Artesia Aviation Corridors Area Plan ISND — Redondo Beach City Council, September 5, 2023

Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan
Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking
Components
Initial Study-Negative Declaration
SCH#
prepared by
City of Redondo Beach
Community Development Department
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, California 90277
Contact: Sean Scully
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
June 2023

Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan
Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking
Components
Initial Study
SCH#
prepared by
City of Redondo Beach
Community Development Department
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, California 90277
Contact: Sean Scully
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
June 2023
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents
Initial Study i
Table of Contents
Initial Study.............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title.........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address.........................................................................................1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1

4. Location and Setting ...........................................................................................................1

5. Description of Project .........................................................................................................9

6. Required Approvals...........................................................................................................12

7. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ........................................................................................................................12 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.........................................................................................13 Determination ......................................................................................................................................13 Environmental Checklist.......................................................................................................................15 1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................15 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources..................................................................................19 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................21 4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................25 5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................31 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................35 7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................37 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................43 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................45 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................51 11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................57 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................59 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................61 14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................65 15 Public Services...................................................................................................................67 16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................71 17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................73 18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................77 19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................79 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................83 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance..................................................................................87 References............................................................................................................................................91 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................91 List of Preparers............................................................................................................................93 City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components ii
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Plan Area Location with Existing Land Uses........................................................................4 Appendices
Appendix A Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan (AACAP) Appendix B Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Appendix C Parking Implementation Study
Appendix D Tribal Consultation Letters
Initial Study
Initial Study 1
Initial Study

1. Project Title
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan (AACAP) Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components.

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Redondo Beach
Community Development Department
415 Diamond Street
Redondo Beach, California 90277

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Sean Scully, Planning Manager
(310) 318-0637 x2405

4. Location and Setting
Local Setting
The Artesia and Aviation Corridors Plan Area (hereafter referred to as “Plan Area”) is located within the heart of North Redondo Beach and includes segments of both Artesia Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard as well as the properties fronting each roadway. The Plan Area encompasses approximately 82 acres and is bordered by the city of Lawndale to the east and the cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach to the west.

Artesia Corridor
Artesia Boulevard originates at State Route 91 (SR 91) in the city of Gardena and passes east to west through seven cities, including Redondo Beach, before terminating at Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in Hermosa Beach. The Boulevard plays an important role in maintaining efficient east-west circulation for Redondo Beach and nearby cities, connecting local roads to the larger regional network, including the SR 91 and Interstate 110 (I-110) in Gardena, Interstate 405 (I-405) in Torrance, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in Hermosa Beach, and providing access to beach destinations in Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach. Artesia Boulevard is also a primary commercial corridor with shopping centers and small service-commercial-office buildings along the majority of its length. The Artesia Corridor referenced within the Plan Area includes the segment of Artesia Boulevard that runs from the transportation easement (rail line) east of Inglewood Avenue to the western city boundary at Aviation Boulevard and the properties fronting the right-of-way.

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 2 Aviation Corridor
Aviation Boulevard originates at Manchester Avenue in Inglewood and terminates at PCH in Hermosa Beach. The Boulevard provides a north-south link to Artesia Boulevard from Hermosa Beach and South Redondo Beach and serves as a primary connector between local roads and the east-west thoroughfares that link to the larger regional network. The Aviation Corridor referenced within the AACAP includes the segment of Aviation Boulevard between Artesia Boulevard and the western city limits as well as properties fronting the roadway.

Figure 1 shows the Plan Area’s regional location and Figure 2 shows the boundaries of the Plan Area as well as the Plan Area’s existing uses.

An intention of the “Plan” is to reorient the focus of the Aviation and Artesia corridors to ensure it improves its connections with and support of the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Regulatory Setting
City of Redondo Beach General Plan
The City of Redondo Beach General Plan is a comprehensive, and long-range policy document of citywide priorities and values developed to guide public decision-making in future years. The General Plan’s goals are implemented through decisions and actions consistent with the objectives, policies, and implementation programs of each of its eight elements: Land Use; Housing; Senior Citizen/Child Care Services; Transportation and Circulation; Utilities; Solid Waste Management and Recycling; Conservation, Recreation and Parks, and Open Space; and Environmental Hazards/Natural Hazards. The objectives, policies, and implementation programs of these elements apply to all communities within city limits and aim to guide physical, economic, and environmental growth. In addition, the Harbor/Civic Specific Plan has been developed to address land use, urban design, circulation, and infrastructure issues for its respective geographic area.

