government funding mechanism and fiscal activity that does not commit to any specific project. As such, the City Council action on the proposed resolution is not a project under CEQA.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution which shall be effective upon its adoption. The City Manager may delay the implementation of this ordinance to ensure continuity and effective and efficient execution of the Pier Plaza outdoor dining program.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 25th day of April, 2023 Raymond Jackson
PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
445

________________________________ ________________________________ Myra Maravilla Patrick Donegan
City Clerk City Attorney
446

D I N I N G D E C K & E N C R O A C H M E N T

R E P O R T

P R E P A R E D B Y T H E
H E R M O S A B E A C H C H A M B E R of C O M M E R C E E D A C C O M M I T T E E 447

I N T R O
The local economy is ill. Proof is in Hermosa rental rates.

Space rental rates directly reflect the desirability and vibrancy of an area. The more desirable and vibrant an
area is the more valuable the space is within it. Five years ago, Downtown Hermosa rents held a solid middle spot
between Downtown Manhattan and Riviera Village. Now,
our downtown has fallen behind Downtown Manhattan,
Manhattan Village, Riviera Village, and Rosecrans Corridor and we are trending further behind. Typical Manhattan
Village rents range between $6.50-$10/ft, with Manhattan Ave holding the highest due to foot traffic. Riviera Village spots are now scarce and rent for $6/ft. By contrast, Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue rent for $4-$5/ft. The Plaza
and strand range from $6-8/ft.
448

B U S I N E S S E S W I T H D E C K S
Pier Plaza
Cafe Bonaparte
Playa Hermosa
Brews Hall
Oakberry Acai
Silvios
Greenspot
Juiced
American Junkie
Baja Sharkeez
Watermans
Henneseys
Palmilla
Patrick Molloys
The Lighthouse
Heavenly Couture
Pier Surf
Spyder
Treasure Chest
Waves
Tower 12
OFF Plaza
Bottle Inn
Barnacles
Good Stuff
Martha’s
Mickey’s
The Beach House
The Green Store
Java Man
Brothers Burritos
Chef Melba’s
La Playita
Lobster & Beer
Japonica
Mobi Scooters
North End
Paisanos
Pedones
Tacos El Goloso
Zanes
Beach Bound
Creme de la Crepe
El Tarasco
Fundamental Coast
Hook & Plow
Rockefeller
Sosta Cucina
The Source Cafe
Uncorked 449

S U R V E Y R E S U L T S
Hermosa Chamber polled restaurants and cafe owners in Hermosa Beach with businesses located on Pier Plaza, along Hermosa Avenue, Upper Pier and throughout Hermosa. A total of 22 businesses responded. Below are the highlights of the survey results:
● Less than 20% of businesses are doing better than they were pre-COVID ● Higher sales tax revenues DO NOT indicate our restaurants are thriving. Sales tax revenues depend on sales, not profits. The increase in sales tax revenue is due to inflation and higher restaurant and bar prices, rather than an actual rise in profits. Heavily impacting profits is massive increase in cost of goods, state-mandated payroll increases, health care cost increases, rent increases, etc. ● Average PPSF rent paid by respondent is:
○ Plaza $3 - $6*
○ Off-Plaza $1.50 - $7.50*
*note many downtown Hermosa properties are under generational ownership and thus under market rate. Also, some of the Plaza business have 15+ year leases so also are under market value.
450

S U R V E Y R E S U L T S
● Average cost these businesses polled have
invested in building their decks ranges $15-50k.
● 50% of rents have been raised since the pandemic.
● 59% of the respondents do not have resources to
store their deck materials if seasonality were
offered.
● When asked, the threshold for what a respondent
would pay per square foot to keep their deck tops
out at $2. We would begin to see closures at
amounts beyond that.
451

E X P E R T S S A Y
According to local real estate experts:
● 16% of pre-pandemic diners have not returned to eating out. ● Hermosa sales tax revenue over the last 20 years has not really budged. If you add inflation to it, it has been dropping. ● Hermosa Downtown has an unprecedented 3 restaurants on the market with 5 more that have expressed interest and want out. So we may have 8 restaurants leaving shortly. This is opposite of Riviera Village and Manhattan Beach where there are no vacancies.
● The average national revenue per square foot for restaurants is $500/ft. Manhattan Beach does $1500/ft. That is three times the national average. Many downtown Hermosa
restaurants do not even reach the national average even though they are in a wealthy coastal community.
452

A S S U M P T I O N S / P I E R P L A Z A

ASSUMPTION RESPONSE
All decks should close at a certain time. Studies have shown that vibrant public spaces with staggered closing times for businesses can enhance
safety and reduce crime by keeping the area active
and populated. Continuing staggered closing times in
line with each business' hours, creates a safer and
more vibrant social scene in the downtown district.

This parallels Chief LeBaron’s desire to have businesses with staggered closing times throughout the city. We
are moving forward with the hopes of a BID formation
that can contribute to the cost of the late night
environment.

Encroachment should be granted only if the
establishment agrees to close at a certain
time.

In order to attract high-performing business (good
operators) we need a regulatory environment that is
flexible. Otherwise, we may fail to attract the
businesses we need to help with economic
development.
453

A S S U M P T I O N S / P I E R P L A Z A

ASSUMPTION RESPONSE
Encroachment rate should approximate
indoor rental rate, which is as much as $10/ft.

Based on the survey, $10/ft can not be reasonably
assumed. The respondents pay an average of $4-6.

Decks should be priced so they are only up if
well utilized thus under-utilized decks should
be taken down.

Decks are important for economic development. If
underutilized or if businesses can’t afford them, they
could be used for placemaking and available for the
general public use.

A seasonal program where decks are installed
and taken away based on season.
13 of the 22 respondents do not have the resources to
store their decks.
454

A S S U M P T I O N S / P I E R P L A Z A

ASSUMPTION RESPONSE
Decks should line up with adjacent deck. Decks are vital to keeping Hermosa competitive. The Plaza exists to attract locals and tourists. The ROMA study
emphasized the importance of improving the public realm to enhance the image and identity of the Downtown Core. The study noted that widened sidewalks and public plazas that create space for cafes and outdoor dining can attract
additional patrons, and that activities that spill out and populate public spaces communicate that the area is worth visiting. Requiring decks to “line up” does not allow the unique store frontages to embrace their individuality.

Decks should be open for a minimum of 8
hrs in order have the deck permit.

Considering our businesses are using public space, the decks could be available to the public during the daylight hours so utilization could be addressed.
455

A S S U M P T I O N S / P I E R P L A Z A

ASSUMPTION RESPONSE
Decks can be easily taken
up and down.

Investment in the decks can be significant. On-street decks cost anywhere from $15k to $50k. Also, 13 of the 22 respondents do not have the resources to store their decks. Portable decks are sometimes seen as an attractive solution for businesses looking to increase outdoor seating options during high demand seasons and not having the cost burden during the off-season.

However, in our city, portable decks may not be a feasible option for most businesses due to limited storage space. As a tight and compact city, businesses do not have the luxury of large amounts of storage space to house giant modular barriers. While portable decks may seem like a great idea in theory, the practical realities of our city make it difficult to implement them on a wide scale. Consider alternative options for increasing flexible outdoor seating that are more practical and feasible for our city. Seasonal rates are one recommended solution. Businesses will be more inclined to support higher summer season rates if they know they’ll save money on rates in the off-season, which allows the city to take advantage of the often nice winter days without completely losing the outdoor seating. 456

A S S U M P T I O N S / O F F P I E R P L A Z A

ASSUMPTION RESPONSE
Lane reduction isn’t necessary for outdoor
dining.

In order to ensure public safety there should be a sufficient buffer between decks and cars. Although we had some
lanes next to decks during part of the pandemic, the
patron experience is dramatically more alarming when a
car drives by a seated patron. In addition, the lane
reduction also allows for a designated bike lane that
encourages other forms of mobility, thus creating a better environment for living streets.

Fees should be increased to ensure space is
efficiently used. A vacant deck demonstrates a
business should be paying more.

There are many costs involved when a business decides
whether they can afford to open for lunch or an additional meal time. Thus, if they own a deck, it’s possible they still may not be able to afford to open for lunch because of
staffing, resources, etc. It’s not always about business model. Thus we should all think outside the box on how to maximize use and possibly introduce public use during
daytime hours.
457
R E G A R D I N G : W O R K I N G T O G E T H E R
We know generally that most people, including Council, love outdoor dining. It's important to ensure that the regulations are reasonable and strike a balance between promoting outdoor dining and protecting public safety. Studies have shown that outdoor dining can have a positive impact on local economies, increasing foot traffic and revenue for businesses. Outdoor dining can help to create a vibrant social scene and enhance the overall image and identity of the Downtown Core as a retail destination. We encourage the City to continue to work collaboratively with local businesses to create regulations that are supportive and reasonable. By doing so, we can create a win-win situation for both businesses and the community as a whole. We all want to build trust between Council, staff, and local business owners through communication and ideation which is a critical step towards establishing a Business Improvement District that is beneficial for all stakeholders involved.
458

A D D I T I O N A L I N S I G H T
People come to be near the beach and to enjoy the collective social atmosphere of downtown Hermosa. We compete with other neighboring communities that offer dining near the ocean with a vibrant social scene, i.e.

Redondo Beach’s vibrant Riviera Village. We want to focus on investing in all business corridors the same way previous Councils created placemaking like Pier Plaza.

Studies have shown that improvements to the public realm, such as widened sidewalks and public plazas, can attract additional patrons and create a vibrant social scene that encourages people to stay and spend time in the area. The Roma Study, which is part of our General Plan, highlights the importance of creating a sense of place and enhancing the image and identity of the Downtown Core as a retail destination.

From the Roma Study, “The downtown district is the heart of Hermosa Beach and should be enhanced so that it becomes, to an even greater extent than today, the focus of social life in the city. The betterment of the downtown will reflect positively on the quality of life in the community as a whole.

Improvements to the public realm are key to the enhancement of the image and identity of the Downtown Core as a retail destination. Widened sidewalks and public plazas that create space for cafes and outdoor dining can also attract additional patrons. Activities that spill out and populate the public spaces communicate that this place is worth visiting - seeing people brings people.”
459
Pier Ave
Hermosa Ave
100 ft
13 ft
25 ft
50 ft
25 ft
50 ft
25 ft
Pier Plaza - West Facing Pier Plaza - East Facing
April 2020 June 2022 March 2017 June 2022
Pier Plaza
Permanent and Proposed Encroachments
All measurements shown are approximate
460
H
e
r
m
o
s
a
Av
e
Pier Ave
M
a
n
h
a
t
tan Ave
Ardmore Ave
Manhatta
n
Av
e
Valley Dr
Monterey Blvd
Hermosa Ave
1st St
2nd St 22nd St
Hermosa
Ave
Hermosa Ave
27th St
Manhattan Ave
Hermosa Ave
Greenwich
Village
Permanent Encroachment Areas
Temporary Encroachment Areas
Permanent and Temporary Commercial Encroachment Areas
L&B
Barnacles
Brothers Burrito
Hennessey's Tavern
Silvios Brazilian BBQ
Waterman's
The Lighthouse
Greenbelt
Treasure Chest
American Junkies
Baja Sharkeez
Patrick Malloy's
Playa Hermosa
Pier Surf
Waves
Heavenly CouturePalmilla's
Tower 12
Cafe Bonaparte
Spyder II
Brews Hall
Juiced
Tacos El Galoso
Zane's
Paisano's Pizza
Uncorked
Two Guns Espresso
Fritto Misto
El Tarasco
Hook & Plow
Sosta Cucina
The Source Cafe
Rockefeller
Creme De La Crepe
Java Man
Japonica
Agave Azul
Pedone's
Hermosa Brewing Co
Good Stuff
Beach House
La Playita
Mickey's Deli
Bottle Inn The Green
Store
North End Bar & Grill
Chef Melba's Bistro
Martha's
461
Permanent Plaza Late Night (Close after midnight) Permanent Area (Sq Ft) Temporary Area (Sq Ft) AMERICAN JUNKIES 780 Removed
BAJA SHARKEEZ 390 360
WATERMANS 325 300
HENNESSEY'S TAVERN 975 900
PALMILLA COCINA TEQUILA 267.60 390.00
PATRICK MOLLOY'S 429 288
THE LIGHTHOUSE (close before midnight Sun-Wed) 390 NA
Permanent Plaza Non-Late (close before midnight) Permanent Area (Sq Ft) Temporary Area (Sq Ft) CAFÉ BONAPARTE 341 120
PLAYA HERMOSA FISH & OYSTER CO 326 645
PALMILLA COCINA TEQUILA 189.60 390.00
BREW'S HALL 390 986
OAKBERRY ACAI 143 NA
SILVIO'S BRAZILIAN BBQ 390 300
GREENSPOT 260 192
JUICED 130 NA
Permanent off-Plaza (close before midnight unless note Permanent Area (Sq Ft) Temporary Area (Sq Ft) BOTTLE INN 570
BARNACLES BAR & GRILL (Close at 2am) 200
GOOD STUFF 480 900
MARTHA'S 22 ND. ST. GRILL 913.50
MICKEY'S ITALIAN DELI 384
THE BEACH HOUSE 480
THE GREEN STORE 312
JAVA MAN 112
Temporary off Plaza (must close by 11pm) Temporary Area (Sq Ft) BROTHERS BURRITOS 450
CHEF MELBA'S BISTRO 96
GOOD STUFF 900
LA PLAYITA CAFÉ 480
LOBSTER & BEER 792
JAPONICA 441
MOBI SCOOTERS 96
NORTH END BAR & GRILL (outdoors close by 10pm) 849
PAISANOS PIZZA 456
PEDONE'S PIZZA 372
TACOS EL GOLOSO 91
ZANES 588
BEACH BOUND 36
CREME DE LA CREPE 224
EL TARASCO 280
FUNDAMENTAL COAST 15
HOOK & PLOW 660
ROCKEFELLER 301
SOSTA CUCINA 72
THE SOURCE CAFÉ 620
TWO GUNS ESPRESSO 55
UNCORKED 264
Hermosa Beach Encroachments - Areas and Operation as of April 2023 462
BUSINESS NAME DIFFERENCE % INCREASE
Plaza Late Night
BAJA SHARKEEZ 750 1,950.00 540.00 29,880.00 750 6.00 4,500.00 54,000.00 24,120.00 80.72% 8 WATERMANS (FORMERLY BEACH CLUB) 625 1,069.25 450.00 18,231.00 625 6.00 3,750.00 45,000.00 26,769.00 146.83% 1 HENNESSEY'S TAVERN 1875 4,875.00 1,350.00 18,675.00 * 3 months 1875 6.00 11,250.00 33,750.00 15,075.00 80.72% *3 months 2 PALMILLA COCINA TEQUILA 267.6 1,338.00 0.00 16,056.00 267.6 6.00 1,605.60 19,267.20 3,211.20 20.00% PATRICK MOLLOY'S 717 2,145.00 432.00 30,924.00 717 6.00 4,302.00 51,624.00 20,700.00 66.94% AMERICAN JUNKIE 780 3,900.00 0.00 46,800.00 780 6.00 4,680.00 56,160.00 9,360.00 20.00% 3 THE LIGHTHOUSE 390 1,950.00 0.00 5,850.00 * 3 months 390 6.00 2,340.00 7,020.00 1,170.00 20.00% *3 months 9 TOWER 12 1095 1,642.50 19,710.00 1095 6.00 6,570.00 78,840.00 59,130.00 300.00% 6 LORETO PLAZA/TOWER 12 (rate increased 1/1/2023)- Separate contract 884 2,934.88 35,218.56 884 3.32 2,934.88 35,218.56 0.00 0.00% Separate contract GRAND TOTAL 221,344.56 TOTAL 41,932.48 380,879.76 159,535.20 72.08% ANNUAL
RATE
Plaza Non-Late with Alcohol DIFFERENCE % INCREASE
* 1 HENNESSEY'S TAVERN (CLOSED BEFORE MIDNIGHT @ $2/SQ. FT.) 1875 1,950.00 1,350.00 29,700.00 fenced *9 months 1875 3.00 5,625.00 50,625.00 20,925.00 70.45% *9 months * 3 THE LIGHTHOUSE (CLOSED BEFORE MIDNIGHT @ $2/SQ. FT.) 390 780.00 0.00 7,020.00 fenced *9 months 390 3.00 1,170.00 10,530.00 3,510.00 50.00% *9 months PLAYA HERMOSA FISH & OYSTER CO 971 652.00 967.50 19,434.00 fenced 971 3.00 2,913.00 34,956.00 15,522.00 79.87% 2 PALMILLA COCINA TEQUILA 579.6 379.20 585.00 11,570.40 fenced 579.60 3.00 1,738.80 20,865.60 9,295.20 80.34% BREW'S HALL (formerly Mediterraneo/Rebel Republic) 1376 780.00 1,479.00 27,108.00 fenced 1376 3.00 4,128.00 49,536.00 22,428.00 82.74% SILVIO'S BRAZILIAN BBQ 690 780.00 450.00 14,760.00 fenced 690 3.00 2,070.00 24,840.00 10,080.00 68.29% GREENSPOT (Formerly Greenbelt and Chop Shop) 452 520.00 288.00 9,696.00 452 3.00 1,356.00 16,272.00 6,576.00 67.82% GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 119,288.40 TOTAL 19,000.80 207,624.60 88,336.20 74.05% Plaza Snack Shops, Off Plaza, Retail, Sidewalk DIFFERENCE % INCREASE 5 CAFÉ BONAPARTE (FORMERLY DOWNTOWN BAKERY) SNACK SHOP 461 341.00 180.00 6,252.00 461 2.00 922.00 11,064.00 4,812.00 76.97% 5 OAKBERRY ACAI (Formerly ITA Italian Street Food {and Hooked Poke Market} Snack Shop) 143 143.00 0.00 1,716.00 143 2.00 286.00 3,432.00 1,716.00 100.00% 5 JUICED (FORMERLY THE FRESH SPOT) SNACK SHOP 130 130.00 1,560.00 130 2.00 260.00 3,120.00 1,560.00 100.00% * 4 BOTTLE INN 570.0 Varies 2,850.00 570.00 2.00 1,140.00 13,680.00 10,830.00 380.00% BARNACLES BAR & GRILL 200 200.00 2,400.00 200 2.00 400.00 4,800.00 2,400.00 100.00% GOOD STUFF 1380 480.00 1,350.00 21,960.00 1380 2.00 2,760.00 33,120.00 11,160.00 50.82% MARTHA'S 22 ND. ST. GRILL (OWNED BY BOTTLE INN) 914 913.50 10,962.00 913.5 2.00 1,827.00 21,924.00 10,962.00 100.00% MICKEY'S ITALIAN DELI 384 384.00 4,608.00 384 2.00 768.00 9,216.00 4,608.00 100.00% PAISANO PIZZA & PASTA 506 50.00 684.00 8,808.00 506 2.00 1,012.00 12,144.00 3,336.00 37.87% THE BEACH HOUSE (square footage adjusted 4/1/2019)- Separate contract 480.0 480.00 5,760.00 480.00 2.00 960.00 11,520.00 5,760.00 100.00% THE GREEN STORE 312 312.00 3,744.00 312 2.00 624.00 7,488.00 3,744.00 100.00%

CURRENT RESTAURANT ENCROACHMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION
SHOWN IN RECOMMENDED NEW CATEGORIES 4/25/2023

RENT/ MONTH ANNUAL
@ $5/sq. ft. RATE

OPEN AFTER MIDNIGHT

TEMPORARY

AMT PAID
@ $1.50/SQ.

FT.

ANNUAL
RATE
Jul - Sep
TOTAL

CLOSED BEFORE

MIDNIGHT
Jul - Sep

TEMPORARY AMT
PAID
@ $1.50/SQ. FT SQ.

FOOTAGE
RENT/

SF/MONTH

RENT/ MONTH ANNUAL
RATE
Oct - June
SQ.

FOOTAGE
RENT/ MONTH SQ.

FOOTAGE
RENT/

SF/MONTH
Oct - June
SQ.

FOOTAGE

AMT PAID
@ $1/SQ. FT.

SQ.

FOOTAGE

TEMPORARY AMT ANNUAL RATE
PAID
@ $1.50/SQ. FT
SQ.

FOOTAGE

AMT PAID
@ $2/SQ. FT.

RENT/
MONTH
ANNUAL
RATE
RENT/

SF/MONTH
4/12/2023 463
Plaza Snack Shops, Off Plaza, Retail, Sidewalk DIFFERENCE % INCREASE JAVA MAN 112 112.00 $ 1,344.00 112 2.00 224.00 2,688.00 1,344.00 100.00% CHEF MELBA'S BISTRO 96 144.00 $ 1,728.00 96 2.00 192.00 2,304.00 576.00 33.33% LA PLAYITA CAFÉ 480 720.00 $ 8,640.00 480 2.00 960.00 11,520.00 2,880.00 33.33% HERMOSA BREWING CO. 372 558.00 $ 6,696.00 372 2.00 744.00 8,928.00 2,232.00 33.33% 7 LOBSTER & BEER 792 1,188.00 $ 14,256.00 792 2.00 1,584.00 19,008.00 4,752.00 33.33% JAPONICA 441 661.50 $ 7,938.00 441 2.00 882.00 10,584.00 2,646.00 33.33% NORTH END BAR & GRILL 849 1,273.50 $ 15,282.00 849 2.00 1,698.00 20,376.00 5,094.00 33.33% PEDONE'S PIZZA 372 558.00 $ 6,696.00 372 2.00 744.00 8,928.00 2,232.00 33.33% ZANES 588 882.00 $ 10,584.00 588 2.00 1,176.00 14,112.00 3,528.00 33.33% CREME DE LA CREPE 224 336.00 $ 4,032.00 224 2.00 448.00 5,376.00 1,344.00 33.33% EL TARASCO 280 420.00 $ 5,040.00 280 2.00 560.00 6,720.00 1,680.00 33.33% HOOK & PLOW 660 990.00 $ 11,880.00 660 2.00 1,320.00 15,840.00 3,960.00 33.33% ROCKEFELLER 301 451.50 $ 5,418.00 301 2.00 602.00 7,224.00 1,806.00 33.33% SOSTA CUCINA 72 108.00 $ 1,296.00 72 2.00 144.00 1,728.00 432.00 33.33% UNCORKED 264 396.00 $ 4,752.00 264 2.00 528.00 6,336.00 1,584.00 33.33% BROTHERS BURRITOS 450 675.00 $ 8,100.00 450 2.00 900.00 10,800.00 2,700.00 33.33% TACOS EL GOLOSO 91 136.50 $ 1,638.00 91 2.00 182.00 2,184.00 546.00 33.33% TWO GUNS ESPRESSO 55 82.50 $ 990.00 55 2.00 110.00 1,320.00 330.00 33.33% THE SOURCE CAFÉ 620 930.00 $ 11,160.00 620 2.00 1,240.00 14,880.00 3,720.00 33.33% HEAVENLY COUTURE 150 225.00 $ 2,700.00 150 2.00 300.00 3,600.00 900.00 33.33% PIER SURF 180 270.00 $ 3,240.00 180 2.00 360.00 4,320.00 1,080.00 33.33% SPYDER II INC. 200 300.00 $ 3,600.00 200 2.00 400.00 4,800.00 1,200.00 33.33% TREASURE CHEST 156 234.00 $ 2,808.00 156 2.00 312.00 3,744.00 936.00 33.33% WAVES 247 370.50 $ 4,446.00 247 2.00 494.00 5,928.00 1,482.00 33.33% GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 214,884.00 TOTAL 27,538.00 324,756.00 109,872.00 51.13% GRAND TOTAL 555,516.96 GRAND TOTAL 88,471.28 913,260.36 357,743.40 64.40% Removed decks
AGAVE AZUL 480 720.00 8,640.00
DECADENCE 372 558.00 6,696.00
ROK SUSHI 420 630.00 7,560.00
GRAND TOTAL 22,896.00
Out of Businness
THE SPOT (out of business) 100 150.00 1,800.00
GRAND TOTAL 1,800.00
RENT/

SF/MONTH
RENT/
MONTH
ANNUAL
RATE
SQ.

FOOTAGE

AMT PAID
@ $1/SQ. FT.

ANNUAL RATE
SQ.

FOOTAGE
SQ.

FOOTAGE

AMT PAID
@ $1.50/SQ. FT.

ANNUAL RATE
TOTAL
TOTAL
SQ.

FOOTAGE

AMT PAID
@ $1.50/SQ. FT.