The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan was last revised in 2021. The Transportation and Circulation Element is the City’s primary guiding document for planning and implementing mobility and access improvements throughout the city. The specific guidance found in the Transportation and Circulation Element for the Plan Area has been incorporated into the AACAP.

City of Redondo Beach Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance (Title 10 of the Municipal Code) and associated Zoning map identifies specific zoning districts in Redondo Beach and development standards relating to items such as height, floor area, setbacks, parking, and landscaping, that apply to each district. Specific standards in the Plan Area as related to various design components are described in Chapter 3.4, Design Guidelines, of the AACAP and would accompany the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance.

South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, created in 2011, documents the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition’s and the South Bay Bicycle Coalition’s vision for improving the bicycle experience throughout the South Bay region. Although the AACAP references some of the Bicycle Master Plan’s recommendations for the Plan Area, the incorporation of any part of the Bicycle Master Plan into the Transportation and Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan will require public outreach and detailed analysis of the feasibility of any specific recommendation.

Initial Study
Initial Study 3
Figure 1 Regional Location
Source: City of Redondo Beach
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 4 Figure 2 Plan Area Location with Existing Land Uses
Source: City of Redondo Beach
Initial Study
Initial Study 5
Related Planning Efforts
Artesia Vitlization Strategy
In 2013, the Artesia Boulevard Working Group, which is primarily made up of North Redondo Beach Business Association members, met several times to provide an overview of the challenges, concerns, and priorities of the Artesia Boulevard business community. Surveys with the Business Association’s general membership identified promotion and marketing improvements, design and infrastructure improvements, and economic restructuring as the three priorities for the Vitalization Strategy. In addition, the group developed a strategic vision to vitalize the Artesia Boulevard Business District as an identifiable, safe, attractive, and inviting place to serve residents and visitors’ unique needs while building prosperous small businesses. Guided by the identified priorities, the group developed several goals to carry out their strategic vision and used the National Trust’s “Main Street” approach to identify tasks and projects. All recommendations of the group were presented to the North Redondo Beach Business Association, which selected renaming Artesia Boulevard to Redondo Beach Boulevard, determining the feasibility and process for establishing a Business Improvement District (BID), and developing a sign plan and standards as priority actions.

Since 2013, investigation and outreach associated with renaming Artesia Boulevard have been initiated, but the idea has not gained widespread support and remains a subject of ongoing discussion. Plans to establish a BID and develop a sign plan and standards have not been implemented but are folded into the AACAP.

Artesia-Aviation Revitilization Committee
In 2018, eleven people representing Redondo Beach businesses, residents, and property owners were appointed by the City manager to evaluate the challenges facing the Plan Area and to gather information pertaining to public safety, current retail trends, and the impacts of the General Plan Update on prospective development and growth opportunities in the Corridors. The meetings of the Artesia-Aviation Revitalization Committee included group discussions of national and regional economic changes and how they played out in the Corridors as well as consideration of challenges unique to the Plan Area. The group’s recommendations included suggestions for ongoing, shortterm, and longer-term projects, many of which have been folded into the strategies and action items in the AACAP.

General Plan Update and Advisory Committee
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) consists of 27 members, currently 21, whose charge is to provide input into the update of the City’s land use map and assist staff in the preparation of goals, policies, and action items for a focused General Plan Update to the Land Use, Noise, Safety, and Open Space, Recreation, and Conservation Elements. As a part of the General Plan Update Work Program, the City Council authorized the preparation of the AACAP to provide more focused policy and placemaking guidance to two of the city’s most prominent and traveled corridors.

Based on the findings of the 2017 Citywide Market Study and the 2019 Development Feasibility Study, the GPAC preferred to allow the Plan Area to evolve organically over time instead of creating significant changes to or increases in the Plan Area’s development capacity to prompt immediate change. The group agreed that a slight increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR), such as from 0.5 to 0.6, would help by providing added development capacity needed to induce property owners to reinvest and redevelop commercial uses that have reached the end of their useful lifespan. FAR is expressed City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 6 as a decimal number and refers to the measurement, or ratio, of a building’s total floor area in proportion to the size of the lot or parcel. Increasing the ratio allows for a greater area of developable building area.