TEMPORARY AMT
PAID
@ $1.50/SQ. FT

ANNUAL RATE
4/12/2023 464
Retail Off Plaza (to be eliminated)
MOBI SCOOTERS (to be removed) 96 144.00 1,728.00
BEACH BOUND (to be removed) 36 54.00 648.00
FUNDAMENTAL COAST (to be removed) 15 22.50 270.00
GRAND TOTAL 2,646.00
TOTAL DISCONTINUED ENCROACHMENTS 27,342.00
Notes:
1 Open after Midnight July - September only
2 Two different fees - Additional Patio not open after Midnight MARKET RATE FEE 3 Open after Midnight July - September only ON PIER PLAZA LOCATIONS $5.67 4 Encroachment rate varies: Jan-Mar $0 (patio closed), Apr-Jun $855 (half of patio), Jul-Sep $1,710 (full patio), Oct-Dec $285 (half of patio-one month) ON NON-PIER PLAZA LOCATIONS $4.83 5 Snack Shop Rate (CC:6/12/07) ON EAST OF HERMOSA AVENUE $4.00 6 Monthly fee based on 884 Sq Ft*$3.32/Sq Ft (Tower 12 rent/sf $6.64 x 50%). The rent will increase as the rent of the underlying lease between Pierside and Tower 12 increases. 7 Owner would like to start on 02/15/2023
8 Split Rate - 3 days @ $5 and 4 days @ $2
9 Temporary Area currently charged $1.50
* Various hours of operation, not year round
PLAZA SNACK SHOPS, OFF PLAZA, RETAIL, SIDEWALK $2.00
ON PIER PLAZA LOCATIONS - LATE NIGHT $6.00
ON PIER PLAZA LOCATIONS - NON-LATE $3.00

NEW PROPOSED RATES
TOTAL
SQ.

FOOTAGE

AMT PAID
@ $1.50/SQ. FT.

ANNUAL RATE
4/12/2023 465
1 t +1 213 267 2332 | f +1 213 318 0744
[email protected] | www.gentecsol.com
11900 W Olympic Blvd., Ste 450 | Los Angeles, CA 90064
GTS | General Technologies and Solutions

MEMORANDUM
Date: April 13, 2023 GTS: 190507.8
To: City of Hermosa Beach
From: GTS
Subject: Benefits of lane reconfiguration for outdoor dining on Hermosa and Pier Avenues This memo discusses the benefits of the lane reconfiguration that was implemented in 2020 on Hermosa and Pier Avenues in the City of Hermosa Beach. The reconfiguration removed one lane of traffic in each direction and added bicycle lanes. The study area is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Study area map
466
2 Background
Lanes were reconfigured in 2020 on Pier Avenue from Palm Drive to Bard Street (0.25 mile) and on Hermosa Avenue from 8th Street to 14th Street (0.3 mile). Both road segments are commercial areas with a high density of restaurants and bars.

Prior to the reconfiguration, each of the road segments had two travel lanes in each direction (not including turn lanes). The travel lanes on Hermosa Avenue were 12 feet wide, and the travel lanes on Pier Avenue varied between 10 and 12 feet. As an example, a portion of the reconfiguration is shown in Figure 2 below. Concurrently, restaurants were permitted to convert adjacent on-street parking spaces for outdoor dining, constructing dining decks, as can be seen in the figure below. In the reconfigured street cross-section, there is one vehicular travel lane in each direction, about 11 feet wide, and a 5-foot-wide bicycle lane in each direction. The additional space allows for a buffer zone, separating the bicycle lanes from the on-street parking and the dining decks.

Figure 2. Aerial view of Hermosa Avenue between 13th Street and 14th Street in January 2020 (left) and August 2021 (right)
467
3 In addition, the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Greenwich Village (at the North End Bar and Grill) was reconfigured, converting the slip right-turn lane to outdoor dining space. Because of the tight radius, vehicles cannot turn right from Greenwich Village onto Hermosa Avenue. A traffic study in 2020 determined that the closure of this right-turn option would be feasible.

The previous and existing cross-sections of Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue are shown in the figures below.

Figure 3. Hermosa Avenue - previous cross-section (looking north) Figure 4. Hermosa Avenue - existing cross-section (looking north) Figure 5. Pier Avenue - previous cross-section (looking east) Figure 6. Pier Avenue - existing cross-section (looking east) 468
4 Discussion

1. Benefits of Lane Reconfiguration
Reductions in road capacity, often referred to as “road diets,” can be beneficial for some high-density commercial areas where the reduction in speed and increased accommodation of non-automobile modes lead to a safer and more pleasant environment. This is especially true for commercial areas that are a focus for street life, where the street functions more as a community gathering place and less as a corridor for moving traffic through. Several recent success stories exist, such as in New York City, where an economic study of 7 road diet corridors found consistent increases in business revenues.

From a traffic engineering perspective, the lane reconfiguration confers the following benefits:

1. Speeds are lower, assumed to be a result of the following factors:
a. Without a passing lane, speeds are limited to the speed of the lead vehicle in the through lane.
b. The presence of bicycle lanes has been shown to have a traffic-calming effect, slowing driving speeds.
c. The presence of vertical features that narrow the perceived width of the roadway (such as dining decks) has been shown to reduce driving speeds.

Lower speeds reduce the frequency of collisions because road users have more time to react to each other and prevent a collision. At lower speeds, any collisions that do occur will also be less severe. As an example, this was already demonstrated by the earlier Complete Streets redesign of Pier Avenue in Hermosa Beach, which led to a crash reduction factor of 0.6, according to the City’s General Plan.

2. The traffic noise level experienced by diners on the outdoor dining decks (as well as for pedestrians on the sidewalk) is lower. The reconfiguration with bicycle lanes brings about a minimum separation of approximately 12 feet between outdoor diners and automobiles in the through lanes. By comparison, if the outdoor dining decks remained and the previous 4- lane configuration were restored, there could be a separation of as little as 3 feet between diners and moving vehicles. The noise level experienced by diners is further reduced by the assumed reduction in speed, since vehicles traveling faster make more noise.

3. The separation between dining decks and through traffic, mentioned above, is beneficial for safety. With through traffic separated from dining decks by a 12-foot buffer, it is less likely that a motor vehicle will collide with a dining deck. Several other jurisdictions require a buffer, such as a bike lane or space of comparable width, between automobile through lanes and parklets.

4. The lane reconfiguration reduces the effective pedestrian crossing distance and improves the comfort and safety of pedestrians crossing at crosswalks, because on each side of the roadway there is one less lane of traffic for pedestrians to cross.

5. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic have increased in the study area, which can be assumed to benefit local businesses. Pedestrian traffic increased by 52% on Pier Ave. and by 23% on Hermosa Ave. between August 2021 and July 2022. Bicycle traffic increased by 44% on Pier Ave. and by 27% on Hermosa Ave. in the same timeframe.

6. Based on traffic volumes, four lanes are more capacity than is needed. Per 2015 volume and capacity measurements in the Plan Hermosa Environmental Impact Report (p. 4.14- 16), the section of Hermosa Avenue in the study area had a capacity of 22,000 daily vehicles and a volume of 11,128 average daily traffic (ADT), with a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of

0.384 (indicating that excess capacity is present) and level of service A (which indicates free-flowing traffic). Pier Avenue had a capacity of 29,000 daily vehicles and a volume of 13,352, with a V/C ratio of 0.46 and level of service A. More recent traffic volume measurements (July 2022) showed similar volumes (11,749 for Hermosa Ave. at 11th St. and 11,059 for Pier Ave. between Hermosa Ave. and Monterey Blvd.). Free-flowing traffic 469
5 at 30 MPH is not necessarily desirable for a business corridor with many pedestrian-oriented destinations; as noted above, lower speeds result in a safer and quieter environment.

7. The removal of the slip lane at the North End Bar & Grill, besides benefiting a local business, has had the benefit of increasing this intersection’s role as a pedestrian-friendly community node (there are also a coffee shop and a restaurant in the immediate area).

2. Shoulder and Buffer Requirements
According to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), 7th edition (2022), Topic 302, which references Caltrans Design Information Bulletin No. 79-04, an 8-foot shoulder is required for twolane roads with ADT between 6,001 and 18,000. This requirement is satisfied by the 5-foot bike lane plus 3 feet of buffer space on Hermosa Ave. and Pier Ave. With 4 lanes of traffic, there would not be adequate space to satisfy the shoulder requirement with dining decks present.

The HDM allows barriers to encroach into the clear recovery zone. Per Section 309.1(1): “Certain yielding types of fixed objects, such as sand filled barrels, guardrail, breakaway wood posts, etc. may encroach within the clear recovery zone. While these objects are designed to reduce the severity of accidents, efforts should be made to maximize the distance between any object and the edge of traveled way.”
Also per the HDM, Topic 1003 – Bikeway Design Criteria, “A minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance from the paved edge of a bike path to obstructions shall be provided.” The above points are important to note from a liability perspective in case a collision occurs. The current design provides the minimum required 2-foot buffer for the bike lanes and the 8-foot shoulder (which includes the bike lane) for the dining decks.

3. Alternative Parking Schemes
Angled parking currently exists on the north side of Pier Avenue. This side of Pier Avenue is 40 feet wide from the curb to the median. There is a 5-foot buffer space for vehicles backing out of the angled spaces. By contrast, each side of Hermosa Avenue is 32 feet from the curb to the median, and angled parking on Hermosa Avenue would leave no buffer space between vehicles backing out and vehicles in the through lanes. This is shown in Figure 7. 470
6 Figure 7. Comparison of buffer space available with angled parking on Pier Ave. (existing) and on Hermosa Ave. (hypothetical).

The following alternative on-street parking concepts were developed for Hermosa Avenue between 10th and 14th Streets:
• Concept 1: 30° reverse angled parking (45 spaces). This concept included reduction from 4 to 2 through lanes and added bicycle lanes on the outside of the parking lanes (adjacent to the through lanes).
• Concept 2: 30° head-in angled parking (42 spaces). This concept also reduced the roadway from 4 to 2 through lanes and included bicycle lanes mostly on the inside of the parking lanes (adjacent to the sidewalk), except for one block where the northbound bicycle lane would have been adjacent to the vehicular lane.
• Concept 3: 45° reverse angled parking (70 spaces). This concept also reduced the roadway from 4 to 2 through lanes, but the 45° angled parking does not leave adequate buffer space for vehicles backing out from a safety perspective. It would also require removal of the bike lanes.

The current design includes 57 parallel parking spaces in the same section.

Summary
The following points summarize the key findings of this memo.

1. With 4 lanes, both Hermosa Ave. and Pier Ave. had more capacity than needed, while with 2 lanes the capacity is adequate.

2. Due to the HDM shoulder requirement, 4 lanes of traffic are not compatible with dining decks on either Hermosa Ave. or Pier Ave.

3. Angled parking on Hermosa Ave. would result in no buffer space for safe backing (as compared to the existing angled parking on Pier Ave.).

4. The bicycle lanes strengthen the citywide bicycle network and connect to future bike facilities that are in Plan Hermosa.
471
7 References
Cai, Q., Abdel-Aty, M., Zheng, O., & Wu, Y. (2022). Applying machine learning and google street view to explore effects of drivers’ visual environment on traffic safety. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 135, 103541.

Caltrans. Design Information Bulletin No. 79-04 (2019). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/designinformation-bulletins-dibs/dib-79-04 Caltrans. Highway Design Manual, 7th edition (2022). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manualhighway-design-manual-hdm FHWA. High-Volume Road Diet Success in Los Angeles.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/step_case_studies_LADOT_roaddiet.pdf Hermosa Beach, City of (2017). Plan Hermosa: Integrated General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan.

Hermosa Beach, City of (Jan. 13, 2023). Post‐Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project. Prepared by Fehr & Peers.

Jouliot, Dylan. Gaining Wait? Analyzing the Congestion Impacts of Road Diets in Los Angeles. https://www.ucits.org/research-project/2018-57/
Nanayakkara, P. K., Langenheim, N., Moser, I., & White, M. (2022). Do safe bike lanes really slow down cars? A simulation-based approach to investigate the effect of retrofitting safe cycling lanes on vehicular traffic. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(7), 3818.

New York City Department of Transportation. The Economic Benefits of Sustainable Streets. https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf Santa Monica Next. Recent Spate of Fatal Crashes in Santa Monica a Sobering Reminder of Gaps in Street Safety (April 7, 2017). https://www.santamonicanext.org/2017/04/recent-spate-offatal-crashes-in-santa-monica-a-sobering-reminder-of-gaps-in-street-safety/ Sweet, M. N. (2014). Do firms flee traffic congestion?. Journal of Transport Geography, 35, 40-49. 472
Post‐PilotVehicle, Pedestrian&
BicycleVolume&Speed
MonitoringProject
Prepared for: City of Hermosa Beach
January 13, 2023
473
Table of Contents
Key Takeaways ............................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5 Big Data Evaluation – Downtown Hermosa Beach .................................................................... 6 StreetLight Big Data Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Downtown Activity .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 27th Street Diversion ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Downtown Route Travel Time ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Downtown Travel Runs ....................................................................................................................................................10 Empirical Data Evaluation – Downtown Hermosa Beach ........................................................ 12 Helmet Wearing and E-Bike Data................................................................................................................................17 Empirical Data Evaluation – North School Area ....................................................................... 21

474
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Downtown Trip Distribution Primary/Secondary Routes Summer 2019 to Summer 2021 ............... 8 Figure 2 – Midday Peak Hour Segment Volumes ................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 3 – Percent Change in Midday Peak Hour Segment Volumes .......................................................................... 16 Figure 4 – Downtown Daily Segment 85th Percentile Speeds (mph) ............................................................................ 17 Figure 5 – Change in Pedestrian/Walking Activity in Downtown .................................................................................. 18 Figure 6 – Change in Bicyclist Activity in Downtown .......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 7 – Helmet vs. No Helmet Bicyclist Counts in Downtown ................................................................................... 19 Figure 8 – E-bike vs. Non E-bike Bicyclist Counts in Downtown .................................................................................... 19 Figure 9 – Helmet vs. No Helmet E-bike Bicyclist Counts in Downtown ..................................................................... 20 List of Tables
Table 1 – Downtown activity from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021 ................................................................................ 7 Table 2 – Downtown trip distribution along primary and secondary routes from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3 – 27th Street activity from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021 ................................................................................ 9 Table 4 – Downtown Bidirectional Route Travel Time from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021 ............................ 10 Table 5 – Travel Time Runs During Weekday PM Peak Period ....................................................................................... 11 Table 6 – Observed Daily Traffic Volumes in Downtown in August, 2021 and July, 2022 ................................... 14 Table 7 – Observed Midday Peak Hour (1:45 pm – 2:45 pm) Traffic Volumes in Downtown in August, 2015 and July, 2022 ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 8 – Observed Daily Traffic Volumes October, 2021 and October, 2022 ......................................................... 22 Table 9 – 85th Percentile Speeds October, 2021 and October, 2022 ........................................................................... 24 Table 10 – Observed AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes in the North School Area in November/December, 2015 and October, 2022 ........................................................................................................................................ 26 475
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
4 KeyTakeaways
• Big Data – A Smartphone-based travel data source (called StreetLight Data) was used to evaluate the potential for traffic diversion along primary and secondary routes used to travel to and from Downtown as a result of the lane reductions on Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue. Weekend day StreetLight Data was gathered for the months of July and August 2019, 2020, and 2021, expanding the sample size to assess summer travel patterns. Overall activity in Downtown decreased by approximately 20% from summer 2019 to summer 2021. However, from summer 2020 to summer 2021 activity increased by 34%, indicating that activity trends and restaurant visitations in Downtown were returning to pre-COVID conditions. StreetLight Data was also used to evaluate trip distribution along primary and secondary routes for trips traveling to or from Downtown. Distribution on both lane reduction segments (Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue) remained the same or increased from summer 2019 to summer 2021, while secondary routes (potential diversion) experienced a decrease in distribution. 27th Street experienced a 1% decrease in distribution, making it highly unlikely that the lane reductions diverted traffic onto 27th Street. • Additionally, weekend day activity was analyzed for each of the summer periods along 27th Street.

Overall, 27th Street activity decreased by approximately 15% from summer 2019 to summer 2021.

Of the total trips using 27th Street, roughly 21% started or ended in Downtown in summer 2019, and 17% in summer 2021. In conclusion, the assessment of overall activity in Downtown, along primary and secondary routes used to travel to Downtown, and along 27th Street during each summer period likely indicates that travel patterns and volumes are returning to pre-COVID conditions, and the lane reductions are not contributing significant traffic diversions onto secondary routes and 27th Street.
• Empirical Data – When comparing the AM peak hour October 2022 counts with the 2015 counts from the Traffic Impact Analysis conducted for the North Elementary School, vehicular volumes decreased overall by 20%. Some locations experienced increases in volumes while others experienced more significant decreases in the volumes. These fluctuations are expected as the count periods are static in time and only reflect a single day of counts. • The data collected in August 2021 and July 2022 indicated that the lane reduction pilot may have contributed to a 33% increase in walking and a 26% increase in biking, which was not observed for the City overall; and therefore may not be driven primarily by COVID related reopenings. • The data collected in August 2021 and July 2022 also indicated that the pilot may have contributed to 5% slower speeds observed on the roadways, which has a safety benefit for people who walk and/or bike.
476
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
5 Introduction
The purpose of this study is to provide vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle count and speed data in the City of Hermosa Beach, primarily to compare pre and post mobility pilot implementation in Downtown Hermosa Beach. Multiple data sources and methodologies were used to assess changes in data, particularly because the COVID 19 pandemic occurred over the course of this data monitoring and pilot project implementation. This report is divided into four sections, including this introduction. The second section is focused on data comparisons for Downtown Hermosa Beach using location based origin destination data, referred to as Big Data analysis. The third section focuses on in-field empirically collected data for Downtown, and the fourth section focuses on empirically collected data for the North School area. 477
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
6 BigDataEvaluation–Downtown
HermosaBeach
StreetLight Big Data Methodology
StreetLight Data applies proprietary machine-learning algorithms to measure travel patterns and makes them available on-demand via StreetLight InSight®, the world’s first SaaS platform for mobility.

StreetLight provides powerful analyses for a wide variety of transportation studies including volume, counts, Origin-Destination (O-D) and more. StreetLight algorithmically transforms trillions of location data points into contextualized, aggregated, and normalized travel pattern data to deliver unique insights into how vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, and bus and rail passengers move on virtually every road and Census Block. StreetLight Data collects all its transportation data as Location Based Services (LBS) data which are services based on the location of a mobile device. They obtain “low fidelity” cell phone data scrubbed of all Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and pair it with data with “high fidelity” data from GPS devices.

StreetLight Data was used to evaluate vehicular traffic volumes, distribution, and overall activity before and after the pilot in Downtown. Three date periods for weekend days (Saturday & Sunday) were defined for each of the StreetLight analyses:

1. Summer 2019: Pre-Pilot (July-August 2019)

2. Summer 2020: Post-Pilot (July-August 2020)

3. Summer 2021: Post -Pilot (July-August 2021)
Downtown Activity
A zone activity analysis using StreetLight Data was conducted to assess the potential change in Downtown visitation and overall activity from summer 2019 to summer 2021. Table 1 shows for the All Day (12am -12am) day part from summer 2019 to summer 2021, overall activity in Downtown decreased by approximately 20% for the all-day period. However, from summer 2020 to summer 2021, overall activity increased by approximately 34%. While the overall change in volume from summer 2019 conditions to summer 2021 decreased, the increase from summer 2020 to summer 2021 indicates that Downtown activity and visitation is likely returning to pre-COVID conditions. 478
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
7 Table 1 – Downtown activity from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021 Day Part
Summer 2019 Summer 2020 Summer 2021

ADT ADT ADT
All Day (12am - 12am) 26,413 15,865 (-40%) 21,233 (-20%) Peak AM (6am - 10am) 2,761 1,725 (-38%) 2,272 (-18%)
Mid-Day (10am-3pm) 7,831 5,648 (-28%) 7,048 (-10%)
Peak PM (3pm-7pm) 7,263 4,764 (-34%) 6,001 (-17%)
Source: Fehr & Peers / StreetLight, Inc.

Trip Distribution
An Origin-Destination analysis using StreetLight Data was conducted to assess trip distribution along potential primary and secondary routes for trips starting or ending in Downtown during the three summer date periods. Origin-Destination zones were placed at the following locations within Downtown:

1. 27th Street w/o Morningside Drive

2. 8th Street w/o Valley Drive

3. Hermosa Avenue n/o 16th Street

4. Hermosa Avenue n/o 8th Street

5. Manhattan Avenue n/o Pier Avenue

6. Manhattan Avenue s/o Pier Avenue

7. Monterey Boulevard n/o Pier Avenue

8. Monterey Boulevard s/o Pier Avenue

9. Pier Avenue w/o Valley Boulevard
Table 2 shows from summer 2019 to summer 2021, the average daily (All Day 12am – 12am) distribution of trips along primary and secondary routes used to travel to and from Downtown remained consistent.

More than 95% of trips traveling to or from Downtown in the summer periods used at least one of these routes. The Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue segments, where the lane reductions were implemented, accounted for approximately 74% of trips in summer 2019, increasing to roughly 79% in summer 2020 and summer 2021. Other secondary routes used as potential diversion routes such as Monterey Boulevard and Manhattan Avenue did not see an increase in trips from pre- to post-pilot conditions. Additionally, 27th Street experienced a decrease in trips from pre- to post-pilot. Figure A-1 in the appendix shows the locations in at which StreetLight volumes were collected. 479
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
8 Table 2 – Downtown trip distribution along primary and secondary routes from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021
Zone ID Zone Name
Trip Distribution
Summer 2019 Summer 2020 Summer 2021
% % %
1 27th Street (w/o Morningside) 7.0% 5.9% 6.2%
2 8th Street (w/o Valley) 7.4% 7.2% 6.0%
3 Hermosa Avenue (n/o 16th) 17.2% 16.9% 17.1%
4 Hermosa Avenue (n/o 8th) 21.7% 22.7% 22.6%
5 Manhattan Ave (n/o Pier) 2.9% 1.6% 2.0%
6 Manhattan Ave (s/o Pier) 2.5% 2.0% 2.1%
7 Monterey Boulevard (n/o Pier) 2.2% 2.0% 1.6%
8 Monterey Boulevard (s/o Pier) 3.0% 2.3% 2.5%
9 Pier Avenue (w/o Valley) 36.0% 39.5% 39.8%
Source: Fehr & Peers / StreetLight, Inc.

Figure 1 – Downtown Trip Distribution Primary/Secondary Routes Summer 2019 to Summer 2021
Source: Fehr & Peers / StreetLight, Inc.
480
9 Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
27th Street Diversion
A zone activity analysis using StreetLight Data was conducted to assess overall activity along 27th Street from summer 2019 to summer 2021. Table 3 shows for the All Day (12am -12am) day part from summer 2019 to summer 2021, 27th Street experienced a decrease in overall activity from pre-COVID / pre-pilot conditions. Additionally, roughly 21% of trips traveling along 27th Street started or ended in Downtown in summer 2019, decreasing to 17% in summer 2021.

Table 3 – 27th Street activity from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021 Day Part
Summer 2019 Summer 2020 Summer 2021

ADT ADT ADT
All Day (12am - 12am) 10061 7935 (-21%) 8545 (-15%)
Peak AM (6am - 10am) 1147 794 (-31%) 890 (22%)
Mid-Day (10am-3pm) 3421 2915 (-15%) 3014 (-12%)
Peak PM (3pm-7pm) 2959 2586 (-13%) 2458 (-17%)
Source: Fehr & Peers / StreetLight, Inc.

Downtown Route Travel Time
An assessment of travel time along primary and secondary routes used to travel to and from Downtown using StreetLight Data was conducted to highlight potential congestion along cut through routes as a result of the lane reductions. Table 4 highlights average bidirectional travel time for each route starting or ending at the Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue intersection for each summer period. All but one route experienced decreases in average travel time from summer 2019 to summer 2021. The Pier Avenue to Manhattan Avenue to 27th Street route experienced a 36% increase in travel time. The Manhattan Avenue segment between Pier Avenue and Monterey Boulevard nearly doubled in travel time while all other segments remained consistent with pre-pilot conditions. This could potentially be due to traffic opting to use Manhattan Avenue as a cut through route instead of Hermosa Avenue to travel to and from Downtown. Figure A-2 in the appendix shows the extent of each route. 481
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
10 Table 4 – Downtown Bidirectional Route Travel Time from Summer 2019 to Summer 2021 Route Name
Summer 2019 Summer 2020 Summer 2021
Travel Time
(min)
Travel Time
(min)
Travel Time
(min)
1 Pier Avenue 4.7 3.7 4.1
2 Hermosa Avenue to Herondo Street 4.1 4.0 3.7
3 Hermosa Avenue to 27th Street 6.5 5.7 5.2
4 Hermosa Avenue to 8th Street 4.7 4.1 4.4
5 Pier Avenue to Manhattan Avenue to
8th Street 10.5 7.6 7.4
6 Pier Avenue to Monterey Boulevard
to 8th Street 6.0 4.9 5.1
7 Pier Avenue to Manhattan Avenue to
27th Street 9.1 12.2 12.4
8 Pier Avenue to Monterey Boulevard
to Manhattan Avenue to 27th Street 9.1 7.8 6.9
Source: Fehr & Peers / StreetLight, Inc.

Downtown Travel Runs
Empirically collected time runs were collected on one primary route and one secondary route during PM Peak Period (4-6 PM) on a Thursday in December 2022 through Downtown. The intent of this assessment was to assess the potential for using alternative or cut-through routes in and out, and through Downtown from a perspective of travel time, and to compare to StreetLight Data’s travel time estimates. StreetLight Data travel times were during PM Peak Period (4-6 PM) for an average weekday (Tuesday-Thursday) in December 2021. Figure A-3 in the appendix highlights the one primary and one secondary route that were analyzed, both starting at the Hermosa Avenue and Herondo Street intersection:
 Route 1: Hermosa Avenue to Pier Avenue to Ardmore Avenue to Gould Avenue  Route 2: Hermosa Avenue to 27th Street/Gould Avenue to Ardmore Avenue A total of two travel time runs were conducted and averaged in each direction for each route. Both routes are approximately 1.8 miles in length. On average, route 1 was roughly 30 seconds faster in each direction (Table 5). One reason for this is PM Peak Period congestion traveling eastbound and westbound at the Gould Avenue and Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue intersection.

When comparing the bidirectional travel time runs with the StreetLight Data travel time estimates, StreetLight Data’s travel times were approximately 5.6% faster than the travel time runs for Route 2. While the difference between the two data points is small, it is important to note that the travel time run represents a single period in time for one day, whereas StreetLight Data estimates travel time based on an average of multiple weekdays and Peak PM periods for an entire month. StreetLight Data captures a much greater sample size and range of travel times which is more indicative of both historical and existing travel times. Route 1 was not compared in this analysis since a portion of the route was not included in the StreetLight travel time segments.
482
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
11 Table 5 – Travel Time Runs During Weekday PM Peak Period Route Travel Time
Runs (min.)
StreetLight Data
(min.)
Route 1 6.7 NA
Route 2 7.3 6.9
483
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
12 EmpiricalDataEvaluation–
DowntownHermosaBeach
In addition to the big data summary using StreetLight Data, observed changes in traffic volumes and bicycle/pedestrian activity along several Downtown streets in Hermosa Beach after the installation of the pilot project using 24-hour counts were summarized. The pilot project involved a one lane reduction in both directions of travel along Hermosa Avenue (from 8th Street to 14th Street) and Pier Avenue (from Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive) in Downtown. The counts were taken in July 2022 which were collected on a Saturday per the City’s request to capture summer visitation and activity to Downtown. The July 2022 counts were compared to the August 2021 counts for the same locations to assess the adjusted effects of the lane reductions along Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue. Additionally, the July 2022 counts were compared to the August 2015 counts from the 2017 Pier & Strand Hotel Traffic Study to evaluate changes from pre-COVID-19 volumes. For this comparison, three additional locations were added to the July 2022 counts along Manhattan Avenue and Monterey Boulevard to assess potential traffic diversion as a result of the lane reductions.

Table 6 below provides a summary of the overall change in daily traffic volumes between August 2021 and July 2022 in Downtown at six selected street segments:

1. 8th Street between Hermosa Avenue and Monterey Boulevard (start of lane reduction)

2. Hermosa Avenue at 11th Street (lane reduction section)

3. Hermosa Avenue at 13th Street (lane reduction section)

4. Pier Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Monterey Boulevard (lane reduction section)

5. Monterey Boulevard between 11th and Pier Avenue (adjacent to lane reduction section)

6. Pier Avenue west of Valley Drive (major gateway for the City) Overall, the six Downtown locations saw an average increase of 32% in daily vehicular volumes from August, 2021 to July, 2022, as traffic continued to return to pre-COVD-19 conditions and restaurant visitations.

However, Table 7 below provides a summary of the overall change in daily traffic volumes between July 2022 midday peak hour counts and August 2015 midday peak hour counts in Downtown at the six selected street segments analyzed across pre- and post-pilot conditions (1-6) and three additional segments to evaluate potential traffic diversion (7-9):

1. 8th Street between Hermosa Avenue and Monterey Boulevard (start of lane reduction)

2. Hermosa Avenue at 11th Street (lane reduction section)

3. Hermosa Avenue at 13th Street (lane reduction section)

4. Pier Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Monterey Boulevard (lane reduction section)

5. Monterey Boulevard between 11th and Pier Avenue (adjacent to lane reduction section)

6. Pier Avenue west of Valley Drive (major gateway for the City) 484
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
13 7. Manhattan Avenue between Pier Avenue and 14th Street (traffic diversion section)

8. Manhattan Avenue between Pier Avenue and 10th Street (traffic diversion section)

9. Monterey Boulevard between Pier Avenue and 16th Street (traffic diversion section) Overall, the nine Downtown locations saw an average increase of 6% in daily vehicular volumes from August, 2015 to July, 2022. This slight increase in volumes is indicative of travel patterns, restaurant visitation, and overall Downtown activity returning to pre-COVID conditions. Both Manhattan Avenue and Monterey Boulevard segments experienced minor increases in total volume (though percentage change was largely due to these roads carrying low traffic volumes during the midday hour) while the lane reduction sections (Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue) experienced minimal change. While the alternative Downtown routes experienced increases in volumes, the total peak hour volume changes were negligible in aggregate. When comparing the results of the StreetLight trip distribution summary in Table 2 with the midday weekend peak hour volumes in Table 5, it’s important to note that StreetLight accounts for a broader range of all day weekend travel patterns averaged over a substantial period of time with many samples, making it a more accurate representation of traffic flows and potential traffic diversion. The midday traffic counts were snapshots in time and represent just 2 samples on the corridors as opposed to many samples in the StreetLight data.

When looking closer at the vehicular volumes in Tables 6-7 for Hermosa Avenue July, 2022, the total segment volumes after the pilot installation were 6% higher than the volumes observed in 2015 (preCOVID, and without lane reductions) as part of the 2017 Pier & Strand Hotel Traffic Study. 485
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
14 Table 6 – Observed Daily Traffic Volumes in Downtown in August, 2021 and July, 2022 Downtown 2021 Post-Pilot August Traffic
Volumes (Saturday) 2022 Post-Pilot July Traffic Volumes (Saturday) No. Street Segment
August
2021
NB/EB
August
2021
SB/WB
August 2021
Total Segment
Volumes
July
2022
NB/EB
July
2022
SB/WB
July 2022 Total
Segment
Volumes
% Change in Total
Volumes
1 8th St between Hermosa Ave & Monterey Blvd 1,285 1,424 2,709 1,806 1,960 3,766 39% 2 Hermosa Ave at 11th St 4,034 3,839 7,873 6,074 5,675 11,749 49% 3 Hermosa Ave at 13th St 4,549 3,479 8,028 6,160 4,837 10,997 37% 4 Pier Ave between Hermosa Ave & Monterey Blvd 3,786 4,507 8,293 5,083 5,976 11,059 33% 5 Monterey Blvd between 11 St & Pier Ave 1,620 1,080 2,700 2,128 1,371 3,499 30% 6 Pier Ave west of Valley Dr 5,774 6,672 12,446 6,955 7,314 14,269 15% NB = Northbound, EB = Eastbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound Total Average % Change +32% 486
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
15 Table 7 – Observed Midday Peak Hour (1:45 pm – 2:45 pm) Traffic Volumes in Downtown in August, 2015 and July, 2022 Downtown 2015 August Traffic Volumes
(Saturday) 2022 Post-Pilot July Traffic Volumes (Saturday) No. Street Segment
August
2015
NB/EB
August
2015
SB/WB
August 2015
Total Segment
Volumes
July
2022
NB/EB
July
2022
SB/WB
July 2022 Total
Segment
Volumes
% Change in Total
Volumes
1 8th St between Hermosa Ave & Monterey Blvd 92 100 192 121 151 272 42% 2 Hermosa Ave north of 11th St 418 438 856 409 400 809 -5%3 Hermosa Ave north of 13th St 432 363 795 523 370 893 12% 4 Pier Ave between Hermosa Ave & Monterey Blvd 353 399 752 390 412 802 7% 5 Monterey Blvd between 11 St & Pier Ave 138 86 224 181 118 299 33% 6 Pier Ave west of Valley Dr 531 551 1,082 475 494 969 -10%7 Manhattan Ave between Pier Ave & 14th St 101 129 230 127 155 282 23% 8 Manhattan Ave between Pier Ave & 10th St 69 101 170 125 96 221 30% 9 Monterey Blvd between Pier Ave & 16th St 139 115 254 145 119 264 4% NB = Northbound, EB = Eastbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound Total Average % Change +6% 487
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
16 Figure 2 – Midday Peak Hour Segment Volumes
Figure 3 – Percent Change in Midday Peak Hour Segment Volumes 192
856
795 752
224
1,082
230 170
272 254
809
893
802
299
969
282 221 264
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
8th Street
bt Hermosa
&
Monterey
Hermosa
Avenue n/o
11th
Hermosa
Avenue n/o
13th
Pier Avenue
bt Hermosa
&
Monterey
Monterey
Boulevard
bt 11th &
Pier
Pier Avenue
w/o Valley
Manhattan
Avenue bt
Pier & 14th
Manhattan
Avenue bt
Pier & 10th
Monterey
Boulevard
bt Pier &
16th
Midday Peak Hour Segment Volumes from
August (Saturday) 2015 vs. July (Saturday) 2022
August (Saturday) 2015 July (Saturday) 2022
42%
-5%
12%
7%
33%
-10%
23%
30%
4%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
8th Street
bt Hermosa
& Monterey
Hermosa
Avenue n/o
11th
Hermosa
Avenue n/o
13th
Pier Avenue
bt Hermosa
& Monterey
Monterey
Boulevard
bt 11th &
Pier
Pier Avenue
w/o Valley
Manhattan
Avenue bt
Pier & 14th
Manhattan
Avenue bt
Pier & 10th
Monterey
Boulevard
bt Pier &
16th
Percent Change in Midday Peak Hour Segment Volumes from August (Saturday) 2015 vs. July (Saturday) 2022
488
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
17 Figure 4 shows the 85th percentile speed for each road segment (for both directions of travel) in August, 2021 and July, 2022. Most of the segments saw minor decreases (or no change) in speed. The Pier Avenue segment west of Valley Drive saw a slight increase in speed (of 1 mph) compared to August, 2021. Overall, speeds were 2% slower after the pilot.

Figure 4 – Downtown Daily Segment 85th Percentile Speeds (mph) Figure 5 shows the change in pedestrian/walking activity, and Figure 6 shows the change in bicycle activity in Downtown. Pedestrian walking activity increased in Downtown by approximately 33% in July, 2022 versus August, 2021, and bicycle activity increased by approximately 26%. Individually, there were no decreases in biking or walking at any of the observed locations from August, 2021 to July, 2022.

Helmet Wearing and e-Bike Data
Figures 7-9 show the percentage of bicyclists who were observed wearing a helmet, along with whether the bicycle was an e-bike (pedal-assisted or fully powered by an electric motor). Approximately 65% of the observed bicyclists in July, 2022 did not wear a helmet, while the other 35% did wear a helmet (Figure 5).

Additionally, of all the observed bicyclists, 8% were e-bikes, while the other 92% were traditional, humanpowered bicycles (Figure 6). Just under half of the e-bike riders wore a helmet (Figure 7). 23 22
24 24
29 19
22 21
24 23
28 20
-
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 8th St between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Hermosa Ave at
11th St
Hermosa Ave at
13th St
Pier Ave between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Monterey Blvd
between 11 St &
Pier Ave
Pier Ave w/o
Valley Dr
85th Percentile Speed (mph)
Downtown Daily Segment 85th Percentile Speeds (mph)
August (Saturday) 2021 v. July (Saturday) 2022
August (Saturday) 2021 July (Saturday) 2022
489
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
18 Figure 5 – Change in Pedestrian/Walking Activity in Downtown Note: Collected using cameras then counted, includes skateboarders Figure 6 – Change in Bicyclist Activity in Downtown
Note: Collected using cameras then counted, excludes scooters 349
1,128
1,502
2,083
235
544
1,389
1,642
3,169
296
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
8th St between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Hermosa Ave at
11th St
Hermosa Ave at
13th St
Pier Ave between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Monterey Blvd
between 11 St &
Pier Ave
Change in Pedestrian/Walking Activity August 2021 v. July 2022 Aug-21 Jul-22
107
612
650
300
62 113
779 804
433
54 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
8th St between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Hermosa Ave at
11th St
Hermosa Ave at
13th St
Pier Ave between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Monterey Blvd
between 11 St &
Pier Ave
Change in Bicyclist Activity August 2021 v. July 2022
Aug-21 Jul-22
490
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
19 Figure 7 – Helmet vs. No Helmet Bicyclist Counts in Downtown Note: Collected using cameras then counted
Figure 8 – E-bike vs. Non E-bike Bicyclist Counts in Downtown Note: Collected using cameras then counted
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
8th St between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Hermosa Ave at
11th St
Hermosa Ave at
13th St
Pier Ave
between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Monterey Blvd
between 11 St &
Pier Ave
July 2022 Downtown Bicyclists Counts (Helmet vs No Helmet) Helmet No Helmet
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
8th St between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Hermosa Ave at
11th St
Hermosa Ave at
13th St
Pier Ave
between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Monterey Blvd
between 11 St &
Pier Ave
July 2022 Downtown Bicycle Counts (E‐bike vs Non E‐bike) E‐bike Non E‐bike
491
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
20 Figure 9 – Helmet vs. No Helmet E-bike Bicyclist Counts in Downtown Note: Collected using cameras then counted
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
8th St between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Hermosa Ave at
11th St
Hermosa Ave at
13th St
Pier Ave
between
Hermosa Ave &
Monterey Blvd
Monterey Blvd
between 11 St &
Pier Ave
July 2022 Downtown E‐bike Counts (Helmet vs No Helmet)
Helmet No Helmet
492
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
21 EmpiricalDataEvaluation ‐ North
SchoolArea
Overall, the 16 North School Area count locations saw an average decrease of 13% in daily vehicular volumes from October, 2021 to October, 2022 (Table 8). Locations that experienced the most significant decreases in volume included 24th and 25th Street between Park Avenue and Valley Drive, and 26th Street between Manhattan Avenue and Morningside Drive. Additionally, Table 9 shows 85th percentile speeds between the two periods experienced minimal change overall with a decrease of 1% in speeds for northbound and eastbound travel and a decrease of 3% in speeds for southbound and westbound travel.

The October, 2022 counts were also compared against the 2015 counts from the traffic impact analysis conducted for the North Elementary School in April 2017 (Table 10). Overall, locations experienced a decrease of 20% in AM peak hour vehicular volumes from November/December, 2015 to October, 2022. 493
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
22 Table 8 – Observed Daily Traffic Volumes October, 2021 and October, 2022 North School Area 2021 Post-Pilot October
Traffic Volumes (Thursday)
2022 Post-Pilot October
Traffic Volumes (Thursday)
No. Street Segment
October
2021
NB/EB
October
2021
SB/WB
October
2021
Total
Segment
Volumes
October
2022
NB/EB
October
2022
SB/WB
October
2022
Total
Segment
Volumes
%
Change
in Total
Volume
s
1 Manhattan Ave S/O
25th St 2,100 1,860 3,960 1,578 1,905 3,483 -12%
2 Valley Dr Bet. Gould
Ave & 25th St 1,933 3,526 5,459 1,764 3,945 5,709 5%
3 27th Ct Bet.

Morningside Dr &
Ozone Ct
21 55 76 12 50 62 -18%
4 Ozone Ct Bet. 24th
St & 27th St 23 25 48 29 18 47 -2%
5 26th St Bet.

Manhattan Ave &
Morningside Dr
231 286 517 5 338 343 -34%
6 25th St Bet.

Manhattan Ave & S
Park Ave
211 260 471 225 371 596 27%
7 25th St Bet. S Park
Ave & Valley Dr 338 477 815 97 44 141 -83%
8 24th Pl Bet. S Park
Ave & Valley Dr 216 177 393 254 159 413 5%
9 24th St Bet. S Park
Ave & Valley Dr 362 335 697 231 148 379 -46%
10 24th St Bet. S Park
Ave & Manhattan
Ave
339 187 526 170 316 486 -8%
11 Silverstrand Ave Bet.
25th St & 24th St 63 119 182 117 79 196 8%
12 Myrtle Ave Bet. 24th
St & 26th St 75 221 296 79 203 282 -5%
13 S Park Ave Bet. 25th
St & Monterey Blvd 319 509 828 438 300 738 -11%
494
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
23 North School Area 2021 Post-Pilot October
Traffic Volumes (Thursday)
2022 Post-Pilot October
Traffic Volumes (Thursday)
No. Street Segment
October
2021
NB/EB
October
2021
SB/WB
October
2021
Total
Segment
Volumes
October
2022
NB/EB
October
2022
SB/WB
October
2022
Total
Segment
Volumes
%
Change
in Total
Volume
s
14 Gould Ave W/O
Valley Dr 3,453 3,876 7,329 3,263 3,699 6,962 -5%
15 Greenwich Village
Bet. Hermosa Ave &
27th St
- - - 2,897 3,417 6,314 -
16 Manhattan Ave Bet.
26th St & 27th St - - - 1,429 1,731 3,160 -
NB = Northbound, EB = Eastbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound Total Average % Change -13%
495
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
24 Table 9 – 85th Percentile Speeds October, 2021 and October, 2022 North School Area
2021 October 85th
Percentile Traffic Speed
(Thursday)
2022 October 85th
Percentile Traffic Speed
(Thursday)
% Change
Comparison
No. Street Segment October
2021 NB/EB
October
2021 SB/WB
October
2022 NB/EB
October
2022 SB/WB
%
Change
in
NB/EB
Speed
%
Change
in
SB/WB
Speed
1 Manhattan Ave S/O 25th
St 29 28 24 25 -17% -11%
2 Valley Dr Bet. Gould Ave
& 25th St 34 36 29 33 -15% -8%
3 27th Ct Bet.

Morningside Dr &
Ozone Ct
- - - - - -
4 Ozone Ct Bet. 24th St &
27th St - - - - - -
5 26th St Bet. Manhattan
Ave & Morningside Dr 19 19 18 19 -5% 0%
6 25th St Bet. Manhattan
Ave & S Park Ave 22 20 28 24 27% 20%
7 25th St Bet. S Park Ave
& Valley Dr 23 23 20 19 -13% -17%
8 24th Pl Bet. S Park Ave
& Valley Dr 18 20 20 22 11% 10%
9 24th St Bet. S Park Ave
& Valley Dr 23 24 24 22 4% -8%
10 24th St Bet. S Park Ave
& Manhattan Ave 20 22 20 19 0% -14%
11 Silverstrand Ave Bet.
25th St & 24th St 23 24 20 20 -13% -17%
12 Myrtle Ave Bet. 24th St
& 26th St 21 21 18 20 -14% -5%
13 S Park Ave Bet. 25th St
& Monterey Blvd 23 23 23 24 0% 4%
496
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
25 North School Area
2021 October 85th
Percentile Traffic Speed
(Thursday)
2022 October 85th
Percentile Traffic Speed
(Thursday)
% Change
Comparison
No. Street Segment October
2021 NB/EB
October
2021 SB/WB
October
2022 NB/EB
October
2022 SB/WB
%
Change
in
NB/EB
Speed
%
Change
in
SB/WB
Speed
14 Gould Ave W/O Valley
Dr 24 30 30 33 25% 10%
15 Greenwich Village Bet.

Hermosa Ave & 27th St - - 19 18 - -
16 Manhattan Ave Bet. 26th
St & 27th St - - 17 24 - -
NB = Northbound, EB = Eastbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound Total Average % Change -1% -3%
497
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
26 Table 10 – Observed AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes in the North School Area in November/December, 2015 and October, 2022
North School Area 2015 Traffic Volumes
(Tuesday/Thursday)
2022 Post-Pilot October
Traffic Volumes (Thursday)
No. Street Segment 2015
NB/EB
2015
SB/WB
2015
Total
Segment
Volumes
October
2022
NB/EB
October
2022
SB/WB
October
2022
Total
Segment
Volumes
%
Change
in Total
Volume
s
1 Manhattan Ave S/O
25th St 250 125 375 69 197 266 -29%
2 Valley Dr Bet. Gould
Ave & 25th St 200 410 610 169 244 413 -32%
3 27th Ct Bet.

Morningside Dr &
Ozone Ct
- - - - - - -
4 Ozone Ct Bet. 24th
St & 27th St - - - - - - -
5 26th St Bet.

Manhattan Ave &
Morningside Dr
30 20 50 0 33 33 -34%
6 25th St Bet.