The GPAC expressed concerns about the impacts that existing and future housing legislation could have on the allowable heights in the Plan Area (i.e., density bonus laws and potential impacts of Senate Bill 50 proposed in 2019), which was a factor in their decision to not include new residential uses in the Plan Area. The group determined that the focus of the Corridors should be primarily restaurant and office, with some general retail and service commercial, therefore catering to and creating connectivity with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The group was generally opposed to increasing building heights above three stories to accommodate new residential uses because of the effect additional stories would have on adjacent residential uses and the aesthetic character of the existing neighborhood.

The GPAC provided additional policy and/or implementation measures focused upon a reorientation from a commuter corridor to a more neighborhood supportive pedestrian-focused/priority environment; a bike lane and multimodal access along Artesia Boulevard; enhanced physical connections between adjacent commercial businesses, and nearby residential neighborhoods; alternative streetscape and street section design options; and opportunities to create temporary or permanent gathering spaces along the Corridors (i.e., streetlets or parklets, and usable public open spaces on new private developments).

Artestia and Aviation Corridors Parking Implementation Study Fehr & Peers developed a Parking Implementation Study in 2022 to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and flexibility in design standards. While not all strategies were intended to be implemented, there are both near-term and long-term parking management strategies, which are described in detail in Appendix C. Some of these strategies are reflected in the proposed zoning text amendment for parking components and a summary of recommended parking management strategies are as follows:

Near-term Strategies
 On-Site Valet Parking: Valet parking, or attendant parking, allows for trained personnel to park vehicles on-site or nearby, typically with a greater efficiency than other drivers. With valet parking, a greater number of vehicles can be parked within the same facility because attendants are able to park in non-traditional spaces, such as drive aisles or in tandem parking arrangements.
 On-Site Parking Configuration: This strategy provides a suite of physical, site-specific options for developers to meet parking requirements including, but not limited to, tandem parking and mechanical parking systems. Allowing for inventive parking configurations can increase parking supply without the need for constructing more parking.
 Shared Parking: Shared parking can maximize the use and efficiency of existing parking facilities, reduce the need to provide more parking, and enables more compact development. To be successful, shared parking requires that each component of a shared parking agreement have complementary parking patterns (i.e., peak parking occupancy for each participating land use must occur at a different time of day). Encouraging current and future developments to share parking facilities would increase parking efficiency and decrease the need to supply additional parking facilities.

Initial Study
Initial Study 7
 Parking Requirements: Changes to parking requirements seek to balance access to the AACAP area with the needs of the community, while making it easier to encourage the growth envisioned in the AACAP. Given that the existing parking demand is significantly lower than the supply, re-adjusting parking requirements can help “right size” parking based on observed data.

Changes to parking requirements would be implemented at the Plan Area and programmatic scale with low cost to the city and high public support and would offer parking flexibility.  Parking Benefit District: In Parking Benefits Districts (PBDs), revenues from parking meters and other public parking facilities are reinvested within the district and used to fund neighborhood improvements, such as street sweeping, tree planting and trimming, and sidewalk and street repair.
 Parking Credits Program: Parking credits are a land use entitlement that allow new and expanding businesses to satisfy code-required parking using a pool of public or private parking spaces identified as surplus or underutilized inventory. The number of active credits is determined by regular occupancy surveys taken at parking facilities in designated districts.

Active parking credits are then monitored, subtracting the number of parking credits sold from the number of credits available in the district.
 Dynamic Monitoring: Dynamic monitoring is a strategy aimed at collecting parking data in and around a study area. It focuses on capturing parking demand and supply data over time in regular intervals (e.g., annually). By monitoring parking conditions in and around the AACAP area, the City can evaluate the success of its parking management actions and provide valuable information to inform the modification of strategies over time to achieve the desired outcome.

Potential Long-term Strategies
 Public Parking Lots/Garages: This potential strategy would provide new public parking lots or garages in the AACAP. Given the current excess of parking in the AACAP, any implementation of this strategy at this time would be inefficient.
 In-Lieu Fees: Developers may be given the option to pay a fee in lieu of providing parking onsite. In-lieu fees provide the developer access to public parking facilities near the development site. A pool of available public parking would be needed to create an in-lieu fee program. Given the amount of time it would take to collect enough fees to build more parking, this would be a long-term strategy.

Existing Plan Area Characteristics
The development history of the Plan Area parallels the growth of North Redondo Beach and regional trends observed throughout Southern California. The phases of development reflect a variety of drivers, including post-World War II suburbanization, the emergence of the aerospace industry, upward and downward cycles of the real estate market, commercial strip development, and increasing demand for residential development. The street locations and land plotting were largely defined early in the twentieth century, but most of the built environment in North Redondo Beach and the Plan Area was developed between the end of World War II and the 1980s.