Manhattan Ave & S
Park Ave
40 60 100 27 112 139 39%
7 25th St Bet. S Park
Ave & Valley Dr 40 50 90 14 5 19 -79%
8 24th Pl Bet. S Park
Ave & Valley Dr - - - - - - -
9 24th St Bet. S Park
Ave & Valley Dr 60 40 100 29 11 40 -60%
10 24th St Bet. S Park
Ave & Manhattan
Ave
40 20 60 13 64 77 28%
11 Silverstrand Ave Bet.
25th St & 24th St - - - - - - -
12 Myrtle Ave Bet. 24th
St & 26th St 35 40 75 6 51 57 -24%
498
Post-Pilot Vehicle, Pedestrian & Bicycle Volume & Speed Monitoring Project January 13, 2023
27 North School Area 2015 Traffic Volumes
(Tuesday/Thursday)
2022 Post-Pilot October
Traffic Volumes (Thursday)
No. Street Segment 2015
NB/EB
2015
SB/WB
2015
Total
Segment
Volumes
October
2022
NB/EB
October
2022
SB/WB
October
2022
Total
Segment
Volumes
%
Change
in Total
Volume
s
13 S Park Ave Bet. 25th
St & Monterey Blvd 35 55 90 98 23 121 34%
14 Gould Ave W/O
Valley Dr 300 230 530 206 261 467 -12%
15 Greenwich Village
Bet. Hermosa Ave &
27th St
340 110 450 190 252 442 -2%
16 Manhattan Ave Bet.
26th St & 27th St 250 110 360 130 100 230 -36%
NB = Northbound, EB = Eastbound, SB = Southbound, WB = Westbound Total Average % Change -20%
499

APPENDIX
500
Morningside Dr
22nd St
Ardmore Ave
29th Ct
16th St
Hermosa Ave
Palm Dr
22nd Ct
Manhattan Ave
Park Ave
Bonie Brae St
10th St
14th St
Ozone Ct
Pier Ave
23rd St
30th St
Mira St
8th St
15th Pl
Prospect Ave
Gould Ave
21st St
25th St
Loma Walk
Beach Dr
28th St
29th St
26th St
Valley Dr
Loma Dr
17th St
Ocean Dr
Circle Ct
Aubrey Park
Ct
28th Ct
30th Pl
Rhodes St
18th St
Greenwich
Village
Montgomery Dr
Bard St
20th St
Aviation Blvd
Oak St
Power St
11th St
Borden Ave
8th Ct
Bay View Dr
Myrtle Ave
6th St
21st Ct
Monterey Blvd
Raymond Ave
11th Pl
Harper Ave
Sunset Dr
19th St
9th Ct
Circle Dr
10th Ct
Tennyson St
Valley Park Ave
20th Ct
12th Ct
11th Ct
15th Ct
20th Pl
13th Ct
8th Pl
14th Ct
19th Ct
7th St
16th Ct
18th Ct
9th St
17th Ct
El Oeste Dr
swodaeM S A ev
Ava Ave
27th Ct
Springfield Ave
Porter Ln
Silverstrand Ave
15th St
13th St
Cypress Ave
24th St
Gould Ter
Hillcrest Dr
24th Pl
Downtown Trip Distribution Count Locations
Figure A-1
501
Hermosa Ave
22nd St
Palm Dr
3rd St
Manhattan Ave
22nd Ct
Ardmore Ave
Valley Dr
Park Ave
Monterey Blvd
Ocean View Ave
14th St
10th St
Ozone Ct
Gravley Ct
Bonie Brae St
Pier Ave
23rd St
Mira St
6th St
8th St
15th Pl
19th St
Cochise Ave
Prospect Ave
Gould Ave
Tennyson Pl
Joy St
21st St
Loma Walk
Beach Dr
30th St
Gentry St
28th St
1st St
29th St
Aviation Blvd
16th St
Golden Ave
26th St
Loma Dr
5th St
Herondo St
Culper Ct
N Harbor
Dr
Lyndon St
Ocean Dr
3rd Ct
Aubrey Park Ct
28th Ct
29th Ct
30th Pl
Rhodes St
Meyer Ct
Greenwich
Village
Owosso Ave
Cypress Ave
Bard St
4th Ct
20th St
9th St
Ormond Ln
Carnegie Ln
Power St
Wylie Ln
17th St
7th St
7th Pl
11th St
5th Ct
Hopkins St
Borden Ave
Myrtle Ave
6th Ct
21st Ct
7th Ct
Pine St
Raymond Ave
11th Pl
8th Ct
9th Ct
CircleDr
Morningside Dr
10th Ct
Tennyson St
Valley Park Ave
20th Ct
12th Ct
11th Ct
15th Ct
Silver St
25th St
Campana St
13th Ct
14th Ct
Harper Ave
19th Ct
1st Ct
Bay View Dr
18th St
16th Ct
18th Ct
8th Pl
17th Ct
El Oeste Dr
S Meadows A ev
Sunset Dr
Ava Ave
Oak St
27th Ct
20th Pl
Corona St
Springfield Ave
Porter Ln
1st Pl
Silverstrand Ave
15th St
13th St
24th St
4th St
Gould Ter
Hillcrest Dr
24th Pl
2nd St
Downtown Routes
Figure A-2
502
Hermosa Ave
22nd St
Palm Dr
3rd St
Manhattan Ave
22nd Ct
Ardmore Ave
Valley Dr
Park Ave
Monterey Blvd
Ocean View Ave
14th St
10th St
Ozone Ct
Gravley Ct
Bonie Brae St
Pier Ave
23rd St
Mira St
6th St
8th St
15th Pl
19th St
Cochise Ave
Prospect Ave
Gould Ave
Tennyson Pl
Joy St
21st St
Loma Walk
Beach Dr
30th St
Gentry St
28th St
1st St
29th St
Aviation Blvd
16th St
Golden Ave
26th St
Loma Dr
5th St
Herondo St
Culper Ct
N Harbor
Dr
Circle Ct
Lyndon St
Ocean Dr
3rd Ct
Aubrey Park Ct
28th Ct
29th Ct
30th Pl
Rhodes St
Meyer Ct
Greenwich
Village
Owosso Ave
Cypress Ave
Bard St
4th Ct
20th St
9th St
Ormond Ln
Carnegie Ln
Power St
Wylie Ln
17th St
7th St
7th Pl
11th St
5th Ct
Hopkins St
Borden Ave
Myrtle Ave
6th Ct
21st Ct
7th Ct
Pine St
Raymond Ave
11th Pl
8th Ct
9th Ct
CircleDr
Morningside Dr
10th Ct
Tennyson St
Valley Park Ave
20th Ct
12th Ct
11th Ct
15th Ct
Silver St
25th St
Campana St
13th Ct
14th Ct
Harper Ave
19th Ct
1st Ct
Bay View Dr
18th St
16th Ct
18th Ct
8th Pl
17th Ct
El Oeste Dr
S Meadows A ev
Sunset Dr
Ava Ave
Oak St
27th Ct
20th Pl
Corona St
Springfield Ave
Porter Ln
1st Pl
Silverstrand Ave
15th St
13th St
24th St
4th St
Gould Ter
Hillcrest Dr
24th Pl
2nd St
Downtown Travel Time Run Routes
Route ID
Route 1
Route 2
Figure A-3
503

OUTDOOR PERMIT

PROGRAMS AND

DOWNTOWN LANE

RECONFIGURATIONS
April 25, 2023
504

OUTDOOR DINING
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, the
City moved quickly to offer outdoor
dining and other associated programs
• This included on-street dining decks,
downtown lane reconfigurations,
private property dining, and additional
encroachment areas on Pier Plaza
505

OUTDOOR DINING
• In December 2021, City Council
directed staff to come back with a
permanent program
• Fees of $1.50 per square foot per
month were implemented on March 1,
2022
• Temporary orders extended the
program multiple times with a final
deadline of May 1st given by Council
506

OUTDOOR DINING
• Staff worked to develop the long-term
program elements
• Community feedback collected from
Council meetings, meetings with
individual businesses, stakeholder
groups, Economic Development
Committee, surveys, and an
information session meeting
507

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Staff gathered feedback since 2020 from a
variety of stakeholders. Some common themes:
- Greatly enjoy the new vitality of downtown resulting
from outdoor dining and music
- Customers still want to eat outside, almost exclusively - Pier Plaza is the jewel of Hermosa and is more
attractive than ever with the expanded
encroachments
- Pier Plaza’s expanded dining is diverting too many
people away from non-Plaza businesses
508

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
(CONTINUED)
- Bad weather and rising costs have made this (2022-
23) one of the worst seasons ever
- Permanent on-street decks should be aesthetically
pleasing but allowed to be individually creative
- Encroachments should be open to public during the
day when business is closed to maximize utilization
- Live music program should continue also
509

LONG-TERM OUTDOOR DINING
• Pertains only to Public Right-of-Way(not
private property)
• Pier Plaza
• Off-street (i.e., Martha’s on 22nd Street and
sidewalks)
• On-street within parking spaces (Dining Decks)
• Staff worked on multiple elements to develop
the proposed permanent program
510

RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends City Council approval of:

1. An ordinance amending Hermosa Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 12.16 to establish basic guidelines for a permanent outdoor dining and retail program;

2. A resolution establishing a new fee schedule for
encroachments citywide;

3. A resolution establishing the downtown lane reconfigurations and bike lanes become permanent;

4. A resolution amending operational and design guidelines for Pier Plaza; and

5. CEQA determination for the program elements.
511

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
• Staff will bring to Council at a later date a resolution adopting guidelines for operational and design
standards for on-street dining decks
This item is being delayed to help staff and its
consultant fully assess all safety concerns and process efficiencies (plan submittal, standard specifications,
etc).
• Staff also suggest a phased in implementation to
allow existing decks an efficient transition
512

ORDINANCE
• Specifies maximum size for
encroachments citywide
• 500 additional square feet for Pier Plaza
and other off-street encroachments
• 1,000 square feet maximum total area
• On-street encroachments limited to 2
parallel or 3 head-in parking spaces
513
514

ORDINANCE
• Specifies encroachments may only
be in business frontage (excluding
on-street)
• Subject to City approval, variations
may be considered (Loreto Plaza)
• Existing and expanded
encroachments would be united
administratively
515

ORDINANCE
• Pier Plaza and off-street
encroachments must close at midnight
• On-street and off-Plaza
encroachments close at 11:00 p.m.
• City has authority to establish alternate
hours of operation as needed (e.g.,
North End encroachment closes at
10:00 p.m.)
516

CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE
• Currently four categories of
encroachment fees:
• Pier Plaza late night - $5/sq. ft.
• Pier Plaza non-late night - $2/sq. ft.
• Pier Plaza snack shop and off-Plaza -
$1/sq. ft.
• Temporary encroachments Citywide -
$1.50/sq. ft.
517

PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE
• Fees for on-street encroachments from other agencies vary greatly, both on price and factors:

Agency Fees Notes
Manhattan
Beach
$3/sq.ft. per month (all encroachments) Suspended on-street program but exploring permanent program
Redondo
Beach
$2/sq.ft. per month Exploring permanent program
Santa
Monica
Approximately $2-4/sq.ft. monthly fee plus $1000 in
one time admin. fees and $1300 per seat one-time
wastewater fee
Pre-existing and revised during
pandemic
San
Francisco
One-time fee of $3000 for first parking space
occupied, $1500 for second. Additional $2000 per
space annually for business with over $2 million gross
receipts. Half if less than $2 million
El Segundo No fees Future plans unclear at this time
Long Beach $1375 one-time permit fee Additional inspection fees. Preexisting program.

Pasadena $7.75/sq.ft. or $4/sq.ft. per year depending on district.

Parking meter recovery fee of $2.25/sq.ft. per year
Pre-existing program
Berkeley $1000-$5000 annually per parking space occupied plus upfront $1700 encroachment fee
Based on parking meter revenue
lost
518

APPRAISAL REPORT
• Considered by Council in January 2023
• Examined all current temporary outdoor dining areas, on Plaza, sidewalks and on-street
• Surveyed and analyzed the rates being charged in other market areas
• Analyzed the market value of the land and applied a rate of return • Reconciled to the following rates for Hermosa Beach
Locations Market Rental Rate
(per square foot per month)
Pier Plaza $5.67
Non-Pier Plaza (areas primarily along Hermosa Avenue,
north and south of the Plaza)
$4.63
East of Hermosa Avenue (primarily Pier Avenue, up to
Pacific Coast Highway)
$4.00
519

PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE
• Staff assessed information from:
• Other agencies in the region;
• Feedback from Chamber of
Commerce business survey;
• Feedback from direct
communications with businesses; and
• Consideration of our immediate
neighbors
520

PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE
• Three categories proposed:
• Late night Plaza with alcohol - $6/sq. ft.
• Non-late night Plaza with alcohol - $3/sq. ft.
• All others (Plaza with no alcohol, off-Plaza,
sidewalk and on-street - $2/sq. ft.
• Additional permit and plan check fees
will apply but vary per application
521

LANE RECONFIGURATIONS
• Resolution will make these elements
permanent:
• Downtown lane reconfigurations;
• Downtown bike lanes; and
• Limited street closures (North End).
522

PIER PLAZA AND OFF-STREET

GUIDELINES
• Guidelines in place since creation of
Pier Plaza and revised multiple times,
most recently in 2015 with additions
during COVID-19 pandemic
• Guide the operational and design
standards:
• Furniture placement, awning sizes,
stanchion height, maintenance and
cleanliness, etc.
523

PIER PLAZA AND OFF-STREET

GUIDELINES
• Proposed revisions would apply to
all off-street encroachments
• Prohibition from queueing included
• Prohibitions from blocking ocean
views
• May be more easily revised (than
code) as program evolves
524

CEQA DETERMINATION
• On-street outdoor dining and lane
reconfigurations were analyzed
together
• A Categorial Exemption was
determined
• City and consultants did thorough
study of impacts to traffic, noise, and
emissions to help inform determination
525

CEQA DETERMINATION
• Changes to Pier Plaza and other
encroachments determined to be
Categorically Exempt as separate
project
526

FUTURE MATTERS
• On-street dining deck guidelines to
return to City Council
• City would need permit from
Coastal Commission
• Ongoing monitoring and
adjustments are planned
527

OUTDOOR PERMIT

PROGRAMS AND

DOWNTOWN LANE

RECONFIGURATIONS
April 25, 2023
528
City Council Hybrid Meeting (Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00 PM) 04-25-23 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
b) REPORT 23-0247 ADOPT ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING

PERMANENT OUTDOOR PERMIT PROGRAMS AND DOWNTOWN

LANE RECONFIGURATIONS AND ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTIONS
(Environmental Programs Manager Doug Krauss)
109 23 46 21
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for b) REPORT 23-0247 ADOPT ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PERMANENT OUTDOOR PERMIT

PROGRAMS AND DOWNTOWN LANE RECONFIGURATIONS AND ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTIONS (Environmental Programs Manager Doug Krauss)
Overall Sentiment
Ann Gotthoffer
Location:

Submitted At: 2:59pm 04-25-23
Re: Permanent Outdoor Permit Program.

Clearly extensive surveys, studies and thought has gone in to these thorough staff recommendations. As always, the "devil is in the details" and it is a lot of complex information to digest. I haven't read every linked document or all previous ordinances, nor have I attended every meeting where this topic was discussed. I've been a resident over 40 years, but tend to avoid downtown at night so admittedly I am a poor eye-witness.

Overall, I strongly agree with basic recommendation to continue with outdoor dining decks and lane configurations as is. However, in my opinion the primary goal of these once termed “dining decks“ should be for dining and not late night drinking.

I don’t understand why many businesses are permitted to have outdoor areas open for alcohol service after 529
midnight, and others would be prohibited after 11. (Perhaps the reasoning is in a footnote or link somewhere.) In my opinion this only increases bar capacity in a city that was already saturated prior to the COVID measures I believe. It seems to me the 11 pm time should apply to all the establishments. I understand that the logistics of closing patios when the interior space is full seems difficult, but i suspect true dinner patrons are done with dinner by 11, drinkers could go inside earlier if getting spots is difficult? Also, I know this was decided previously, but it doesn’t seem that unwieldy to recognize just a few “legacy” patio agreements, such as apparently one held with The Lighthouse.

Additionally I would like generous space and fee consideration be given to restaurants such as Good Stuff and Martha’s.

I want to thank Staff and Council for all their work on this. I cannot attend tonight, but will watch the video and look forward to having a deeper understanding of these issues.

Cassidy Nelson
Location: 90505, Torrance
Submitted At: 2:58pm 04-25-23
Good Stuff has been a prominent fixture of Hermosa Beach for over four decades, and its current outdoor space should be kept. The area they currently occupy has never been too crowded for beachgoers to get to the beach and the umbrellas do not block the view of the ocean. Please help support family-owned local businesses. Locals and visitors benefit from establishments like Good Stuff.

I appreciate your consideration.

Cassidy
Laura Pena
Location:

Submitted At: 2:57pm 04-25-23
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, and Staff,
I support our cities efforts to transition our Temporary Outdoor Dining / Retail Program as well as our Lane Reconfiguration on Pier and Hermosa Avenue into a sustainable, thriving Permanent Program. It is paramount that any changes to our outdoor spaces are guided by principles outlined in PLAN Hermosa that support a high quality of life while contributing to economic and fiscal stability.

As noted in the Chamber report, our economy is ill and the effects is has on our business community are real with less than 20% doing better than they were pre-Covid. With eight restaurants currently interested in moving out of Hermosa, we need to act wisely to ensure our decisions are carefully deliberated. We have significant competition from surrounding shopping districts. We need to build a better Hermosa experience in our downtown core that utilize our outdoor spaces, encourages live music, and highlights our rich history and beach culture.

Incorporating designated bike lanes into our urban design is a welcoming feature for a pedestrian-oriented district. Creating engaging outdoor spaces that are clean and well lit will foster community connection.

We have an incredible opportunity to support our existing businesses while attracting high performing operators if we create policies that stimulate and encourage investment. We also need a regulatory environment that is flexible and open to exploring new ways of working with our businesses, like the private-public opportunity that has been presented with Loreto Plaza. If the city has the opportunity to build privately funded placemaking, which is sorely needed in our downtown, at minimum it should be explored.

But I don’t want to stop there...we should be open to exploring public parklet (i.e., Sand Diego, San Francisco, Berkeley) options so any business can have a deck in front of their business. In addition, with a more economic development focus we could redesign our downtown along Pier and Hermosa avenue with 20 foot sidewalks (ROMA study) by removing the center medians. I understand that this isn’t what today’s agenda item is about, but if don’t start asking ourselves how to create the best Hermosa experience we will be left with debating issues like queuing (which I support) and closing deck times (which should align with the CUP ). I believe in what is written on our community center, “Where There Is No Vision The People Perish.” I hope the decisions made today will provide the opportunity for entire community to flourish. 530
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration.

Thank you.

Laura Pena
Ali N
Location: 90503
Submitted At: 1:54pm 04-25-23
I support outdoor dining. Specifically, I appreciate and support the outdoor dining at Good Stuff Hermosa Beach.

I’ve been a customer for years, and the restaurant contributes to the fun beach vibe. There is an accessible path to the beach adjacent to the seating and the umbrellas do not block any view. Hoping you keep this restaurant’s and other restaurants outdoor seating open!
Carlos Gonzalez
Location: 90504, Torrance
Submitted At: 1:47pm 04-25-23
i oppose the measures,
Jon David
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 1:45pm 04-25-23
I advocated heavily for the decks since the very beginning of the pandemic and have spent many hours in discussions with the economic development advisory committee and Doug Kraus. I have been such a strong proponent of the program because I believe outdoor dining and placemaking in general are valuable for both economic development and resident lifestyle. It is much bigger than the needs of restaurants.

For this reason, I hope the city can envision this program in three-time frames. The first is the short term which should have as the goal of retaining the existing decks for the sake of our downtown's economic health. The City should do nothing to shock those decks into being taken down.

The second timeframe should focus on a much more studied and thought-out long-term program that focuses on the best and highest use for our public spaces. This would focus on policy that combats under-utilization and the lack of public placemaking opportunities in our downtown. In this phase, we can envision possibly communal spaces.

Additionally, since the staff-proposed program limits the number of parking spaces that can be used for the onstreet program, protecting against underutilization becomes even more essential. We need to do this because we need our downtown to have an active vibe, and we need our decks to be available to the business that can really utilize them. Our downtown economy is in a fairly rapid decline. This only reverses itself when high-performing businesses enter our city and give residents a reason to stay local, and visitors a reason to travel to our city. The high-performing business won’t come in until they have a reason, which very well may access to provide outdoor dining.

The third and final timeframe should include capital improvement projects that once and for all provides the urban design that should have been many years ago to encourage the downtown vibrancy a city like ours should have.

Over a decade ago, when the Upper-Pier Revitalization project was incepted, we were promised 20 ft sidewalks with outdoor dining. Those key elements were taken out and as a result, the residents and businesses have lost out on all those years of downtown vibrancy and an enhanced lifestyle. Also, as a result, the council now has to circle back and address the outdoor dining issues...and in a less efficient manner.

As far as the permanent lane reduction, the environment study proves we don’t need a 4-lane highway throughout downtown. Reducing Pier Ave from 4 lanes to 2 has shown safety benefits and commerce benefits. It also matches the long-term livings streets vision of PLAN HERMOSA. Time will continue to build bike and foot traffic and we will look back at this change as being one of our better decisions.

Big Picture - we need you all to be leaders and see past the individual needs of a handful of businesses and residents. Keep the lane configuration as is and make a short-term “permanent” outdoor dining program that keeps the existing decks while the city works on a longer-term program that addresses underutilization and 531
improves our urban design to be more supportive of downtown vibrancy and living streets.

Finally, regarding the details of the proposed deck program that will be decided tonight, I suggest:
- Slowly ease rate increase over time to prevent deck closures. - Allow decks to match the closing time of the indoor restaurant. Late-night decks are a visitor and resident draw that do not on the surface cause negative issues.
- Allow queueing to continue, especially in a venue like The Lighthouse that would find it hard to operate otherwise. Also, although no one wants to wait in lines, they help with the vibrancy of the area.

Stephanie Hicks
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 1:37pm 04-25-23
As someone who has grown up in Hermosa Beach, I am a firm believer in the importance of the outdoor dining program for our community. It's a great way to enjoy our often beautiful weather while dining or sharing a drink with friends. On summer evenings it's nice to step outside for fresh air and take a break from the noise inside even if it's after midnight. Closing the decks early puts women at risk as well, because I feel much safer in a busy environment rather than on a dark and empty street. I was disheartened to hear council members claim support for the program, yet propose policies that would significantly reduce the size of the decks at Hennessey's, Good Stuff, and Brews Hall. and impose burdensome fees and regulations that could kill the program for many businesses. It's important to be honest and transparent about the impact of these rules on the program and the community's desire to maintain it. Thank you for considering my perspective.

Joshua Francis
Location: 90043, Los angeles
Submitted At: 1:33pm 04-25-23
Keeping the outdoor patio can be more pet-friendly and allow parents with kids to dine without concern. People come come from all over to experience the great weather and good food. Removing outside dinning would take away from the whole concept.

Ann Torrico
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 1:24pm 04-25-23
As a 21+ year resident of Hermosa Beach, I firmly support continuing permit programs for outdoor dining. This program has brought life back to Hermosa after the pandemic shut it down. Our business neighbors are thriving again, our personal lifestyles are flourishing, and our exposure to tourism has increased. I would think that any nay-sayers voting against making this program permanent are either making up data (that people can't access the beach from he parking structure? Really? Show me the data.) or they have never enjoyed an outdoor dining experience. In either case, I would encourage our Council to find a way to negotiate outdoor space and rent with restaurant owners as opposed to threatening the program, altogether. This is a matter of collaboration.

EILEEN FUIAVA
Location: 90059, Los Angeles
Submitted At: 1:14pm 04-25-23
Being able to sit outside and enjoy good company and the environment makes your mental health better. Not all enclosed in the tight spaces of the establishment
Kevin Sanchez
Location:

Submitted At: 1:14pm 04-25-23
Outdoor patio dining is a part of the experience when you go to the beach. You go to the beach to eat outdoors and enjoy the beach. It doesn’t make sense to take it away. You’re losing money for space that isn’t going to make a difference. Keep outdoor patios. The fact that this is even an argument is ridiculous. Are you even local? People come to the beach to eat outdoors. This is insanity
532
Sarah Nahrwold
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 1:10pm 04-25-23
As a long-time local resident, I fully support the original and pandemic established decks for our businesses in Hermosa Beach. I listened during the council debates as every candidate claimed they “supported” all the decks, yet now those same council members are proposing drastic cuts to the decks at Hennessey’s, Good Stuff and Brews Hall, as well as draconian fees and rules that would kill the dining decks for most businesses. It’s dishonest to claim “support” while implementing rules you know absolutely will have a negative impact on the program the community wants. Thank you for your time.

Raymond Dussault
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 12:53pm 04-25-23
A last note, the devil is in the details as they say, and I am concerned that in proposing these convoluted regulations we are not being precise in the regulatory language that will guide future staff and council. For example, the statement in the staff proposal, "No customer shall be permitted in the dining area until the customer has been notified by the restaurant that he or she can be seated (Section IV, M, 3)," could be misinterpreted to apply to the interior dining areas of a business. If this unnecessary regulation is implemented, please clarify that it only applies to the "PATIO" dining area to avoid any confusion.

Similarly, however well-intentioned, a uniform patio closing time ordinance is going to require very precise language to explain what that means. How quickly do I have to cross the patio to not be counted as "on" a closed patio. If I forget and stop for a conversation, can I be arrested? And how does that make any sense when I can step a few feet further and lean on the very same railing, but from the other side, and be completely legal? Jessica Accamando
Location:

Submitted At: 12:52pm 04-25-23
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council,
It will be no surprise that the Chamber is writing to support the outdoor dining program permanence. The program has proven to be one of the few true benefits to rise from the pandemic and this community wants to keep it—71% of our survey respondents support it. The program promotes healthy lifestyles, attracts great businesses, brings curbside beauty to downtown, and creates a sense of community and meeting place which is a highlight of Plan Hermosa. For better economic activity and walkability of Hermosa, we need to distribute people beyond the Pier Plaza so they are drawn to places up Pier Ave and to North and South Hermosa. Dining decks are one of the best ways to pull people out to explore other parts of downtown. (paragraphs removed for public posting - see attachment for full letter) For all of these reasons and more, the Chamber makes the following more specific recommendations.

USAGE & HOURS
- At a minimum, to be open full hours of business operations (weather permitting). - Encourage use across all-day parts, especially when parking demand is high, further optimizing the contribution to the City's vision of having living streets.
- Businesses that may be closed during busy daytime hours should be encouraged to find ways to minimize the visual of a closed business.
- Enhance outdoor green space and other CIP improvements that allow these outdoor spaces to be inspiring, even when closed. Decks should add value to the adjacent space and neighborhood.

AESTHETICS & SPACE
- Design and architecture of decks should be thoughtfully made, aesthetically pleasing, true extensions of primary indoor establishments, and in the spirit of the character of Hermosa Beach. - Businesses with limited frontage (trees, emergency lanes and other obstructions) should be permitted to find space near their frontage with permission from adjacent business(s). - Consider trying ideas before prohibiting them (ie. busing station on patio, tvs, etc). 533
- Explore public parklets, outdoor public tables, and other long-term ideas like San Diego, Berkeley, and San Francisco to enhance the program (both public and private spaces for outdoor enjoyment). - Maintain the adjusted single lane in each direction on Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue in the downtown area for the safety of patrons on the dining decks.