Artesia Corridor
With its central location in North Redondo Beach, Artesia Boulevard serves as the hub of North Redondo Beach, providing a variety of amenities to meet the daily needs for nearby residents. With an estimated 12,089 people living within a quarter-mile walking distance of the Artesia Corridor, City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 8 and 21,982 people within a half-mile bike ride, this segment of Artesia Boulevard has potential to become a thriving, pedestrian-oriented destination for residents and visitors.

Historical development along Artesia Corridor largely mirrors that of the Aviation Corridor, but with noticeably more properties developed during the 1940s and 1950s. The south side of the Artesia Corridor, between Rindge Lane and Phelan Lane, still closely resembles this period because very little development has occurred since then.

Aviation Corridor
The Aviation Corridor is a smaller and less centralized commercial corridor than Artesia that primarily serves the adjacent neighborhoods. Aviation Corridor’s primary role is connecting Redondo Beach to other South Bay Cities via vehicular and potential future bicycle routes. Aviation Corridor is within walking distance of a smaller number of residents than the Artesia Corridor (6,340 estimated within a quarter mile), and the topography of the nearby neighborhoods, combined with narrower local streets and sidewalks compared to other areas of the city, may discourage some residents from biking, riding a scooter, skateboarding, or rollerblading from their homes to destinations within Aviation Corridor.

Aviation Corridor saw an uptick in development activity beginning in the 1950s and lasting through the 1970s. Roughly half of the properties along Aviation Corridor underwent some type of transformation during this period, and many have remained mostly unchanged since.

Existing Land Uses
The Plan Area largely consists of commercial uses, with a handful of residential, institutional, and mixed-use properties. Figure 2 above shows the existing land uses within the Plan Area.

RESIDENTIAL
The area surrounding both corridors is primarily residential. Approximately 15,360 residents live within a quarter-mile radius of the Plan Area. The Artesia Corridor is primarily surrounded by multifamily developments with a handful of single-family homes scattered throughout the neighborhoods. The Aviation Corridor is generally surrounded by tall and narrow single-family homes to the north and a mix of single-family and 2- to 3-unit lots to the south.

PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES
A number of public facilities are located in and near the Plan Area. The Redondo Beach North Library, Recreation and Community Services Department, and United States Post Office are located along the Artesia Corridor. Two schools, Madison Elementary and Birney Elementary, are located just beyond the Plan Area boundary to the north and south, respectively.

COMMERCIAL
The vast majority of the Plan Area is occupied by commercial uses. Service-oriented businesses represent 38 percent of all commercial space within the Artesia Corridor, followed by retail (18 percent), restaurants (12 percent), and automotive (10 percent). Office buildings, hotels/motels, medical offices, and thrift shops make up the remaining 22 percent of commercial uses along the Artesia Corridor.

Despite the prevalence of commercial businesses throughout the Plan Area, the low intensity of development primarily serves customers passing through or arriving by automobile. In particular, Initial Study
Initial Study 9
the decentralization of shopping and dining opportunities as well as the “mix” of commercial uses (higher percentages of drive-thru restaurants and automobile services) make the Corridors less conducive for pedestrian activity.

Parking
To better understand the current parking capacity within the Plan Area, a Parking Study prepared by Fehr & Peers in February 2019 was conducted that identified a total of 2,877 parking spaces (i.e., 688 on-street, public spaces and 2,189 private, off-street spaces). Further analysis revealed that both on- and off-street parking spaces are generally underutilized, suggesting that the current supply can accommodate higher demand. Inefficiently utilized parking has resulted in excess parking spaces in some areas, and a shortage in others. Despite the excess of parking spaces, the functional supply is largely restricted by the private ownership of off-street lots and their lack of internal/shared connections, and the absence of public lots and structures.

5. Description of Project
Project Components
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan (AACAP) Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP (Appendix A). Adopted by Resolution No. CC-2010-074 on December 8, 2020, the AACAP provides a vision and actions for future growth and development in the approximately 82-acre Plan Area. The AACAP will provide a concentration of community serving activities including offices, restaurants, and retail activities. The purpose of the zoning text amendments for parking components in the AACAP is to create more flexibility and parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining”. Additionally, allowing for access between commercial properties (and currently separate parking lots) with more reasonable requirements for offsite parking agreements supports a “park once and walk” corridor that meets parking demand and also promotes the use of active transportation within the Plan Area, particularly walking, bicycling, and scooter riding. The zoning text amendments are informed by the Redondo Beach Parking Implementation Study (and are intended to provide parking management strategies, options, and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. While not all strategies are being implemented at this time, there are both near-term and long-term parking management strategies, which are described in detail in Appendix A.