ENCROACHMENT FEES
On-sidewalk (non Pier Plaza) $1/sq ft
On-street $2/sq ft
On Pier (close midnight or earlier) $3/sq ft
On Pier (close after midnight) $5.50/sq ft

THINKING BEYOND
- Continue the experimental period for long term decisions to allow for more thoughtful considerations based on data and feedback (ie. aesthetics, hours, etc).
- Request an Impact Report after a certain period to gauge success of plan and make further enhancements. - Form an advisory group that includes economic development professionals, business owners, residents and other key stakeholders to develop best practices.
- Revisit guidelines annually to ensure the program is effective, valuable and thriving. - Better communicate where free and more parking is, including 50+ free parking along Valley Ave, Ardmore, and top of Pier Ave east of Ardmore.
(paragraphs removed for public posting - see attachment for full letter) Please continue to support the amazing outdoor experiences in Hermosa and keep them affordable so that our businesses can invest in their home, Hermosa Beach.

Best regards,
The Board of Directors and
The Economic Development Action Committee (EDAC)
Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
Raymond Dussault
Location: 90254, HERMOSA BEACH
Submitted At: 12:47pm 04-25-23
As a resident, I am pleased with the city's efforts to formalize the outdoor dining program. The proposal for parklets and sidewalk dining is a positive step towards supporting local businesses. However, I am concerned with some of the proposed rules for Pier Plaza.

Restricting the size to 1,000 square feet would result in a significant loss of deck space for signature establishments like Hennessey's Tavern, Brews Hall, and Good Stuff. I think a better approach is to stick with the pandemic policy, proposed by Council Member Mike Detoy at the last meeting, of restricting patio encroachments to 25 feet within the boundaries of the business footprint. This parralells the documented desires of the community.

Having some experience as a Department of Justice researcher on effective policing strategies, I also question the effectiveness of enforcing a policy that would prohibit patrons from decks after midnight. I believe it is possible to balance safety concerns with the desire for a vibrant social community and robust economic development. To do so, we must ensure that regulations proposed with the best intentions have the intended impact and avoid unintended consequences that could compromise public safety and the community's well-being.

According to a study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, busy areas with high pedestrian activity tend to have lower levels of crime and disorder due to natural surveillance. The study indicates that implementing a uniform patio closing time could reduce natural surveillance, by turning patrons inward, making our community less safe.

It would also confuse patrons who would not understand why they cannot enjoy our beautiful summer evenings after midnight or even step outside to make a phone call or have a conversation. It raises significant enforcement 534
questions, by potentially putting our officers into conflict with patrons over a trivial rule about why they can make a phone call on one side of a railing but not the other side.

Additionally, prohibiting structured lines overseen by restaurant staff could lead to uncontrolled clusters of people wandering the town waiting for a seat to dine, which would create a public safety risk.

Lastly, I want to highlight a study titled "Broken Windows" and the NYC Police Department: The Relationship Between Disorder, Complaints, and Crime by George L. Kelling and William K. Sousa, which found that addressing physical disorder leads to a decrease in crime. Queuing allows restaurant staff to oversee people waiting for a chance to come in, creating order out of disorder. Therefore, allowing queuing would increase natural surveillance and decrease the likelihood of public disorder.

In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider supporting the proposed uniform closing times and no queuing policies for outdoor patios in Hermosa Beach. Linking patio closing times to businesses' closing times and allowing managed queuing would ensure public safety while still promoting economic development and a vibrant social community.

Overall, I am grateful for the city's support of outdoor dining and the positive impact it has had on the community.

Let us work together to ensure that any final regulations support local businesses while maintaining public safety.

Branden O
Location:

Submitted At: 12:35pm 04-25-23
I think it would be detrimental to the community as well as the workers of the city to lose the extended patios. The loss of these spaces would lead to a loss of tax revenue for the city as well as a loss of shifts for the workers struggling for shifts and employment opportunities. More people now than ever prefer outdoor seating but the proposed time limitations for all of the outside areas as well as the cost to keep these patios would far outweigh the price per square foot. Please consider a realistic solution that would benefits all parties.

Nic Mullins
Location:

Submitted At: 12:33pm 04-25-23
All for exterior patios, but closing it early for late night bars is ridiculous. At smaller bars, people want to step outside and catch their breath, or enjoy a drink with the ocean breeze rather than being around a bunch of people, and overheating. Closing patios early while the bars are still open gets rid of that opportunity, they can’t take a drink outside the gate because that isn’t legal on the pier. What’s the point of the pier if people cant enjoy it. Also raising the price per square footage way past market value, isn’t fair to bars who can’t afford the pricing, when they were able to beforehand. Therefore i’m completely for keeping exterior patios, but not the restrictions and pricing they’re trying to put on them.

Kelley Johnson
Location: 98391, Bonney Lake
Submitted At: 12:26pm 04-25-23
I’m not a permanent resident but my family is and this is disheartening to hear that the city is considering to limit out door dining, tax businesses more to maintain outdoor spaces when they have been fighting to stay afloat since Covid. When I fly down to visit my family the first stop we make is Good Stuff, Hermosa. We sit outside enjoy the beautiful beach, and weather. I can’t imagine not having that opportunity. Don’t prevent businesses from having outdoor seating it’s one of my favorite places to visit and I tell everyone about stopping At Hermosa Beach for the great food, vibe and atmosphere.

Ryan Correa
Location: 90501, Torrance
Submitted At: 12:14pm 04-25-23
Hermosa Beach should keep their outdoor patios! It’s the best seat in the house when your by the beach! It also brings a different atmosphere to every establishment down there.

Duke Noor
535
Location:

Submitted At: 12:11pm 04-25-23
Outrageous. There's plenty of room to pass and plenty of view to be had around and through the umbrellas. I'm not a fan of the "Parkletts" on our public streets, but I'm a big fan of outdoor dining in and around the Plaza as long as there is free and equal access for all. Thank you for your consideration to keep the outdoor dining without excess "surcharges or takes" bestowed upon them. Remember they had almost NO business for 2 years !!! Thank You, Duke Noor, Hermosa Beach.

Christopher Sanchez
Location: 90043, Los Angeles
Submitted At: 11:50am 04-25-23
The outdoor patios are part of the tourist attraction when I visit I always ask to have a table outside so I can enjoy my food in the sun
Randy Balik
Location:

Submitted At: 11:50am 04-25-23
I've been pretty wordy on this subject for quite a while now. To be clear at the outset, my "opposition" to this issue is directed at the proposed changes - this need to select "Oppose," "Neutral," or "Support" for an issue like this confuses many. Once again, I SUPPORT outdoor dining. I'd like to see MORE of it. I'd like to see a long-term city plan/vision that more permanently incorporates it. I also SUPPORT other retailers using outside space in front of their storefronts. We should encourage people to be outside MORE, not less. We should add MORE energy and vibrancy to our outdoors. I OPPOSE any measure meant to curtail it...that includes any reduction of current size, any fees that make it untenable for our businesses, and any rules that address problems that don't exist solely because of patios and decks. The reductions in size, reductions in operating hours/allowances, and increases in fees that have been proposed are nonsensical, without basis in facts, and are completely unfair to our local businesses. Yes, they should pay a FAIR price for encroachment fees...a price that is affordable and keeps this outdoor vibrancy alive. No, they should not be hit with fees and reduced sizes such that it no longer works for them. We, the people of Hermosa Beach, have spoken overwhelmingly in favor of outdoor dining, so make it work rather than put up barriers that cause it to go away.

Vanessa Castorena
Location:

Submitted At: 11:41am 04-25-23
Hermosa Beach should be able to keep their outdoor patio areas. It gives the community a place to sit and enjoy the beautiful ocean view and have an area to enjoy company while you’re eating.

Estelle Murphy
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 11:40am 04-25-23
Establishing permanent outdoor seating has no negative outcome and is a non issue to the community. It positively promotes revenue to the businesses on the pier and those who work hard to create an excellent experience for hermosa resident’s while also expanding their outdoor lifestyle. It would be disappointing to all those involved if outdoor seating was lost.

Diana Varela
Location: 90277, redondo beach
Submitted At: 11:39am 04-25-23
As a born and raised local of the south bay, I’ve witnessed first hand the hood outdoor seating has brought to town. We seen an increase in people coming to town, booming restaurants, and just a happier hermosa.

Furthermore, if we have the weather for it why? we’ve gotten so accustom to outdoor seating that when it is gone we would have wished to never gotten rid of it
Keani Andaluz
Location:

Submitted At: 11:23am 04-25-23
536
Hermosa Beach should keep outdoor patios, it brings the community together be able to enjoy the sunshine, fresh air and ambiance of the beach life. Having outdoor patios available will also provide opportunities for restaurants to bring in more customers.

Alivia Alvarez
Location: 90248, gardena
Submitted At: 11:22am 04-25-23
I believe taking away outdoor dining is a HUGE disservice not only to the city but to the community and it’s employees as well. a big attraction to the pier is being able to eat outdoors and enjoy the scenery. i feel it brings people together in an atmosphere that is inviting and happy. tawni maglinti
Location: 90745, Carson
Submitted At: 11:14am 04-25-23
Outdoor dining plays a huge part of why guests love coming to eat on the pier! Most guests request outside dining and usually turn away if there is none. If we keep it, we will continue to give guests the opportunity to enjoy all of what Hermosa Beach has to offer, which is its beautiful ambiance and atmosphere! I think taking this away will only hurt the community, rather than help it.

JASON CORREA
Location: 90601, Torrance
Submitted At: 11:13am 04-25-23
Keep outdoor patios in Hermosa !!!
Rose Garcia
Location: 90717, Lomita
Submitted At: 11:12am 04-25-23
Lomita
Greg Newman
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 11:11am 04-25-23
I appreciate everyone’s time and effort in navigating the difficult challenges to make the extended patios permanent.

On many occasions, including at council meetings and in the Chamber’s recent surveys, the community has overwhelmingly supported the extended dining decks. The original decks went out 13 feet from a business’ frontage. During COVID we were allowed to add 12 feet to that encroachment. The community has embraced the greater opportunity to dine outside, and it is in line with the Roma study’s finding that the plaza’s public area was too wide and felt empty.

PATIO CLOSING TIME: Patios should close in line with the business’ Conditional Use Permit (CUP). This enhances public safety through natural surveillance which creates an additional layer of oversight for the Plaza.

This is especially important during evening hours when visibility is reduced. Eliminating the ability to sit on the patios after midnight would remove this natural surveillance and make the Plaza less inviting to well-behaved patrons.

Also, closing the patios early would be confusing to patrons, who want to step out on the patios for fresh air, have a conversation or make a phone call. Residents and visitors want to embrace Hermosa’s natural environment and it is unclear how such a rule would be enforced by the businesses and city staff.

Finally, if patios must close at midnight that would put all business in the $3/square foot rate, costing the city needed funds.

QUEUING: As for the elimination of lines, lines overseen by restaurant staff improve public safety. When patrons are overseen by restaurant staff in structured lines, they are more likely to remain in a designated area and are less likely to engage in disruptive behavior like public drinking. An unstructured queuing situation risks disagreements among patrons who are hovering in clusters and arguing over who is next in line, while managing patrons in line enables our staff to maintain order and eliminate disputes.

Regarding Loreto Plaza, the area was previously underutilized and mainly attracted the homeless and smokers.

During COVID, the city generously allowed us to use the space for outdoor dining. We were the first restaurant to 537
invest heavily in extended dining and transformed Loreto Plaza into an attractive area with decorative planting, soft lighting, and quality furnishings. We propose to keep half the space as a patio and work with the city to redesign the rest of the space into a public seating area that engages with the community through a public/private partnership. We are happy to finance the public portion of the project as a gift to Hermosa Beach's Pier Plaza and we are hopeful that it could be a model for other public/private opportunities in the city.

Thank you for considering my perspective on these issues. I look forward to discussing this further with you.

Best regards,
Greg Newman
Brandon Correa
Location: 90717, Lomita
Submitted At: 11:10am 04-25-23
I think hermosa beach should be allowed outside patios , it’s fresh air and it brings people together .

Ms Sberna
Location:

Submitted At: 11:01am 04-25-23
Dear HBCC,
STOP trying to reimagine Hermosa the way you want it to look! These disastrous ideas ruin the very small town vibe that most of us locals cherish.

Your latest scheme negatively impacts locals businesses and would change the landscape of our town!!! and for what? Just so you can have even more control of how businesses operate?? Good Stuff Restaurant has been on the strand for a lot longer than any of you have lived here yet these new ideas would ruin his business. Dining on the strand, eating Good Stuff’s yummy pancakes is something no one should miss out on… perhaps some of you should get out more and explore the Hermosa strand/pier scene. Just take a look at how many folks are enjoying dining and drinking OUTSIDE, enjoying the sunshine! Stop being so anti-biz!
Veronica Mccree
Location: 90254-4917, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 10:57am 04-25-23
I fully support the outdoor dining areas because they have been such a great addition to all of the restaurants and businesses in the community. Not only does it attract the tourists, but it allows the residents of Hermosa to feel a sense of community amongst themselves. With that being said, adding too many regulations that aren’t fair to the regular market price would make it harder for businesses to want to add something like outdoor dining that brings in tourism and added revenue for the community. Please keep the outdoor dining without making the additional costs for the encroachment that hasn't caused any nuances to the community, especially since this will be ruining the safe community that we have all tried to create in Hermosa Beach.

Rayana Noriega
Location: 90249, Gardena
Submitted At: 10:56am 04-25-23
I cant imagine the amount of money the city and our restaurants would lose out on not having these patios that help us seat many more people and bring in more overall cashflow. Not only that, having these extra seating areas, unrestricted, allows for more employment within Hermosa Beach. We should be able to keep all extended outdoor dining decks, again unrestricted, to accommodate the numerous amounts of visitors and locals that find themselves at the pier wanting to dine. Not having these would result in longer wait times across the pier, leaving potential customers hungry and irritable. Especially those with dogs, which is most people local to Hermosa.

Losing out on these tables to dine at would most definitely result in less overall customers, which means my colleagues and I losing shifts they depend on for their livelihood.

Zach Harris
Location: 90250, Hawthorne
Submitted At: 10:54am 04-25-23
Families love to seat outside in Hermosa Beach, meaning how crucial it is to keep exterior patios in Hermosa Beach. Most people come from outside areas to dine at the pier on outside patios to get the experience of food / 538
drinks / sun all in one. Keeping the outer patio allows for more people to have a good time in Hermosa, more revenue will be involved, changes in positives ways, and allows our restaurants to give people what they want.

Molly Tamir
Location: 90275, Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted At: 10:49am 04-25-23
Dear City Council Members of Hermosa Beach,
The beauty of Hermosa is that it's a beach city, many people from inner cities and tourists enjoy coming down to the pier to enjoy the sunrays and fresh air. Getting rid of outdoor seating will significantly affect the businesses that are in the city. The outdoor patio seatings have made the Pier become more of a community, it allows people to get together with their loved ones and enjoy food and drinks. Getting rid of it would negatively affect the community and the businesses, psychologically and financially. It has been psychologically proven that more access to outdoor spaces increase physical and mental health. Furthermore, as an employee at the Pier, it would be detrimental to all the employee's financial stability. Housing rate is going up in all of California and especially in Hermosa, rent is higher due to the environment. Getting rid of the outer patio would cut a lot of the employee's salary, making it harder for people to make ends meet, causing more stress and decline in mental health for the whole community.

Please consider keeping the outdoor patios without the additional restrictions so that our community can flourish and grow to its full potential.

Thank you for your time,
Molly T
Anjelica Correa
Location: 90505, Torrance
Submitted At: 10:22am 04-25-23
The outdoor dining decks have been such a positive and fun addition to the city of Hermosa Beach! People enjoy the fresh air, people watching, bringing their dogs, and there is sense of community! The outdoor patios are not only enjoyable for tourists and residents, but we are creating more jobs for our city as well. Having outdoor patios is absolutely more inviting for people as well!
Mark Martelli
Location: 90277, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 10:03am 04-25-23
The outdoor patios in Hermosa Beach are a vital part of the community especially here in the beach cities. As we get closer towards summer it’s important that we can ensure our outdoor areas are ready and available as soon as possible.

Thank you
Abby Kahan
Location:

Submitted At: 9:56am 04-25-23
(Neutral because I support outdoor dining without any added restrictions or regulations) I fully support keeping outdoor dining for our local restaurants! I oppose any changes that would eliminate, reduce or increase pricing for our businesses.

Outdoor patios have been such a blessing to our local restaurants and are greatly enjoyed by all! I have worked on the pier for the last 15 years and I’ve first hand seen and experienced the positive changes it’s brought to our community. It’s been incredibly successful for all of us and the loss of, it reduction of would be detrimental for us.

Not just the business owners, but these patios have been beneficial to the employees and have created shifts and more jobs due how successful they’ve been.
539
Losing patios would result in the loss of shifts for employees. And that’s such a scary thought for a lot of us! I fully support keeping outdoor dining for our local restaurants! I oppose any changes that would eliminate, reduce or increase pricing for our businesses.

As far as the hours, and size restrictions and price gouging them, please do not exploit these businesses and their employees!! The local community as well as tourists LOVE spending time outdoors and we’ve worked so hard to make it a beautiful space for everyone to continue to enjoy! Please support outdoor dining. Support your local businesses and the best interest of the workers who keep Hermosa a beautiful community to live and visit!!
DJ Palma
Location: 90505, Torrance
Submitted At: 9:52am 04-25-23
The exterior seating in hermosa beach is one of the most beloved things by employees and guests alike, it consistently lures guests from everywhere to take a visit and support all the amazing businesses as well as enjoy the beautiful city that hermosa beach is.

As amazing as the outside seating is, any change to the price for the extensions is only shooting down the potential for hermosa. By charging over market prices business owners won’t be financially inclined to focus on building beautiful extended patios that draw people in for both the city and the business.

Bennett Murphy
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 9:45am 04-25-23
As a Hermosa beach resident and someone who recognizes just how special this town and community is, it would be such a shame for our restaurants to lose their outdoor dining spaces. In my opinion, it really gives such a boost to the Hermosa experience and the restaurants are such a vital part of the robust Hermosa community.

As someone who’s livelihood and work depends on restaurants I feel very strongly that the businesses, their workers and their families would certainly suffer and take a hit if the restaurants had to give back their outdoor dining decks not limiting back to precovid size
maria gonzalez
Location: 90504, Torrance
Submitted At: 9:43am 04-25-23
I support outdoor dining decks and believe they should be able to stay, just like many others. Hermosa beach is known for its beautiful and fun pier life that every local & non local enjoy. A big part of this include all of the outdoor dining decks that multiple business have and operate. On any given day, look around and you will see children, families, friends, business partners, and so on on dining decks either enjoying some food, people watching, or simply just relaxing to get away for a while. People come down to the beach and the pier to feel the beautiful weather we have as well as enjoy the place they live. Taking away outside dining decks would not only completely ignore what most people are begging for you to keep but it would also hurt many local businesses and employees that provide to the city. Restaurants should be able to keep these outside dining decks at a fair market price, and without so many regulations that honestly do not make much sense. Closing patios down at midnight doesn’t allow for people who are out having a good time to step outside to get some fresh air or get away from the loud scenes at times. Having outside decks even during later times like this also creates a sense of safeness in the community when you have younger and older people out having a good time. It feels more safe when you have people outside, than everyone stuffed in small buildings. Covid showed us that being outside is healthier and better than being in. Do not take this away! You will be ruining your city and the people who live in it.

Peter Doykos
Location:

Submitted At: 9:38am 04-25-23
Since the beginning of the pandemic, outdoor dining options were the only way the most iconic restaurants and bars on the Hermosa Pier managed to keep themselves from going under. I chose the “neutral” position in order to specify that I support retaining patio dining, but also argue that the proposed regulations will unnecessarily 540
hinder both the stability of the businesses and the comfort of the guests - locals and tourists alike. I fail to see the benefit of suddenly limiting the outdoor space and imposing stringent regulations/fees on business owners who only wish to maintain the vitality of the pier, stimulate the culture, and deliver fabulous dining and night life experiences to as many people as possible. Please reconsider jumping the gun on bureaucratizing such a simple matter that has warranted no complaints from the people who stand to benefit on all sides. This includes the city of Hermosa itself due to the revenue loss that will most certainly be evident if we reduce access to our very special place that we’ve helped cultivate and thrive together over decades of hard work.

Daniel Palma
Location:

Submitted At: 9:38am 04-25-23
I support the ability for local businesses to keep outdoor seating in Hermosa Beach. I also support that this initiative be accomplished with our local businesses best interest kept at the forefront. Eliminating these spaces would decrease the volume of residents and tourists that frequent the pier and drastically decrease the revenue of our local businesses. The overall impact to the city of Hermosa Beach would be devastating. I strongly urge you to do what is right for our residents, our city and especially our local business owners by keeping these spaces open without causing financial hardship to the businesses that would be impacted.

Austin Thompson
Location: 90245, El Segundo
Submitted At: 9:31am 04-25-23
Any change to our exterior patio and rooftop dining areas will only make it harder for honest, hardworking, and genuine people to achieve their goals and aspirations. As many of you are aware, the service industry can be another rung in the ladder of life, and stepping stone to more lucrative careers.

Speaking personally, any change could greatly affect my personal finances. Remember when some of you were in college and had to eat ramen every night for dinner, and worry about where rent would come from week to week? The industry I work in, and particularly, the outdoor dining spaces at palmilla allow me and my peers the opportunity, to escape that reality.

Not only this but hermosa beach is a fun area known for its night life. Closing at or before 12am would be counterintuitive to the majority of the traffic, at least to the pier promenade. If we close earlier, the people will just go elsewhere.

Extended dining patios have been a critical part of a multitude of businesses during and after the pandemic, please listen to the people who know what is best for the community and allow fair extended dining decks for everyone.

Ryan Sullivan
Location:

Submitted At: 9:29am 04-25-23
Dear City Council Members of Hermosa Beach,
The extended patios have created such an improved environment in our already beautiful city and it would be a huge shame to lose them. That being said, it would also be a travesty to charge restaurants anything above market price for these extensions as it would impact the ability to even afford to keep or maintain these patio spaces. Additionally, restricting operating hours and cutting back the size of any extended patios would further negate what they are really meant for, the further and continued beautification of our downtown pier.

Thank you for your consideration, please make the decision in support of our local businesses which will ultimately support our local economy with continued ability to provide more service to our residents and tourists alike.
narcisa palma
Location:

Submitted At: 9:26am 04-25-23
541
Outdoor seating and dining year round is why we live in Southern California. This draws out the community and tourists to enjoy our amazing weather and to support our local businesses. Please permanently allow outdoor seating.

Dino Capaldi
Location: 90254, Hermosa beach
Submitted At: 9:23am 04-25-23
I believe that the outdoor dinning decks have made a huge improvement to the culture of Hermosa Beach .

Tourists and residents love to be able to relax and eat outside and take advantage of the beauty that is Hermosa Beach. It would be a shame to see them slowly disappear. When you make your decisions keep in mind how your personal experience has been with the decks and vote with your hearts. God Bless and thank you. Dino Angelique Assayag
Location: 90277, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 9:16am 04-25-23
Closing the outdoor patio would be so dumb. It stimulates business which helps hermosa economy. Palmilla is a great loved restaurant by everyone and it would be a disgrace to get rid of our outdoor patio. It is also not in the way of anything, it brings a lot of money into the city and I know you like to sit there as well. It makes no sense to close it. For what? Nothing and no one is being harmed.

JD Ciasulli
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 8:40am 04-25-23
Just to clarify, I chose "Neutral" because I am in support of Permanent outdoor decks, but not with some of the stipulations attached in the proposal.

Dear City Council,
When the city created the Pier Plaza in 1997, we put Hermosa Beach on the map by creating the beautiful downtown area, a spot for tourists and residents alike to gather and enjoy our beach city. This is evidenced by how often photographs of the plaza are published both regionally and nationally. We really have an opportunity to make Hermosa Beach very special and a one-of-a-kind city. While neighboring cities are shutting down their outdoor covid areas, our city is set up so that we can maintain these larger outdoor dining areas, without losing too much to parking, safety concerns, or public gathering space. For us to take advantage of this golden opportunity to put Hermosa Beach on the map worldwide, we need to make these larger dining decks a permanent fixture. In order to accomplish this, I ask to you to work with the business owners toward achieving the mutually beneficial goal.