Summary of Proposed Ordinance Changes
The AACAP sets forth a vision for better connectivity throughout the corridor supported by mobility strategies with an emphasis on parking. At this time, the City is not advancing all of the strategies outlined within the Redondo Beach Parking Implementation Study. Some of the parking strategies would take place under a later process that would include future studies, public outreach, additional changes to the zoning ordinance, as well as subsequent environmental review. Rather, the changes described below are designed to activate components of the AACAP that are quickly and easily implementable.

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 10 The following are proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance within the Redondo Beach Municipal Code (RBMC). Additions to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are contained in a new section of the RBMC, under 10-2.1707 Non-residential parking standards within the Artesia & Aviation Corridors Area Plan. Additionally, consistency throughout Title 10, Chapter 2, Article 5 Parking Regulations are provided and referenced where necessary.

1. Number of Parking Spaces Required
Parking requirements, also known as parking ratios, dictate the amount of parking required by land use. The parking requirements in the current code regulate all business office uses, medical and dental office uses, and restaurant uses that have frontage within either of the corridors. While these parking requirements are unique to each land use (e.g., medical offices are required to have one parking space per 150 square feet and restaurants are required to have one parking space for every four seats, but not less than one space for each 50 square feet of gross floor area), the proposed zoning text amendment reduces these standards in order to encourage desired land uses and promote economic development. Text in Section 10-2.1717 Non-residential parking standards within the Artesia & Aviation Corridors Area Plan (b) Number of Parking Spaces Required is proposed to incorporate the following changes:
 Require one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area for business offices, medical and dental office uses, and restaurant uses with frontage in the corridor.  Restaurants with a drive-through are still required to meet the parking standards identified for drive-through uses and not included in this reduction.
 Outdoor seating requires no additional parking for the first 16 outdoor seats or 30 percent of the number of indoor seats, whichever is greater.
 Shared parking is an applicable use within the AACAP, and proof for a shared parking concept must be provided by an applicant with required shared parking agreements.

2. Off-Site Parking, Valet Parking, Tandem Parking, and Mechanical Lifts The AACAP identifies the inefficient use of parking as a constraint to the economic development of these corridors. As these corridors begin to develop with desired land uses, variations in on-site parking configuration would help prioritize options for increasing parking supply and managing the existing parking supply with greater efficiency and flexibility. Allowing for inventive parking configurations can increase parking supply without the need for constructing more parking. As a result of this finding, the proposed zoning text amendments include allowances for off-site, valet, tandem, and mechanical lifts, as applicable uses within the AACAP. Additionally, the proposed zoning text amendment allows applicants and the city to evaluate performance standards over time to measure the efficacy of new parking requirements. These strategies require physical and sitespecific implementation and shall follow City approval processes, as outlined in Section 10-2.1717(c) Provisions for Off-Site Parking, Valet Parking, Tandem Parking, and Mechanical Lifts, including design standards for tandem parking and mechanical lifts to maintain an aesthetic corridor and not obstruct views.

The draft language of the RBMC text amendment contains the following proposed changes for offsite and shared parking within the AACAP:
 Uses with frontage in the corridor can apply for Administrative Design Review for off-site provision of parking, provision of Valet parking, provision of Tandem parking, provision of Initial Study
Initial Study 11
Mechanical Lifts, and any combination of the above, subject to specific findings and conditions of approval.
 Off-site parking demand during peak hours should not coincide for businesses.  Off-site parking hours of operation should be different for the various portions of the businesses.
 The total parking provided for the uses of shared parking shall not be less than 50 percent of the parking requirements for the same uses with no shared parking.  The quantity, circulation and location of parking provided will equal or exceed the level that can be expected if shared or off-site parking is not provided.  The adjacent or nearby properties will not be adversely affected relative to parking.  The proposed traffic circulation will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of residents residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood.  The off-site parking is within a reasonable distance of the premises upon which the building or use is located.

The draft language of the RBMC text amendment contains the following proposed changes for valet parking, tandem parking, and mechanical lifts:
 The location for valet services, tandem parking, and mechanical lifts does not severely impede on- or off-site traffic or pedestrian circulation.
 The adjacent or nearby properties will not be adversely affected by noise associated with the mechanical lifts and/or valet parking services.
 Mechanical lifts shall be screened from view from the adjacent public right-of-way.  Tandem parking design standards are designed to accommodate no more than two vehicles, where the front vehicle may not be retrieved without the rear vehicle being moved.  Mechanical lift design standards should solely be operated by parking attendants and shall only be located in parking structures or lots where they will fully or substantially obstructed from the view from adjacent public streets.
 As a condition of approval for the Administrative Design Review, the Community Development Director shall require a written agreement between landowner(s) and the City, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, which shall include:
i. A guarantee that there will be no substantial alteration in the uses that will create a greater demand for parking; and
ii. A guarantee among the landowner(s) for access to and use of the shared or off-site parking facilities; and
iii. Remedies in the event that there is a change in use on the property or in the event that the shared or off-site parking is lost; and
iv. iv. A provision that the City may require parking facilities in addition to those originally approved, after notice and administrative hearing, upon a finding by the Community Development Director that adequate parking to serve the use(s) has not been provided; and v. v. A provision stating that the City, acting through the Community Development Director, may, for due cause and upon notice and administrative hearing, modify, amend, or unilaterally terminate the agreement at any time.

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 12  If such parking includes discretionary actions to be considered by the Planning Commission, the Community Development Director shall refer the parking request to the Planning Commission in conjunction with such other discretionary actions. The Planning Commission, in considering the parking request, shall make such findings and include necessary conditions as provided in this section.
 Performance. It is a violation of this Zoning Ordinance for use of tandem, valet, and/or mechanical lift parking spaces and queuing to access those spaces, to be operated in a manner that causes either: (a) significant congestion on adjacent streets or intersections, (b) any other significant impediment to City intersections, streets or adjacent off-street parking areas, or (c) significant interference with the self-park operations elsewhere on site. Violations of this Zoning Ordinance are subject to enforcement pursuant to Article 15 (Enforcement) of Part IV (Administration) of Chapter 2 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Planning and Zoning) of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code. In addition, the Community Development Director may impose conditions if the Community Development Director determines that doing so is necessary to eliminate any such violation.

6. Required Approvals
The project would require the following approvals by the Redondo Beach City Council:
 Adoption of the IS-ND. Adopt the AACAP Zoning Text Amendments for Parking Components ISND and make environmental findings pursuant to CEQA.  Zoning Text Amendments to the City of Redondo Beach Municipal Code. Amend text within Article 5, Parking Regulations, of the City’s Municipal Code to incorporate all changes resulting from implementation of the AACAP.

7. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
The City of Redondo Beach e-mailed consultation letters to nine Native American contacts initiating consultation on May 30, 3023,regarding the proposed project in accordance with the provisions of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52). The City received one request for consultation on June 12, 2023, with Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California and is currently engaged with the tribe. ,See Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, for additional discussion.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study 13
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
■ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study 17
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
■ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Determination
Initial Study 18
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name Title
June 15, 2023
Sean Scully Planning Manager
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study 15
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ □ ■
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Scenic vistas are panoramic public views that are found to be locally or regionally attractive. The city does not have any officially designated scenic vistas. However, the City considers its coastal recreation areas (e.g., beaches, public piers, bikeways, and regional and local parks) as providing important scenic views in the city (Redondo Beach 2004). The proposed project would have the potential to affect scenic views if new or intensified development blocked these coastal recreation areas.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP (Appendix A). Adopted by Resolution No. CC-2010-074, the AACAP will provide a concentration of community serving activities to create a corridor that meets parking demand and promotes the use of active transportation within the Plan Area. Text amendments are intended to support parking management strategies and standards that would allow for greater flexibility in design standards to ensure mobility needs are met in the Plan Area. Specific Zoning Ordinance amendments are proposed to resolve inconsistencies between the City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 16 standards and guidelines within the AACAP and some existing sections of the City’s Zoning Ordinance:
 Reference to the AACAP and Design Guidelines
 A requirement of usable public open space in the Plan Area  Allowance of ground floor office uses in C-2-PD zones, A-frame signs, access through required walls between commercial lots and between commercial and residential uses, and outdoor retail sales in the Plan Area
Implementation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance amendments in the AACAP described above would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed with commercial, residential, utility, and open space, and institutional uses. The proposed zoning text amendment includes parking management strategies and flexibility in standards by reference only to support the AACAP’s vision to create a “park once and walk” corridor that meets parking demand, and in most cases entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with scenic vistas. Additionally, the Plan Area is not located on a scenic turnout or other visual access point and is not visible from the beach or harbor areas of Redondo Beach, which are located approximately 1.4 miles to the southwest due to distance, topography, and existing commercial and residential development that block views from the coast. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The Plan Area is fully urbanized with commercial, institutional, residential, and utility and open space uses and does not contain any scenic resources, such as natural habitats or rock outcroppings, nor is it in proximity to any such resources. The California State Scenic Highway System Map indicates that no existing or proposed State scenic highways are located within the Plan Area (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2018). The nearest eligible scenic highway is along State Route 1, located approximately 9.5 miles northwest of the Plan Area.