First off, charging more than fair market price for encroachment fees will exploit business owners and may even cause some to not build big, beautiful patio spaces. Wouldn’t we prefer the business owners have that money spent towards construction and beautification of patio spaces, rather than nickel and diming them to the point that they don’t want to join us in achieving this communal goal.

Secondly, we want to make sure we have enough space on these patios to accommodate both residents and tourists. Now that residents have been given the taste of bigger outdoor dining decks, reducing the size may result in locals not being able to get outdoor seating at their favorite places. We all know tourism is great for the city, but we wouldn’t want the tourism to come at the expense of our residents.

Lastly, closing all patio space at midnight would make no sense at all. I think covid has taught us that being outdoors is better than being indoors. On top of that, not only would it make the pier less safe without all the public eyes on it, but the plaza would feel like a scene from one of the many post-apocalyptic movies. Not allowing guests to get a breath of fresh air without leaving the establishment; that’s laughable. Coming out of the covid state of emergency, I think we can all agree that this proposed change is illogical.

We have an amazing opportunity to gain global recognition for the amazing beach town that we know we are.

Please work WITH the business owners and FOR the residents, and let’s make larger, more beautiful decks a permanent staple of Hermosa Beach.
542
Sincerely,
JD Ciasulli
15 15th street, Apt 16
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Katie Sotheran
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 7:45am 04-25-23
The extended outdoor seating in Hermosa has been such an improvement - it really creates such a nice atmosphere walking down Pier and has helped many businesses expand their capacity. I especially hope you will allow Good Stuff to retain their outdoor seating - it's a local icon and should be helped to continue to thrive.

Kathryn Russell
Location: 90504, Torrance
Submitted At: 6:45am 04-25-23
As a long time resident of the South Bay, my family and I have enjoyed the outdoor dining patio at Good Stuff for 30 plus years. It is one of the reasons ( besides the food) we like to go there. We hope the council will continue to allow Good Stuff to keep their current patio configuration. I have met many friends down their who were walking the strand as we were eating or vice versa. There is a strong community culture on that patio. That space doesn’t impact the flow of people trying to access the beach or pier. There is always plenty of space to access the strand and beach. Thank you.

Chris Wells
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 1:47am 04-25-23
I am a local resident of Hermosa Beach going on four years now. I do provide a unique perspective though because I am a pier employee at Baja Sharkeez as well. For four years as both employee and resident, and that includes a patron, I’ve adored the welcoming and enjoyable experience Hermosa outdoor dining has provided me.

The multitude of factors that have contributed to my enjoyment are the following:
-It’s a dog friendly atmosphere which is very important to all locals. -The health benefits as we know allow guests to feel comfortable and safe. -It’s the beach, outdoors is in high demand. I personally am from the east coast, so when friends and family visit I am excited to take them down hermosa plaza and enjoy the weather outside. -And from an employee perspective quite a few of my coworkers and friends would lose out on hours and it would greatly impact their economic well-being.

Megg Sulzinger
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 10:52pm 04-24-23
I oppose this ordinance as written. I support a permanent dining plan that mirrors the current setup. Plain & simple. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. The current dining program is working perfectly fine & doesn’t need to be adjusted.

Leave the operating hours, size restrictions & no lines alone. Asking people to wait in their car is ridiculous.

Having lines allow the businesses to control the flow and regulate the people waiting and is ultimately safer then sending people to go sit in their car or go back home to wait for a table or get into a venue to see live music.

The dining decks has given us an amazing opportunity to be an example for other communities. Some people are still not comfortable eating inside.
543
Additionally the dining decks have not only created a large revenue source that previously wasn’t available but they also are now responsible for maintaining the decks which was previously a city responsibility. So they are giving the city a steady source of revenue but also helping with maintanence.

Manhattan Beach restaurants saw a large decrease in revenue which also resulted in the retail businesses losing money as well.

Let’s show the other surrounding areas that Hermosa supports local businesses and outdoor dining.

Rudy G
Location:

Submitted At: 10:17pm 04-24-23
Please make the car-lane reduction and bike lanes permanent on hermosa and pier avenues. This change has made walking and biking much safer, and has reduced dangerous speeding cars. Foot traffic is best for business, and adding more dangerous car-lanes will decrease business by making hermosa less pleasant. Furthermore, outdoor dining should remain, with rents as cheap as possible. Outdoor dining increases jobs in hermosa, and is enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

Silvio Petoletti
Location: 90250
Submitted At: 9:33pm 04-24-23
Please let the lighthouse continue using their outdoor patio. i love sitting out there in the fresh air__
Scott Friedman
Location: 90277, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 9:20pm 04-24-23
Please keep the extended outdoor dining and sidewalk dining. It's an incredible addition to our community that is long overdue and brings a beautiful experience to our beachside businesses. The additional dining in Pier Plaza and at the Good Stuff restaurant next to the hotel is something that should have been in place many years ago and should be made a permanent element of the area. It truly elevates the look and appeal of our area to both residents and guests.
eyner guerrero
Location:

Submitted At: 9:02pm 04-24-23
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed plan to cap all decks at 1,000 square feet and require the closing of all patios at midnight, regardless of business hours. I believe that these restrictions would have a detrimental impact on our local restaurants.

The proposed deck size cap would significantly affect many popular restaurants in the area. These establishments have invested significant time and resources into creating larger outdoor dining areas to accommodate more customers. By capping the deck size at 1,000 square feet, these businesses would lose much if not all of their extended dining decks, which would have a severe impact on their operations and revenue.

Furthermore, requiring the closing of all patios at midnight, regardless of business hours, is another ill-conceived restriction that would harm local restaurants. The economic damage caused by this restriction is significant, and it would also reduce public safety by turning the plaza indoors at midnight, eliminating the natural surveillance created by patrons and staff. Criminals tend to work best when not observed, and by forcing restaurants to close their outdoor dining areas at midnight, the community would be left with fewer eyes on the street.

In conclusion, I urge the city council to reconsider these proposed restrictions and instead work with local businesses to find ways to continue supporting outdoor dining while also addressing any legitimate public safety concerns. We must support our local restaurants, which are essential to the fabric of our community, and ensure that they can operate in a manner that allows them to remain profitable and sustainable.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
544
Reid Luna
Location:

Submitted At: 8:47pm 04-24-23
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed plan to not allow restaurants to allow queuing. I believe that this restriction would have a negative impact on local restaurants and ultimately harm the community.

By not allowing restaurants to allow queuing, the proposed plan would require all restaurants to implement a phone notification system. If no table is available, the restaurant would be required to ask patrons to wait in their cars until notified a seat is available. This requirement would be particularly challenging since some establishments do not use hostess so it would make it harder to keep track having guests sat.

Additionally, the proposal's language is sloppy and unclear, suggesting that businesses may not be allowed to have patrons wait inside their place of business either. This would be particularly problematic for establishments with limited outdoor space, and it would also create issues for customers who may have to wait outside in inclement weather conditions.

In conclusion, I urge the city council to reconsider this proposed restriction and instead work with local businesses to find ways to continue supporting queuing while also addressing any legitimate public safety concerns. We must support our local restaurants, which are essential to the fabric of our community, and ensure that they can operate in a manner that allows them to remain profitable and sustainable.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Reid Luna
Maddie O'Connor
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 8:25pm 04-24-23
Environmental Determination by city staff and City CEQA Consultant for Lane Reconfiguration is INCORRECT.

Staff Report states that
"The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as defined in Section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines, as follows:

The Lane Reconfiguration component of the project is exempt in accordance with Section 15301, which addresses MINOR ALTERATION of existing public facilities; and Section 15304, which addresses MINOR ALTERATIONS to public land. More specifically, the following two subcategories of exemption both apply." On Page 118 of the city's General Plan (PLAN) adopted in 2017 it clearly identifies Pier Avenue as a "designated truck route": To quote: "Truck routes in Hermosa Beach are designated along major arterial and collector roadways that include Pacific Coast Highway, Aviation Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, PIER AVENUE, and the segment of Valley Drive south of Pier Avenue (in the southbound direction). Most areas of the city requiring truck route access are adequately served by the existing system, with the exception of the northwestern portion of the city along Greenwich Village, 27th Street, and Manhattan Avenue. This designated truck route system directs heavy truck traffic away from local (residential) roadways in order to help maintain pavement quality on local streets and manage noise and air pollution in residential areas." Consequently LANE REDUCTION (to ONE) on a Designated Truck Route can hardly be considered a MINOR ALTERATION.
https://www.hermosabeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9872/637001018228830000 Daniel Godwin
Location:

Submitted At: 8:02pm 04-24-23
Dear City Council,
The proposed report does show progress in formalizing extended patios and the bike lane configuration. For that I commend the city staff and stakeholders who contributed. I fully support the proposed dedicated bike lanes on Pier Ave and Hermosa Ave because it does provide additional safety to our residents and visitors. However, I recommend that the city continue to investigate innovative ways to improve traffic flow on Pier Ave (between the Green Belt intersection & Monterey Ave).

With respect to extended patios, they have injected a refreshing appeal to our community and have provided much needed financial relief to our local business. One exception is that I have heard of some businesses on Pier 545
Ave where lesser parking has reduced access to their respective establishments. The city should continue to periodically assess these impacts in this area specifically. Additionally, there are other areas of concern that should be addressed before approval/implementation.
1) Extended patios should NOT be capped to 1,000 sq feet. It should based on current allowances, as long as there is suitable right of way. For Loreto Plaza, 25 feet from the storefront appears to be adequate. Please allow current allowances and protect our local businesses (e.g. Hennessey’s, Good Stuff, American Junkie, Brews Hall).
2) Please, please, please do NOT ban line queueing. This has been a standard business practice and paramount to local business revenue. If this passes, we sadly see many of our restaurants leave our lovely town. 3) Encroachment fees should be incremental (on an Annual/Biannual basis) and not a ‘slap in the face’. I believe that 5-20% increases are equitable and fair. 33-100% increases are egregious to places that are barely getting by and doesn’t incentivize long standing establishments to stay. Please maintain the current $1.50 fee for off-pier locations as they are more disadvantaged compared to other establishments. 4) Extended patio (encroachment areas) hours of operation should be based on their business license and public safety. A midnight restriction for Loreto Plaza appears to be arbitrary and not conducive to warm/peak business times of the year.

Let’s support local business in Hermosa, not inhibit it! Thank you for your consideration.

Jennifer Svensson
Location: 90254
Submitted At: 7:03pm 04-24-23
Please save our outdoor dining!
Judy Deutsch
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 6:41pm 04-24-23
Continue the decks at resturaunts in Hermosa Beach
Cody Lauterabch
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 6:23pm 04-24-23
Dear City Council Members of Hermosa Beach,
I am writing to advocate for the continuation of outdoor extended patio dining in Hermosa Beach with the current rules and regulations currently in place. I support the existing downtown and Pier Ave area dining decks and oppose any rules or regulations that might cause the elimination or reduction of the size of those dining decks.

The recent extension of our outdoor patio and rooftop dining deck during the pandemic has allowed us to provide a unique intimate experience for our guests and has been a great benefit to our community.

One key point that I would like to touch on is the fact that the price per square foot for our outdoor dining area should be comparable to market rates, which are currently $3-$5 in Hermosa Beach, CA. This makes it a worthwhile investment for businesses to maintain and expand their outdoor dining options within these price points.

Another benefit of outdoor dining is the ability to keep patios open during normal business hours and not closing down early. This provides guests with the opportunity to get fresh air and have a comfortable conversation while enjoying their meals. Additionally, patios provide a much safer and hospitable feel by having extra sets of eyes on things on the pier.

Tower 12 would be open to using a portion of Loreto Plaza for mixed public use and would even be willing to help finance a vibrant outdoor public space. This would be a win-win situation for both businesses and the community, as it would encourage more people to spend time outdoors and enjoy the beauty of Hermosa Beach.

In conclusion, the expansion of our patio has allowed us to focus much more on the dining aspect of our business and cater to many more locals, tourists, and families looking to enjoy delicious food surrounded by Hermosa 546
Beach's greatest attribute, its outdoor beauty. Let's not install new rules and more regulations that make it harder for business to benefit from the only good outlier of the pandemic. I urge the City Council to consider the benefits of outdoor dining and to continue supporting this option in the most fair way for businesses in Hermosa Beach.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Cody Lauterbach
Tower 12, Baja Sharkeez
Shaun Albin
Location: 90503, Torrance
Submitted At: 6:01pm 04-24-23
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to consider allowing our local restaurants to keep their outdoor dining areas, which have become a lifeline for many businesses during the pandemic.

Over the past year, outdoor dining has been a crucial tool for restaurants to continue serving their customers while adhering to social distancing guidelines. Many establishments have invested significant time and resources to create comfortable and safe outdoor
dining spaces, which have become a popular and essential part of our community.

However, I understand that some members of the community have expressed concerns about the impact of outdoor dining on the environment, traffic, and noise levels. While these concerns are valid, I believe that we can find solutions that address these issues
without taking away this vital resource from our local businesses.

For example, we can work with restaurant owners to ensure that their outdoor dining areas are well-maintained and adhere to specific guidelines regarding noise levels and traffic. Additionally, we can explore the possibility of implementing more environmentally-friendly
practices in outdoor dining areas, such as composting and recycling.

Furthermore, I believe that outdoor dining has significant economic benefits for our community. By allowing restaurants to keep their outdoor dining areas, we can help support our local businesses and preserve jobs that are crucial for our city's economy. Additionally,
outdoor dining areas can attract visitors and contribute to the vibrancy and liveliness of our city.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the City Council to consider the benefits of outdoor dining and work with restaurant owners to find solutions that address concerns while preserving this valuable resource. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Shaun Albin
Kathy Holzer
Location: 55057, NORTHFIELD
Submitted At: 6:00pm 04-24-23
547
We spend a couple of weeks each year staying at the SeaSprite, enjoying the local businesses, biking the Strand, and eating breakfast and lunch every day OUTDOORS at Good Stuff. Being from Minnesota, outside seating is a huge draw for us, even in winter months, and does not hinder pedestrian or bike traffic or beach access. This is a family friendly establishment that is a gem for us in Hermosa Beach. Please support continued outdoor seating for Good Stuff.

Steve Moseley
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 4:08pm 04-24-23
Love the outdoor dining, but okay with increasing costs to restos. Midnight shut down is good.

Huge fan of lane reductions! Better for bikes, slows cars down, and traffic is virtually unaffected (only at a few peak times, so walk or bike instead!)
Bonnie Moton
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 3:46pm 04-24-23
Stars Antique Market is against the continued pop outs that take up parking spaces. All businesses had difficulty during the pandemic and the city did what was needed to help the resturants at that time - but the pandemic is over and Hermosa needs it's parking spaces back. I urge you to come up with a solution to give retail business owners some if not all public parking spots back. We are located on upper Pier Ave and the parking near our building has been reduced by 12 spaces over the last 18 years to provide security for the Police Dept, which we support.

Just hoping for a solution that will benefit all businesses.

Ira Ellman
Location:

Submitted At: 3:15pm 04-24-23
Good Stuff’s owners seems OK with an incremental space reduction from 900 sq ft to 500 sq ft. I am supportive of this outcome. Good Stuff, unlike a few plaza bar/restaurants, is not a drain on HBPD and other city resources as it is not open evenings and doesn’t have patrons that get DUI’s, trash neighborhoods or get in fights.

Ira Ellman
Location:

Submitted At: 3:15pm 04-24-23
Good Stuff’s owners seems OK with an incremental space reduction from 900 sq ft to 500 sq ft. I am supportive of this outcome. Good Stuff, unlike a few plaza bar/restaurants, is not a drain on HBPD and other city resources as it is not open evenings and doesn’t have patrons that get DUI’s, trash neighborhoods or get in fights.

Joseph Ciasulli
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 3:09pm 04-24-23
I support the existing Pier Avenue area dining decks and oppose any rules or regulations that might cause the elimination or reduction of the size of those dining decks.

My wife and I love the post-pandemic Pier Avenue and, in particular, the Pier Plaza. Almost every night we walk the few blocks from our apartment to enjoy the excitement on Pier Avenue. Maybe we’ll stop in to get an ice cream from the Baked Bear; maybe we’ll stop and get a slice of pizza from Paisanos; maybe we’ll sit down and have dinner on a dining deck at one of the many fine-dining establishments; or maybe we’ll simply sit at one of those dining decks and have a drink and just people watch. So many things to do. Hermosa’s downtown area is alive, vibrant and exciting and we think that in large part it’s because of the dining decks. The decks give it a European feel with so many people sitting outside. There is a noticeable difference between Pier Avenue without dining decks and Pier Avenue as it is now. We much prefer the area with the decks.

We understand that you are now considering revising some of the rules and regulations relating to the decks.

Please don’t do anything that will result in the owners eliminating or reducing the size of the dining decks. This 548
would be a step backward and would negatively affect the Pier Avenue experience. It’s just not the same when everybody is sitting inside.

Accordingly, we strongly urge you to work closely with the owners in fashioning your new rules and regulations to ensure that the owners maintain the existing dining decks and the present Pier Avenue experience. Anything less would be extremely disappointing.

Joseph Ciasulli
Josh Royal
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 2:43pm 04-24-23
As the operating manager of Lighthouse, I wanted to express my concerns regarding some of the recommendations, while also expressing my full support for outdoor dining.

Firstly, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the City Council for the steps taken to help us get through the challenges posed by Covid. Your decision to expand patios and allow live music was a lifeline for our business and greatly benefited our employees and customers. Your business-friendly actions helped us immensely during a difficult time, and for that, we are truly grateful. Thank you! I also feel fortunate to have been given the opportunity to get involved in an iconic venue such as The Lighthouse.

I love operating the Lighthouse and keeping the past traditions alive. As a city and community, I hope you share in feeling privileged to have such an amazing iconic venue in our town. That being said I think as a community and city, we should take steps to support the Lighthouse. We are asking to keep the existing agreement in place before Covid and not asking for anything additional. I think honoring an agreement is important and we have come to rely on this patio for our operations as it was before Covid. I believe the intention of the Patio Dining Program is to help businesses and not add wording that will hurt businesses such as the Lighthouse. The current system of the patio falling in line with the conditional use permit and keeping the same closing time as the business works well.

The Lighthouse’s has a cozy small space and the partnership with the City in 2007 to expand the patio has been invaluable. The patio has become an integral part of our business, offering a much-needed respite from the hustle and bustle of the interior. Customers can indulge in an appetizer or meal while enjoying the refreshing ocean air and that has made the patio a beloved feature that patrons use and relish.

Eliminating patio access at midnight will be difficult to explain and enforce. Furthermore customers are safer and less prone to be victims of crime while in a supervised area. Conversely, if customers are asked to relocate to the smaller indoor space and then decide to move out into the plaza after midnight, it likely will create confusion and could compromise their safety. In light of this, I hope the council will reconsider any proposed restriction on patio access after midnight.

Regarding the issue of lines in the plaza, I am hoping for a compromise. We often book popular music that draws a crowd, creating a line. Asking customers to disperse the line will be difficult, and I am hoping that lines can be viewed as a business privilege, restricted only when a particular business is irresponsible in managing their line.

At Lighthouse, we work hard to keep lines orderly and have a policy to stop the entry of patrons demonstrating signs of being overly intoxicated. We believe this helps set a tone that over-intoxication is not acceptable.

Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to the City Council and staff for the patio and outdoor music programs during Covid. They were crucial for our business, and we hope that this lifeline will continue. Thank you again!
Sincerely,
Josh Royal
549
Andrew and Leanne Clifton
Location:

Submitted At: 12:38pm 04-24-23
Good Stuff is really a historic establishment in Hermosa Beach. Cris Bennet has been serving food to the people of Hermosa Beach for probably longer than any of you council people have ever even lived here. We have been eating there since he opened, it is not just another bar. His establishment does not ever require police action. It is a fine family restaurant and if the bars can have extra outdoor seating, Good Stuff should surely be able to keep their extra seating. The additional outdoor seating has been wonderful, we don't have to wait nearly as long for a table.

We have no idea who could think that beach goers do not have enough room to walk from the parking to the strand and sand. As regulars at Good Stuff we have firsthand knowledge that it does not hinder beach goers in the least. We sit outside and watch the beach goers easily pass by all the time!! Umbrellas blocking the beach view?? The view from the parking structure, from the bank, from Starbucks, the view from the street while you are suppose to be driving? You have got to be kidding. Please use some common sense and leave Good Stuff the way it is. The Pier Plaza extra outdoor dining works very nicely also.

We do have reservations about the street extra outdoor dining. It takes up a lot of parking space which really hurts the businesses that are not bars and restaurants.

Rocky Ciasulli
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 12:33pm 04-24-23
The city can’t have both of these things:

1. Take a position of supporting local business

2. Gouge local businesses financially the point that it’s not worth it for local business owners to operate in Hermosa Beach
The ordinance as it is currently set up (charging fees way over market value for extended outdoor dining decks, limiting the size of outdoor decks to half of the current allowance, requiring closure of all outdoor areas by midnight, not allowing any type of queuing system on pier plaza) severely neuters local businesses’ ability to thrive in our community. Struggling local businesses employ less local residents, infusing less money into our local economy, and threatening the vitality of our neighborhood.

The stipulations of this ordinance as it is currently formatted do not support local business. And with it, the city is doing a disservice to the community it has been entrusted to protect Bartt Gunter
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 12:17pm 04-24-23
I support businesses using public areas as long as it is not a gift of public funds. If City areas are to be used by private entities, then they need to pay a market rate for the right to use those areas. Otherwise, public resources are being used for private enterprise.

ERIC findlay
Location: 90254, hermosa beach
Submitted At: 10:52am 04-24-23
The outdoor dining patios are great for all. If they were removed it would result is shifts and income being lost to the employees. Wouldn't HB want to see their businesses and employees earn and excel? Those patios are always full, clearly the business and people of Hermosa Beach enjoy the extra space and being outdoors. If rent needs to be paid to the city from the business it should lean in favor of the business. DON'T TAKE THE PATIOS AWAY!
Vincent Busam
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 10:34am 04-24-23
550
Outdoor dining and travel lane configurations have been a big improvement to our community. I strongly support keeping them. Also, the restaurants should be fairly compensating the city for the additional space.

Ned Garrett
Location: 90505
Submitted At: 10:10am 04-24-23
I support allowing Good Stuff to maintain outdoor seating according to the plan they propose. I ride past there frequently on a bike at various times of day and have never noted any problems of access for anyone. I have seen first responder vehicles navigating the area without difficulty during somewhat crowded times. It's never a good idea to start limiting successful local businesses like this, especially when they are really not negatively impacting an area in a significant way, and especially when they are a definite attraction to the area. Be smart and either let them be, or take up Good Stuff's proposal.

KIM BRIGHT
Location: 90277, REDONDO BEACH
Submitted At: 10:10am 04-24-23
Outdoor dining is strongly supported by the community. Good Stuff had outdoor dining long before it was even a thing. It is what they are known for and why we love dining there. Don't take away something that is good and healthy for our community!
Nathan Smith
Location: 37174, Spring Hill
Submitted At: 8:40am 04-24-23
Keep the patio dining option for Good Stuff. This iconic established business has overcome so much in the past 3 years with the pandemic, lockdowns, labor crisis, etc. Please pass laws that are in favor of local owned businesses. The people of the city love the open air patio dining options. It’s what the city is known for. Just the other day Mark McGrath was filming a promo video for the Beach Life Festival from a table on the patio of Good Stuff. He mentioned the scenery and location as ideal for a great meal with a great view. This patio space doesn’t hurt anyone or impede any traffic flow.

Kyle Sterling
Location: 90250, Hawthorne
Submitted At: 7:46am 04-24-23
This is regarding encroachments for outdoor dining, mainly on Pier Plaza. First of all, you mismanage the money you get from businesses already. If you didn’t, your greedy little hands wouldn’t be proposing this stupidity. What are the plans for the additional revenue. You claim it’s needed yet you don’t disclose your plans for using the revenue. Secondly, there is no encroachment into any public space on Pier Plaza that is causing any harm or hindered mobility through the plaza. This is nothing more than a power money grab and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. As a city council your job is to protect the businesses that generate the revenue for the city. By burdening these businesses with additional fees and regulations so you can make a quick extra buck shows the disgusting nature of clowns like you running things. As someone that frequents Pier Plaza, has a spouse that works there, and knows many business owners throughout the city, I can say with 100% confidence that no one wants this. Seems only the greedy city government does. Shame on you all. Stop being greedy scum and do the right thing for the businesses in the community.

Mia Falkenstein
Location: 90277, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 6:48am 04-24-23
I strongly oppose ordinance 23-0247 in the current way written. The outdoor usage for our community is an important element to our southbay life.

Mary Chinchilla
Location: 90277, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 6:46am 04-24-23
Mr Bennett is a generous sponsor of South Bay schools, Little Leagues, Hands on Art programs at South Bay schools, and gave thousands of dollars of meals to healthcare workers at TMMC and LCOM during the 551
pandemic. He worked hard to keep his people employed and to serve the beloved South Bay community. Good Stuff restaurants are not only local favorites, but wonderful, attractive, not to mention delicious spots that are visitors to LA seek out.

The outdoor dining at Hermosa location existed before outdoor dining became a solution to the LA County Covid restrictions. The outdoor dining has become so popular everywhere- it’s a shame to diminish it and / or eliminate it altogether.

A crowded beach day is something most visitors are looking for when visiting the South Bay and Hermosa Beach especially!
It’s short sighted of the city council to punish an involved, local, hard working business because of sun umbrella blocking view from the alley or parking garage. In the 90’s, that sidewalk alley would be lined with chairs on weekends and summer mornings with Good Stuff patrons waiting for indoor dining!!! Good stuff is popular, they are good stewards to the South Bay community, and Mr Bennett constantly gives back to all of the South Bay! Please keep the beautiful outdoor dining! Thank you Shawn Shepherd
Location: 90274, Rolling Hills Estates
Submitted At: 10:54pm 04-23-23
I'm writing to express my deep and strong support to maintain the current, existing outdoor seating that is available to Good Stuff customers today and that it not be altered by any legislation or order.

The concerns that have been noted about ample access between the beach and the parking garage and the "view" that is obstructed by the umbrellas are both absurd and unfounded.

Good Stuff was the very first place my wife and I ate when we moved to California and it remains a favorite spot to this day.

The Good Stuff team did everything they could to continue to serve the community and take care of their employees during the pandemic. Their efforts should be applauded and acknowledged, not ignored and discounted only to become part of the political turmoil that never seems to cease in the South Bay.

I strongly encourage actions by this council that support thriving businesses that draw both locals and visitors to the area and further improves the economy.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

T J
Location:

Submitted At: 10:50pm 04-23-23
No bad
Sara schonfeld
Location: 90278, Redondo beach
Submitted At: 8:36pm 04-23-23
Please keep outdoor dining at good stuff!!! We don’t have enough outdoor dining for our beautiful beach town Marianne Kelchner
Location:

Submitted At: 5:52pm 04-23-23
My family and I have been dining at Good Stuff in Hermosa Beach for decades. It's our go-to place to bring outof-town guests to enjoy their sidewalk patio dining and beautiful ocean view. We find it healthier to dine outdoors whenever possible. Please do not restrict the ability of Good Stuff and other Hermosa Beach restaurants to offer outdoor sidewalk dining to their guests. Please support Hermosa businesses and allow them to keep this outdoor space, which, of course, will generate more revenue for the City, as well! Taylor SimonGarvey
552
Location: 90094, Playa vista
Submitted At: 5:46pm 04-23-23
The outdoor dining space at Good Stuff should remain as is. There is still plenty of sidewalk space for walking to and from the strand. Good Stuff is an iconic establishment in Hermosa beach and having the current extra outdoor space just allows more people to enjoy the amazing food and atmosphere that it has always provided.

We need to support our local restaurants!
Karen Klink
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 2:39pm 04-23-23
There seems to some confusion as to what is opposing and support for Outside dining decks. The comments I read that say oppose are for Outside dining so maybe one of doesn't understand the question?
I think most of us, myself included want to keep the decks as much as we can, perhaps there are some that take up too much street and should be scaled back. A fair price should be negotiated. There are some bars crying poverty that we are not being truthful. I don't want to be like Manhattan and get rid of them all but they had way more street decks. I think people forget that a deck may help restaurants but hinder other merchants and that needs to be taken into consideration.
kelly Kinnon
Location:

Submitted At: 1:40pm 04-23-23
First, I think in this case the support/oppose choice is confusing as there are several options presented in the latest Staff Report. I didn't know what to put so I put neutral, but I support outdoor dining 100%. Seems like the vast majority of comments support outdoor dining, though many are listed as "oppose". So hopefully you ignore the designation and read the letters.

In any event, I am a longtime Hermosa resident. Old enough to remember when it was Howard Rumsey's Lighthouse and there was no Pier Plaza. I'm old! Anyway, the Lighthouse remains a Hermosa Beach jewel. All efforts should be made to support its success, including expanded outdoor seating at a fair and reasonable price.

Speaking of price, $5 psf seems pricy btw, and comparing to fully built out space is not a fair comparison. While we focus on weekend afternoons in the summer when we see these places full of customers, there are many slow months Nov - April and many days (weekdays) when it isn't really that busy. So figure out how to create a win/win with the pricing (either less in the off-months or average that in to the pricing).

I think generally the outdoor dining is an excellent amenity to both residents and visitors, and I think the City should bend over backwards to support business given the relatively small business base in the City. Had brunch today at Palmilla, listening the some melodious jazz wafting from the Lighthouse. Lovely.

Taking Good Stuff as one example, this is also an iconic business that epitomizes Hermosa beach life. I walked past it today and folks were enjoying the food and the sun. It was a beautiful thing to see. There is plenty of room for pedestrians on the north side of the seating, the umbrellas (which come down at 3 anyway) don't block anything but the sun (which is a good thing, having had my face carved up for various sun-related issues) and folks walking up13th street for a minute or two (but not driving, since it is one-way east). I can't think of a better use for that strip of land than extended seating for Good Stuff. To me, it's a no-brainer to continue to permit this use as is, without any reduction.

So generally, I strongly support keeping the status quo for most outdoor dining. Seems like the benefits strongly outweigh the negatives. I know that we would eat out a lot less and spend a lot less money with our local businesses if places like Good Stuff and North End didn't offer outdoor dining.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Support Hermosa businesses. Don't mess with success.

The proposed Ordinance says it all:
"E. The creation and activation of these spaces for pedestrian oriented 553
uses such as outdoor dining have been beneficial to the Pier Plaza and Downtown areas of the City. These programs have provided residents and visitors with the unique ability to patron City businesses via outdoor dining.

Further, businesses have been able to avail themselves to this new opportunity which provides for a more robust economic environment and business friendly environment.

F. The City has received positive feedback from residents, visitors and businesses about all of the benefits of these expanded outdoor dining programs."
Thanks for your consideration.

Denise Freeman
Location: 91941-7842, LA MESA
Submitted At: 12:04pm 04-23-23
I am writing in support of keeping the outdoor dining at Good Stuff as it is. I grew up in the South Bay and Good Stuff was my go to all the way through college and beyond. It provides the best atmosphere--a perfect place to enjoy breakfast, lunch or dinner outside in the ocean breeze. I still go there whenever I'm in town. I don't understand why a few people want to change what the majority enjoy...Good Stuff's patio dining has never been a problem. Keep the fun stuff.

Darrell Greenwald
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 11:25am 04-23-23
Dear Council,
I am a 47-year, second-generation resident of Hermosa Beach. Here are some of the reasons why I think Good Stuff's sidewalk dining should remain:

1.With their outdoor seating, there is still 12ft of unobstructed access from the parking lot to the beach. Plenty of room for emergency access and people walking to the beach. It’s never been an issue, even on busy weekends with large volleyball events.

2.The umbrellas shield customers from the sun and don’t block the view of the beach from anywhere but part of the alley behind.

3.Good Stuff is an iconic family dining establishment that is frequented by locals and visitors alike. A real slice of our beautiful community! Their outside dining areas are the #1 requested sitting!

4. The City Council should focus on real problems like homeless encampments, crime, and children recklessly driving electric bikes throughout the city.

Warmest regards,
D. Greenwald
10th Street
Teresa Fisher
Location: 90245, El Segundo
Submitted At: 10:55am 04-23-23
We like the outdoor seating at Good Stuff and it allows more people to enjoy a meal at the beach. Although I go to the one in our town more often, come summer I enjoy a change of venue. I have never been inconvenienced by the outdoor seating, in fact, it has made it easier to get a meal (i.e. more seating) since it is such a popular restaurant. It takes away the quaintness of our beach cities.

Russell Mark
554
Location: 90293, Playa Del Rey
Submitted At: 10:11am 04-23-23
I am strongly in favor of keeping Good Stuff Restaurant exactly as it is. This restaurant has been gracing that location for as long as I can remember. It always makes me smile to see people eating there and enjoying the atmosphere. It's a quiet little place in an area that tends to be "too much" (too noisy, too crowded, too many flashing lights). Good Stuff is not blocking anyone's view - unless you enjoy gazing at a barren grey parking structure. I have eaten there and enjoyed it. Mostly I enjoy seeing people there as I pass by on the boardwalk. It really adds to the "hometown" feel at Hermosa Beach. The kind of place locals would go, as opposed to the overpriced restaurants and bars nearby filled with drunken tourists. Please don't destroy this last bastion of humanity by taking the outdoor dining away! Hermosa Beach's essential nature is a quiet beach town. "Beautiful" Beach should remain beautiful, and not turn into simply a drinking destination! Edwin Ong
Location: 90503, Torrance
Submitted At: 8:37am 04-23-23
Stop trying to change Hermosa.

Geraldine AthasVazquez
Location: 90254
Submitted At: 11:15am 04-22-23
I am in support of letting businesses have the patios on the Pier open past midnight as they have been for years and years. Can’t ruin the businesses because you don’t want to fund more police patrols on weekends.

Charles Rich
Location: 90254
Submitted At: 8:42pm 04-21-23
The existing arrangement with the Lighthouse should be respected and remain in place without the proposed changes.

Isabel Ferrera
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 4:50pm 04-21-23
Please maintain the current patio hours for restaurants, including Lighthouse.

Abigail Henderson
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 4:44pm 04-21-23
Keep Hermosa Hermosa! This isn’t a quiet retirement community. Why would we try to make it that way. We have two young children and we frequent many of the restaurants on Pier Plaza weekly! Part of the reason we moved to Hermosa was to escape the sleepily nature of Santa Barbara and enjoy the lively, friendly, fun atmosphere of this great Beach City! Strongly oppose!

VICKI HICKS
Location: 90266, MANHATTAN BEACH
Submitted At: 4:41pm 04-21-23
What we saw during the Pre-pandemic on our pier was there were outdoor patios that worked really well for our businesses that were still open late . Patios have become new sources of revenue for them. Let's be CLEAR AND NOT forget that covid is not gone!! Dinners are often more comfortable eating outside while listening to live music, that's what sets Hermosa Beach apart from other beach cities . The outdoor dining area can draw in passersby to dine. Why would you want to take that away?? Closing the pier patios early and eliminating lines to access venues makes zero since PLEASE allow for lines in the patio or pier plaza area Jaclyne Friedman
Location: 90254, Hermosa beach
Submitted At: 3:30pm 04-21-23
The lighthouse, like the Comedy and magic club, are the part of hermosa vibe that doesn’t create problems. 555
Please allow the continued use of the patio and figure out a way for people to line up before a show. Comedy club has a line before shows and it works fine .

Jay Philbrick
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 3:14pm 04-21-23
A ridiculous proposal which will impose undue burden on bars and restaurants at pier plaza. City Council needs to get out more. Check out other cities and other cultures. We need outdoor dining and more live music in our town.

Randy Maxwell
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 2:40pm 04-21-23
Closing pied patios early and eliminating lines to access venues makes nonsense. It has worked for 20 years so please let the Hermosa Vibe remain. I didn’t move here to see you restrict my access to my favorite venues at my favorite times.

Matthew OapostropheReilly
Location: 90254, HERMOSA BEACH
Submitted At: 2:40pm 04-21-23
Just here to voice opposition to the proposal of closing pier restaurant patios at midnight, specifically The Lighthouse. This was obviously recommended by people who have never visited the pier after midnight and have no idea what The Lighthouse has done for Hermosa Beach, historically, as a music destination. The city of Hermosa Beach needs The Lighthouse and city council should be bending over backwards to make sure their needs as a business are met. The Lighthouse is one of the few places that gives Hermosa Beach any sort of "Counter culture credibility". In a SEA of eye sore McMansions and vacant lots of bulldozed cottages, The Lighthouse is just that. A beacon of light for those of us looking to escape the bro'd out sports bars (who should also be allowed to use their patios as they have been) of the pier.

Put some respect upon The Lighthouses' name!
That being said they should be allowed to continue operating their patio as they have for the last 20 years. Was that not the point of pier plaza to begin with? May as well put parking spots back in if we are going to limit the use of patio space and add time constraints.

I yield my time.

George Branch
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 2:15pm 04-21-23
The proposed changes to the patio/outside dining areas for Pier Plaza are poorly considered and would have a significantly negative impact on the businesses in that areas. Restricting outdoor dining to midnight on actual streets such as Hermosa Avenue makes sense, but placing these new restrictions on the Plaza businesses feels very much like overreach and out of scope. The plaza is unique.

Helen Constable
Location: 90254, HERMOSA BEACH
Submitted At: 1:55pm 04-21-23
Lighthouse is often a loud venue, and it has been nice to be able to get away from the loud music. It would genuinely be hard to carry a conversation let alone eat a meal without a patio. If lighthouse were to get rid of their patio they will lose money because 1. Patrons won’t stay as long 2. People will also order less food. The patio also allows people to appreciate the outdoors and beauty of Hermosa beach and the walk way space isn’t fully utilized anyways.

Tom Shortridge
Location: 90503, Torrance
Submitted At: 1:48pm 04-21-23
556
My family patronize the Lighthouse and other pier plaza businesses at least 2-3 times a week - supporting Hermosa Beach businesses and contributing to the sales tax base. Please oppose the limits on the outdoor patios and wait lines. These uses have very minimal impact on the area residents and I cannot image a closeddoor empty-patio plaza especially during summer evenings.

Jamie Lovelynn
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 12:47pm 04-21-23
I fully support outdoor seating for restaurants. I specifically seek out restaurants and cafes where I can sit in the sun and enjoy the California sunshine. I believe it enhances the Hermosa experience to have the outdoor dining areas. I will truly be sad and disappointed if they are removed. Truthfully, I will spend less time at the restaurants if the outdoor area is removed. Thank you for your consideration. 557
City Council Hybrid Meeting (Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00 PM) 04-25-23 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
a) 23-0234 MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on March 28, 2023.
4 0 2 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for a) 23-0234 MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session held on March 28, 2023.

Overall Sentiment
M R
Location: 90254
Submitted At: 1:36pm 04-24-23
I am writing in support of Good Stuff and all the restaurants, really. The best part of the beach and California is eating on the patio year round. It is a privilege for locals and tourists alike. There is plenty of room between the hotel and patio. The only view the umbrellas block is the parking structure and garbage dumpster’s view. Stop taking away good things that don’t bother anyone, and work on actual issues.

Lori Miller
Location: 90266, Manhattan Beach
Submitted At: 7:14am 04-24-23
I am writing to express support for the outdoor seating at good stuff. It Is not blocking anyone’s view or access to the beach. Good stuff has been an iconic restaurant in Hermosa Beach for decades. It would be foolish to take away business by taking away the seating!
Antoaneta Angelova
558
Location: 90064
Submitted At: 4:49pm 04-23-23
The restaurant is an iconic place and part of the California beach culture. It does NOT block beach view and provides PLENTY of space between parking lot and beach. It will be a shame to close the patio - patio is part of beach culture! Thank you!
Taylor Adams
Location: 90505, Torrance
Submitted At: 1:15pm 04-23-23
Outdoor seating has brought an added element of fun and socializing to the beach cities. It has livened up the area, increased business, and shown more local love. It also has prevented tents from being pitched onto the sidewalks. Unfortunately, in LA, many businesses rather give precedence to blocking sidewalks, making it hard to reach businesses or unsafe. I love the vibe and feeling of being local that the outdoor area gives. 559
City Council Hybrid Meeting (Closed Session - 5:00 PM and Open Session - 6:00 PM) 04-25-23 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
b) 23-0235 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL:

Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) The City finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.

Name of Case: Granite Re, Inc. DBA Granite Surety Insurance Company v. City of Hermosa Beach (Case No. 2:23-cv-1548)
4 0 4 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for b) 23-0235 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL:

Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) The City finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation.

Name of Case: Granite Re, Inc. DBA Granite Surety Insurance Company v. City of Hermosa Beach (Case No. 2:23-cv-1548) Overall Sentiment
William O Gamble
Location:

Submitted At: 1:22pm 04-25-23
I reside three blocks away from the Good Stuff. I have been a resident and property owner since 1997. I am a regular client of the Good Stuff. Observations by me since the expansion took place confirm the open space does not infringe on people walking from the parking garage to the beach. I have seen groups of four or six people doing this walk. The umbrellas that are out on a sunny day add to the beauty as you approach the Strand.

People eating outside at the Good Stuff love the movement of people and the views. I strongly oppose the 560
change that is up for consideration. Spend more time addressing the dangerous use of electric bikes on the Strand and the walk streets. This is an area of liability for the City of Hermosa Beach.

Vickie VanOsdol
Location: 90277, Redondo Beach
Submitted At: 10:55am 04-25-23
Please please please do not take away the outdoor eating area next to Good Stuff. It’s my favorite go to place, especially at the end of a bike ride. I have been supporting this business for 30 years and the charm of sitting outside on a beautiful day with a view of the ocean, watching the people walk on the strand is paradise to me.

There is plenty of space to walk along the northside by the bike racks from the parking lot and the charm must remain as is please please I’m begging you.

Dana Gorman
Location: 90275, RPV
Submitted At: 10:24am 04-23-23
Please, PLEASE, don’t take away the outdoor dining at Good Stuff! I’ve lived in the South Bay since the and their patio dining has always been the “go to” place. It’s not in the way of anything. Bikers, walkers, skaters, anyone, is not hampered by the patio. I strongly oppose any restrictions contemplated for the outdoor dining. Please- let’s keep this iconic beach community’s dining option the way it is- unless Good Stuff wants to change it. It’d be a darn shame to lose that option for outdoor dining. Thank you for your consideration of my comment.

Justin Henderson
Location: 90254, Hermosa Beach
Submitted At: 4:49pm 04-21-23
Not sure why we would need an initiative like this. It will curtail business and make the plaza and pier Ave less appealing for tourists and business owners alike. We have a fun, actively and lively beach town that most love and enjoy just as is. Strongly oppose.
561
From: tony higgins
To: City Clerk
Cc: City Council; DG_PlanningCommission; DG_PubWorksCommission; Carrie Tai; Paul LeBaron; Joseph SanClemente; Douglas Krauss Subject: Re: Supplemental to Item VIII b) of the 4/25/23 agenda - Outdoor Dinins Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 3:09:17 PM
Attachments: image5.png
Obviously to everyone but me the X axis is time and the y axis is dbA not the other way around in the attached. 4/25/2023
Dear City Council
Based on the Outdoor Dining Program Ordinance staff report (Agenda Item VIII b.) it’s clear the city will lock-in the Pier Ave truck-route lane reductions and the new Downtown Bicycle Lanes without requiring an EIR.

It’s equally clear the City Council is being fed cherry-picked statistics manipulated by the best consultants money can buy to confuse, deceive and mislead you into approving a Categorical Exemption of the CEQA process inappropriately.

Let me give you a few of the more glaring examples.

First a simple observation. Much of the justification for a blanket CEQA Categorical Exemption clams that pre-pandemic & post-pandemic vehicle counts are the same and there there can be no impact. This conclusion ignores the fact that as much as vehicle counts matter if you ignore the possibility that the ratio of commercial trucks to vehicles change significantly on 27th due to the Pier Ave Truck Route Lane Closures a significant impact is still possible.

The city has closed lanes on the major east/west truck route in the city and set up bicycle lanes and outdoor dining right next to what remains of the narrow remaining trucks route lane. It’s entirely reasonable that commercial trucks destined for Hermosa Ave and Plaza businesses that previously used Pier Ave before the Lane reduction would now use 27th street; the next best alternative. But the city didn’t provide any data on changes to truck route selection patterns.

You are being told that traffic noise has actually decreased on 27th street compared to pre-pandemic levels when a fair argument can be made that’s not the case at all.

This past Saturday I did all day traffic noise level measurements from 3 feet inside my property line in 1 hour increments between 10:30-11:30pm this past Saturday night; the time many are trying to go to sleep.

This is not a cherry picked timeframe.

I chose the 10:30-11:30PM BECAUSE this is a common timeframe for people to try and go to sleep, so traffic noise levels have additional significance.

Below you will find a graph that clearly displays traffic noise levels along with understandable & meaningful impacts of that noise that staff and their consultants did not provide to lead the City Council by the nose toapprove a blanket CEQA Categorical Exemption that denies residents in vulnerable neighborhoods the benefit of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
562
Here are the facts you need to keep in mind as you evaluate the graph and data.

The X axis of the graph below represents one hour of time.

The Y axis is a dbA scale ranging from 0-120 dbA with grid lines every 10dbA. This represents a range from the lowest perceptible sound to the the sound of a small jet engine.
563
The base of the blue box is set to 60dbA.

The green-dots inside the blue box each represent peak impulse noise traffic events capable of waking-up a significant percent of people based on metrics established by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The same green-dots represent events that might keep a significant population from falling asleep through a half opened street facing bedroom window as well.

Looking at the green dots above the yellow line set at 65dbA you can see there were about 20 impulse noise events capable of waking-up a significant population through a closed window.
20 events per hour equates to one potential wake-up event every 5 minutes on this past Saturday night.

Inside the blue box, the green dots represent total wake-up events through a 1/2 opened window.

But the city council is being told there is NO POSSIBILITY of a significant traffic noise problem on 27th that might be exacerbated by Pier Ave. lane closures based on vehicle counts and therefore a CEQA Categorical Exemption is justified.

That’s simply a lie.

The California Attorney General had this to say about the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR):

In the context of CEQA, the fair-argument standard means that if a “fair argument” can be made that a project MAY have a significant direct or indirect effect on the environment (including health, safety or quality of life), then an EIR SHALL be prepared even though there may be other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1)).

The above graph is more than enough to establish a fair-argument for an EIR but there is much much more.

The city knows full well 27th is already overwhelmed by traffic noise.

The City knows full well that 27th now has huge intersection queueing problems that rarely existed before the pandemic.

Queues of 15-20 vehicles at stop signs are now common weekdays and weekends.

This past Saturday all day long and we’ll into the night, 50% of the time, queues at the eastbound 27th intersection at Valley Drive ranged from 10-15 cars and often more. So don’t blame the school for this. It was Saturday.

At the westbound intersection of 27th at Morningside there were nearly constant queues of 4-5 cars; meaning my front yard had the strong smell of gasoline and diesel exhaust all day long.

But the City provided no analysis of these intersection queuing problems it just made a blanket denial that ANY problems exist and therefore a CEQA Categoric Exemption is applicable.

The city knows that palpable heavy truck vibration slam through our homes at the intersection of 27th and Morningside.

But the city made no effort to measure these truck vibration impacts nor did it provide any assessment of how more trucks on our steep narrow street might make things worse.

Nor did the city even discuss potential mitigations to the noise and vibration that heavy trucks produce at the intersection of 27th and Morningside as they slam over a poorly designed drainage ditch.

The city knows that carcinogenic near roadway pollution in the form of diesel particulate matter, gasoline soot, and carcinogenic tire dust thickly layer 27th street yards and bushes and spot our interior walls if windows are open. What’s important is it’s 27th street yards and homes but not the yards or homes on immediately adjacent streets.

The potential cumulative impact of these factors is more than enough to make a fair-argument for an EIR For the city to hide behind a CEQA Categorical Exemption to deny residents of vulnerable neighborhoods their due process under CEQA is simply malevolent.

But there is still more.

The City knows full well the General Plan requires the implementation of a CEQA Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) that calls traffic calming and increased enforcement as traffic noise, near roadway pollution, truck vibration and intersection queuing approach critical thresholds.

Here again the city has not lived up to its obligations.

The City cannot produce a single document showing tangible MMRP actions on 27th street.

But there is more;
The Outdoor Dining Project is huge; and trying to use a CEQA Categorical Exemption on a program of this magnitude defeats the very purpose of CEQA.

Consider the individual projects folded into Outdoor Dining Program (1) Removing two truck-route lanes on the the city’s main east-west truck route on without doing any measurements of how this will shift commercial truck traffic onto vulnerable residential streets like 27th.
(2) Removes two commuter lanes on Hermosa Ave., the City’s major north-south commuter route west of Pacific Coast Highway. (3) Implements new bicycle-route lanes throughout the downtown area that are 100% dependent on these vehicle & truck-route lane closures; while ignoring that a fair argument can be made that as covid comes to an end, as businesses rebound and summer season approaches these lane closures may significantly impact commuter traffic service levels causing commercial heavy truck and vehicular traffic overflows into residential neighborhoods and onto residential collector roads. (4) Allows for likely 30+ Outdoor-Dining public-land encroachments over the next 3-5 years With all the complexities of the Outdoor Dining Program and it’s various underlying projects that are listed above; it is the antithesis of common sense that the city would claim a CEQA Class 1 Categorical Exemption for this program or any of its underlying projects.

Using a CEQA Categorical Exemption that ignores all the potential impacts above is simply indefensible. 564
Anthony Higgins
TECHNICAL DETAIL:
565
From: gary brown
To: cityofhermosabeach-ca_22-324-requester-notes@inbound.nextrequest.com; City Clerk; City Council Cc: Suja Lowenthal
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 1:42:32 PM
Sent from Mail for Windows
Proposed modifications to all restaurant outdoor seating for the City of Hermosa Beach City Council meeting dated April 25, 2023
This city has experienced hardships in the past and I’m certain that this won’t be the last. Some of this is self-inflicted due to our reactions to the Covid-19 pandemic. Restaurants were particularly impacted. To the city’s credit and restauranteurs, a workable solution was found in the form of “outdoor dining”. I believe this has been a win/win for everyone! I’ve heard the arguments of; not the best use of open space; not enough sidewalk space to get to the beach etc. Whatever you do now will only create more problems! Like too many cooks in the kitchen! This shouldn’t require the stamp of approval from Council. Good Stuff is willing to work for an improved situation. This shouldn’t require more hours of debate or consultation with experts requiring never-ending studies that cost us all!
Whatever you do discuss, let’s not decide until the community has a chance to give input. This meeting was not known to me until recently.

Sincerely,
Gary Brown Hermosa since 1971
566
April 25, 2023
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach CA 90254
RE: Permanent Outdoor Dining Program
Dear Hermosa Beach City Council,
It will be no surprise that the Chamber is writing to support the outdoor dining program permanence. The program has proven to be one of the few true benefits to rise from the pandemic and this community wants to keep it—71% of our survey respondents support it.

The program promotes healthy lifestyles, attracts great businesses, brings curbside beauty to downtown, and creates a sense of community and meeting place which is a highlight of Plan Hermosa. For better economic activity and walkability of Hermosa, we need to distribute people beyond the Pier Plaza so they are drawn to places up Pier Ave and to North and South Hermosa. Dining decks are one of the best ways to pull people out to explore other parts of downtown.

We were grateful when the Economic Development plan of the City endorsed and supported outdoor dining and we know you recognize the unlimited potential with a permanent program to increase city revenue from prospering businesses. We believe this program is what makes Hermosa the best little beach city and will be what ultimately sets us apart from many other small destinations.

The Living Streets Design Manual, created for the three beach cities, highlights the value and supports a thriving outdoor dining program which can activate the sidewalks and encourage economic development (pg 288). Activated sidewalks bring pedestrian activity and the program encourages private investment in ambiance and beautification of downtown.

The Roma Design Group study speaks to the value of Hermosa’s commercial areas and states that they “should be designated as a pedestrian-oriented district, with special incentives and provisions to minimize the impact of parking and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility” (pg 26). The study points out the potential to enhance the Downtown Core as a retail destination, not just for visitors, but also for locals. “A significant objective of many community groups within the City is to make the Downtown Core a stronger destination for residents and families as well as for visitors and nighttime entertainment” (pg 12). “Outdoor seating should be encouraged for the creation of a more sociable environment within the pedestrian oriented district.”
567
In Plan Hermosa, the vision for the Downtown District, which includes Pier and Hermosa Ave as well as Pier Plaza, is to create a mix of community and recreational uses that serve our daily needs and attracts visitors to accommodate coastal-related recreation and commercial activities. We need to distribute the vibrancy throughout our corridors and not create barriers for economic vibrancy.

For all of these reasons and more, the Chamber makes the following more specific recommendations.

USAGE & HOURS
● At a minimum, to be open full hours of business operations (weather permitting). ● Encourage use across all-day parts, especially when parking demand is high, further optimizing the contribution to the City's vision of having living streets. ● Businesses that may be closed during busy daytime hours should be encouraged to find ways to minimize the visual of a closed business.
● Enhance outdoor green space and other CIP improvements that allow these outdoor spaces to be inspiring, even when closed. Decks should add value to the adjacent space and neighborhood.

AESTHETICS & SPACE
● Design and architecture of decks should be thoughtfully made, aesthetically pleasing, true extensions of primary indoor establishments, and in the spirit of the character of Hermosa Beach.
● Businesses with limited frontage (trees, emergency lanes and other obstructions) should be permitted to find space near their frontage with permission from adjacent business(s).
● Consider trying ideas before prohibiting them (ie. busing station on patio, tvs, etc). ● Explore public parklets, outdoor public tables, and other long-term ideas like San Diego, Berkeley, and San Francisco to enhance the program (both public and private spaces for outdoor enjoyment).
● Maintain the adjusted single lane in each direction on Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue in the downtown area for the safety of patrons on the dining decks.

ENCROACHMENT FEES
● On-sidewalk (non Pier Plaza) $1/sq ft
● On-street $2/sq ft
● On Pier (close midnight or earlier) $3/sq ft
● On Pier (close after midnight) $5.50/sq ft

THINKING BEYOND
● Continue the experimental period for long term decisions to allow for more thoughtful considerations based on data and feedback (ie. aesthetics, hours, etc). ● Request an Impact Report after a certain period to gauge success of plan and make further enhancements.
● Form an advisory group that includes economic development professionals, business owners, residents and other key stakeholders to develop best practices. ● Revisit guidelines annually to ensure the program is effective, valuable and thriving. ● Better communicate where free and more parking is, including 50+ free parking along Valley Ave, Ardmore, and top of Pier Ave east of Ardmore. 568
Most deck owners in Hermosa have already heavily invested in their decks, with a minimum $10,000 building investment specifically for on-street decks. When we asked dining deck owners if they would invest more in their decks once the program is permanent, all raised their hand. We also believe a vibrant program can also be supported by the formation of a downtown Business Improvement District (BID) which is currently being explored and can address future aesthetics, improvements, and more.

It is also worth noting that with Hermosa’s need to grow off-season foot traffic, an outdoor dining program will also speak to the larger Los Angeles community—visitors that we need to attract. LA City’s Al Fresco program surveyed the public and there is vast public demand for outdoor dining—we can provide that!
Please continue to support the amazing outdoor experiences in Hermosa and keep them affordable so that our businesses can invest in their home, Hermosa Beach.

Best regards,
The Board of Directors and
The Economic Development Action Committee (EDAC)
Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau
569
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 23-0217
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of April 25, 2023

ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WEST

HOLLYWOOD AND THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH FOR THE

EXCHANGE OF PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUNDS
(Finance Director Viki Copeland)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Approve an Assignment Agreement for a Proposition A (Prop A) Local Return Fund Exchange (Attachment 1) with the City of West Hollywood for $700,000 in City of Hermosa Beach Proposition A Funds in exchange for $490,000 of unrestricted funds from the City of West Hollywood;

2. Add estimated revenue of $490,000 in Prop A Exchange Funds in the General Fund and an appropriation of $700,000 for the fund exchange in the Prop A Fund to the 2022-23 Budget;

3. Add an assigned fund balance of $490,000 in the General Fund in 2022-23 to reserve the Prop A Exchange Fund revenue for future use as recommended in the upcoming 2023-24 Budget; and

4. Authorize the City Manager to execute documents incident to the Agreement.

Executive Summary:

The City of Hermosa Beach has an excess of Prop A Local Return Funds. The City of West Hollywood needs additional Prop A Funds for its transit operations. Staff recommends City Council approve a fund exchange with the City of West Hollywood at an exchange rate of $0.70 on the dollar.

The Prop A Funds would remain restricted for the City of West Hollywood; the funds received by Hermosa Beach would become unrestricted and may be used for any purpose. Hermosa Beach would receive $490,000 in unrestricted funds in exchange for $700,000 in Prop A Local Return Funds.

Background:

Prop A Programs, administered by Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), are funded by a half-cent sales tax measure approved by Los Angeles County voters in 1980 to finance a Transit Development Program. Twenty-five percent of the Prop A funds is designated to the Local Return Program to be used by cites and the County to benefit public transit. The City receives City of Hermosa Beach Page 1 of 4 Printed on 4/25/2023
powered by Legistar™570
Staff Report
REPORT 23-0217
Return Program to be used by cites and the County to benefit public transit. The City receives approximately $475,000 annually.

Local Return Funds may be used for fixed route and paratransit services, Transportation Demand Management, Transportation Systems Management, and fare subsidy programs that exclusively benefit transit. Local Return Funds may also be traded to other jurisdictions in exchange for general or other funds. The City currently uses Prop A Local Return Funds for bus pass subsidies, the dial-ataxi program, the Commuter Express program, recreation transportation, and special event shuttles.

These ongoing programs total approximately $140,000 for 2022-23. The City has purchased bus stop furnishings, shelters, and trash cans on streets with bus routes in the past. If unused funds accumulate over a couple of years, these restricted funds may be exchanged with another agency in return for unrestricted funds.

The City has exchanged Prop A Local Return Funds with the City of West Hollywood twice, occurring in FY 2019-20 and FY 2021-22. Each time, a portion of the unrestricted funds received by the City were used to fund an additional Assistant Engineer. The remaining unrestricted funds were “assigned” in the General Fund Balance for future funding of the Engineer. In FY 2021-22, those “assigned” funds were used to fund the additional Assistant Engineer for approximately three additional years.

Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
July 23, 2019 The City Council approved an exchange of Prop A Funds with the City of West Hollywood for unrestricted funds to be used during the 2018-19 fiscal year. The unrestricted funds were used to fund an additional Assistant Engineer. The remaining unrestricted funds from the exchange were
“assigned” in the General Fund Balance for future funding of the Engineer.

July 13, 2021 The City Council approved an exchange of Prop A Funds with the City of West Hollywood for unrestricted funds to be used during the 2021-22 fiscal year. These funds were used to fund an additional Assistant Engineer. The remaining unrestricted funds were “assigned” in the General Fund
Balance for future funding of the Engineer.

City of Hermosa Beach Page 2 of 4 Printed on 4/25/2023
powered by Legistar™571
Staff Report
REPORT 23-0217
Discussion:

Staff recommends exchanging the City’s excess Prop A Local Return Funds for unrestricted funds that may be used for any general fund municipal purpose. The City of West Hollywood has a need for additional Prop A Funds and is agreeable to an exchange.

West Hollywood and Hermosa Beach have tentatively agreed to an exchange rate of $0.70 on the dollar. Metro confirmed that this was the prevailing rate for this type of fund exchange. If approved, the City would receive $490,000 in unrestricted use funds in exchange for $700,000 in Prop A Fund dollars. If approved, the exchange would be completed as soon as the agreement is signed. West Hollywood approved the agreement at its April 17, 2023 meeting.

General Plan Consistency:

PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, was adopted by the City Council in August 2017. The exchange of Prop A funds supports PLAN Hermosa goals and policies that are listed below.

Governance Element
Goal 1. A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making process.

Policies:
· 1.2 Strategic planning. Regularly discuss and set priorities at the City Council and management level to prioritize work programs and staffing needs. · 1.6 Long-term considerations. Prioritize decisions that provide long-term community benefit and discourage decisions that provide short-term community benefit but reduce long-term opportunities.

Fiscal Impact:

In exchange for $700,000 in Proposition A Local Return Funds, the City would receive $490,000 in unrestricted funds for general use. Staff recommends City Council add the exchange fund revenue to the assigned fund balance in the General Fund in FY 2022-23. Use of the assigned funds would be recommended in the FY 2023 -24 budget.

Attachments:

1. Assignment Agreement with the City of West Hollywood

2. Link to July 23, 2019 City Council Staff Report

3. Link to July 13, 2021 City Council Staff Report
Respectfully Submitted by: Viki Copeland, Finance Director City of Hermosa Beach Page 3 of 4 Printed on 4/25/2023
powered by Legistar™572
Staff Report
REPORT 23-0217
Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Page 4 of 4 Printed on 4/25/2023
powered by Legistar™573
Attachment 1

ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT

PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND EXCHANGE
This Assignment Agreement is made and entered into this 17th day of April, 2023, by the City of West Hollywood, California and the 25th day of April, 2023 by the City of Hermosa Beach, California with respect to the following facts:

A. The City of West Hollywood provides community shuttles, demand-response services and bus pass and on-demand subsidies to serve seniors, people with disabilities and the general public. Given the grave traffic congestion and parking problems of the City, West Hollywood is committed to reducing auto dependency by providing alternative modes of transportation. Adequate Proposition A Local Return funding for transit services are not available given the limited amount of West Hollywood's Local Return allocation.

B. The City of Hermosa Beach has an accumulation of uncommitted Proposition A Local Return funds which could be made available to the City of West Hollywood to assist in providing the services discussed in Section A of this Agreement. In exchange for the assignment by the City of West Hollywood of the amount of its general funds indicated in Section 1 below, the City of Hermosa Beach is willing to assign uncommitted Proposition A Local Return funds to West Hollywood for the purpose identified in Section A.

Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the parties and of the premises herein contained, it is mutually agreed as follows:

1. Exchange. The City of Hermosa Beach agrees to assign a total of $700,000 in uncommitted Proposition A Local Return funds in Fiscal Year 2022-23 to the City of West Hollywood. In exchange, the City of West Hollywood agrees to assign $490,000 of its general funds to the City of Hermosa Beach in Fiscal Year 2022 – 2023. The rate of exchange is $0.70/$1.00.

2. Consideration. The City of Hermosa Beach shall assign the agreed upon Proposition A Local Return funds to West Hollywood in one lump-sum payment. West Hollywood shall likewise assign the agreed upon general funds to the City of Hermosa Beach in one lump-sum payment. The payment shall be due and payable upon execution of this Agreement, and upon approval by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) of the City of West Hollywood’s project description.

Each payment shall be based on the exchange rate in accordance with the exchange rate described in paragraph 1.

3. Term. This Agreement is effective on the date above written and for such time as is necessary for both parties to complete their mutual obligations under this Agreement, to be completed no later than June 30, 2023.
574
Prop A Funds - Assignment Agreement
City of West Hollywood Approval: 17 April, 2023
City of Hermosa Beach Approval: 25 April, 2023
2 4. Termination. Termination of this Agreement may be made by either party so long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to the other party at least five (5) days prior to the termination.

5. Notice Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:

A. David Wilson
City Manager
City of West Hollywood
8300 Santa Monica Blvd.

West Hollywood, CA 90069
B. Suja Lowenthal
City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254

6. Assurances
A. West Hollywood shall use the assigned Proposition A Local Return funds only for the purpose of providing the services discussed in Paragraph A of this Agreement and within the time limits specified in LAC Metro’s Proposition A Local Return Program Guidelines.

B. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, West Hollywood shall provide LA Metro with the Standard Assurances and Understandings Regarding Receipt and Use of Proposition A funds specified in the Guidelines regarding the use of the assigned Proposition A Local Return funds.
575
Prop A Funds - Assignment Agreement
City of West Hollywood Approval: 17 April, 2023
City of Hermosa Beach Approval: 25 April, 2023
3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, by the CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD on April 17, 2023, and by the CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH on April 25, 2023.

CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
BY BY:

Lorena Quijano, Director of Finance and
Technology Services
Viki Copeland, Finance Director
BY: BY:

David Wilson, City Manager Suja Lowenthal, City Manager ATTEST:
______________________________
Melissa Crowder, City Clerk Myra Maravilla, City Clerk
576

ASSIGNMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF WEST

HOLLYWOOD AND THE

CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH
577

BACKGROUND
Proposition A (Prop A) Programs are funded by a half-cent sales tax measure approved by Los Angeles County voters in 1980.

Twenty-five percent of the funds are designated for use by local agencies for public transit. Funds are administered by Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro).

The City receives approximately $475,000 annually.
578
Fixed Route and Paratransit
Services
Commuter Express
Recreational Transit Services
Recreational
Transportation (Excursions)
Special Event Shuttles
Fare Subsidies
Subsidized Disabled/Senior
Taxi Vouchers
Subsidized Senior/Student
Bus Passes
Transportations Demand
Management
Incentive Programs to
reduce single occupancy
vehicle trips

CURRENT ONGOING USES
Approximately $140,000 is budgeted in 2022–23 Budget. 579

PRIOR USES
Bus Stop Improvements (2018–19 and 2019–20)
Benches
Shelters
Trash Receptacles
Curb Cuts
After School Program Transportation
580

PRIOR FUND EXCHANGES
July 23, 2019
City Council approved an exchange of $1,000,000 Prop A
Funds for $700,000 in unrestricted funds with the City of West Hollywood. Funds used during FY18-19 to fund an additional Assistant Engineer.

July 13, 2021
City Council approved an exchange of $700,000 Prop A
Funds for $490,000 unrestricted funds with the City of West Hollywood. Fund used during FY21-22 to fund and additional Assistant Engineer.
581

DISCUSSION
The City of West Hollywood has a transit system and needs additional funds. Hermosa Beach has unused funds that
may be exchanged with another agency.

The exchange rate is $.70 on the dollar. West Hollywood will receive $700,000 in restricted funds and Hermosa
Beach will receive $490,000 in unrestricted funds.

The use of these funds will be recommended in the 2023– 24 Preliminary Budget.
582

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends City Council
Approve an Assignment Agreement of Prop A Local Return Fund Exchange with the City of West Hollywood for $700,000 in City of Hermosa Beach Prop A funds for $490,000 of unrestricted funds; Add estimated revenue of $490,000 in Prop A Exchange Funds in the General Fund and an appropriation of $700,000 for the fund exchange in the Prop A Fund in the 2022–23;
Add an assigned fund balance of $490,000 in the General Fund in 2022–23 to reserve the Prop A Exchange Fund revenue for future use as recommended in the upcoming 2023–24 Budget; and
Authorize the City Manager to execute documents incident to the Agreement.
583
City of Hermosa Beach
Staff Report
City Hall
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Staff Report
REPORT 23-0225
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of April 25, 2023

AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO CREATE

A RESIDENT AND BUSINESS MITIGATION EDUCATION PROGRAM

TO SIREN CREATIVE LLC (DBA SIREN SF)
(Emergency Management Coordinator Israel Estrada)
Recommended Action:

Staff recommends City Council:

1. Award a contract to SIREN Creative LLC (DBA SIREN SF) to create a resident and business mitigation education program at a not-to-exceed amount $180,000 for a term of one year ending April 25, 2024 (Attachment 3);

2. Add estimated revenue of $187,500 in the Grant Fund and appropriate $187,500 in the Grant Fund for the federal share of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Grant and $62,500 in the General Fund from the Prospective Expenditures account to cover the non-federal match; and

3. Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest to the proposed agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Executive Summary:

The City of Hermosa Beach was awarded a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to create a resident and business mitigation education program. The grant allows the City to award a contract to a professional firm to complete the project deliverables identified in the City’s grant application. Following a competitive Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process, staff recommends City Council award a contract agreement to SIREN Creative LLC (DBA SIREN SF) at a not-to-exceed amount of $180,000 and a one-year term ending April 25, 2024.

Background:

On January 31, 2020, the City was awarded a FEMA grant to support the creation of a resident and business mitigation education program. This program is intended to engage all segments of the business community and residents to learn about the hazards in the community and how to implement various mitigation strategies to prevent injury, loss of life, and decrease the length of time it takes for the whole community to recover from a disaster. The scope of work for the project includes creating a resident emergency preparedness campaign, a business community emergency preparedness campaign, a children’s series, and a final report or toolkit for staff to use in the future.

City of Hermosa Beach Page 1 of 4 Printed on 4/25/2023
powered by Legistar™584
Staff Report
REPORT 23-0225
preparedness campaign, a children’s series, and a final report or toolkit for staff to use in the future.

The project was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic and an extension of the grant performance period was approved by FEMA.

Analysis:

On March 13, 2023, the City issued Request for Proposals (RFP) 23-004 (Attachment 1) seeking proposals from qualified individuals or firms to design a resident and business mitigation education.

The RFP was advertised in March 2023 in the Easy Reader, on the City’s website, and Planetbids.

On April 6, 2023, a total of five proposals were received in response to the RFP.

The proposing firms are listed below in alphabetical order:
· Constant Associates;
· S. Groner Associates;
· SIREN Creative LLC;
· Stacy Miller Public Affairs Inc; and
· Tripepi Smith
The proposals were independently evaluated in detail by a staff review panel and scored based on the following weighted criteria:
· Approach and Methods (30 percent)
o A well thought-out and tailored approach to the technical work that responds to the City’s particular issues and needs.
o Incorporation of innovative and/or creative approaches for providing the services that will maximize efficient, cost-effective operations or increased performance capabilities. o Evidence of the team’s ability to work collaboratively with other members of a multidisciplinary team in a complex and dynamic working environment. o Demonstration of the team’s commitment to accurate and superior work products and services as detailed in the project management project management plan. · Relevant Experience and Expertise (35 percent)
o Recent experience preparing similar projects or providing similar services for jurisdictions.
o Familiarity and experience with applicable industry standards and any relevant federal, state, or local requirements.
o The depth and appropriateness of experience of individual members of the technical team as they relate to the specific technical tasks called for by the project. o The consultant team’s ability to dedicate a strong project manager that will serve as a City of Hermosa Beach Page 2 of 4 Printed on 4/25/2023
powered by Legistar™585
Staff Report
REPORT 23-0225
single point of contact for the duration of the project. o The team’s experience and ability to clearly communicate technical concepts and terminology with the community.
· Timeframe and Costs (25 percent)
o Display of responsive timeframe to assign tasks.
o Evidence of the team’s ability to successfully deliver project tasks and deliverables within the identified project budget and minimize cost overruns. · Administration (10 percent)
o Ability to comply with the timeline contract terms, and billing procedures. o The extent and nature of any proposed amendments to the City’s Professional Services Agreement or insurance requirements.

Based on a comprehensive review, and following interviews with top ranked firms, staff recommends award of contract to create a resident and business mitigation education program to SIREN Creative LLC (DBA SIREN SF). Proposals were ranked based on the weighted selection criteria described above. The rankings are as follows:

Rank Firm
1 Siren Creative LLC Constant Associates
2 Constant Associates
3 Stacy Miller Public Affairs INC.
4 S. Groner Associates
5 Tripepi Smith
Staff determined SIREN Creative LLC to have the greatest understanding of the City’s needs, previous experience completing similar projects in other cities, demonstrated high level expertise in creative design and public outreach, and demonstrated collaborative approach to consensus building.

If approved, the estimated timeframe to complete the education program is five months and staff’s goal is to align the education program with the City’s current branding and style guide. The proposed contract is at a not-to-exceed amount of $180,000 and is within the FEMA grant award limit.

General Plan Consistency:

This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below:

City of Hermosa Beach Page 3 of 4 Printed on 4/25/2023
powered by Legistar™586
Staff Report
REPORT 23-0225
Public Safety Element
Goal 1. Injuries and loss of life are prevented, and property loss and damage are minimized.

Policy:
· 1.11 Secure funds. Establish centralized internal procedures to coordinate efforts for securing funds that support risk reduction measures.

Goal 4. The community has the capacity and is prepared for unavoidable hazards.

Policy:
· 4.1 Public awareness. Increase public awareness of hazards, emergency response, and recovery through evacuation routes and informational signage.

Fiscal Impact:

The grant award for the education program would be budgeted under the Grant Fund in the amount of $187,500 and the City’s required match would be budgeted under the General Fund in the amount of $62,500. The total not-to-exceed contract amount for SIREN Creative LLC is $180,000.

Agreement Request
Request Amount FY 2022-23 Budget Fund Name Total Contract Amount $180,000 150 Grant Fund, 001 General Fund $180,000
Attachments:

1. RFP 23-004

2. SIREN Creative LLC Proposal

3. Proposed Agreement with SIREN Creative LLC
Respectfully Submitted by: Israel Estrada, Emergency Management Coordinator Concur: Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager
Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney
Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager
City of Hermosa Beach Page 4 of 4 Printed on 4/25/2023
powered by Legistar™587
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 23-004

RESIDENT AND BUSINESS MITIGATION

EDUCATION PROGRAM

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
Office of the City Manager
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(310) 318-0207
588
RFP 23-004 City of Hermosa Beach