Implementation of the City’s Zoning Ordinance amendments in the AACAP described above would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed with commercial, residential, utility, and open space, and institutional uses. The proposed zoning text amendment include parking management strategies and flexibility in standards by reference only to support the AACAP’s vision to create a “park once and walk” corridor that meets parking demand, and in most cases entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. For those Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study 17
projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with scenic resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources in a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Plan Area is fully urbanized with commercial, institutional, residential, and utility and open space uses. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP and is consistent with the standards and guidelines contained within the AACAP. As determined in the AACAP Draft ISMND (City of Redondo Beach 2023) the AACAP is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Land Use Element. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, Furthermore, the proposed project does not include any impacts to the City’s Zoning Ordinance governing scenic quality. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The Plan Area is in an urban portion of the city that is fully developed with commercial, residential, utility and open space, and institutional uses. Existing lighting and glare in the Plan Area consist of streetlights and exterior lighting/glare associated with commercial, residential, and institutional structures, as well as associated vehicles.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP and is consistent with the standards and guidelines contained within the AACAP. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. As determined in the AACAP ISMND (City of Redondo Beach 2023), the AACAP would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the city. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, Therefore, similarly, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the city. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 18 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study 19
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) Important Farmland 2018 Map for Los Angeles County indicates that none of the land in the Plan Area is mapped as Important Farmland (DOC 2020). Likewise, there are no Williamson Act contracts in Redondo Beach (DOC 2022). Furthermore, the City’s Zoning Map indicates that no areas within the Plan Area are currently zoned for agricultural use (Redondo Beach 2011). The proposed project would have no effect on the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 20 c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The Plan Area is fully urbanized with commercial, institutional, residential, and utility and open space uses and does not include land zoned as forest land or timberland (Redondo Beach 2011).

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with forest land or timberland zoning or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As discussed under responses ‘2.a’ through ‘2.d,’ there would be no impacts associated with agricultural or forest lands. The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study 21
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ □ ■
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The city is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB is a non-attainment area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter up to 10 microns in size (PM10), and PM2.5. The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is also designated non-attainment for lead (SCAQMD 2016). The SCAB is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and state standards.

Under State law, the SCAQMD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the SCAB is in non-compliance. Each Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an update of the previous plan and has a 20-year horizon. The latest AQMP, the 2016 AQMP, was adopted on March 3, 2017. It incorporates new scientific data and notable regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 2012 AQMP, including the approval of the new federal 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 parts per million (ppm) that was finalized in 2015. The 2016 AQMP addresses several State and federal planning requirements and incorporates new scientific information, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and meteorological air quality models. The Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) projections for socio-economic data (e.g., population, housing, employment by industry) and transportation activities from the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) are integrated into the 2016 AQMP.1
1On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (2020 RTP/SCS), or Connect SoCal, which builds upon the progress made through implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS and was developed through a four-year planning process to update population, housing and employment data as well as transportation strategies for the region through the horizon year of 2045.

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 22 The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with or conflict with an applicable air quality plan.

Therefore, the project would be consistent with the AQMP and would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable air quality plan. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Implementation of the amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A carbon monoxide hotspot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide that is above the NAAQS and CAAQS for carbon monoxide. Localized carbon monoxide hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local carbon monoxide concentration exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 ppm or the federal and State eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2016).

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study 23
“incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with carbon monoxide hotspots. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic that would create new hotspots or contribute substantially to existing hotspots. No impact would occur.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined by State law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. As discussed above, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Land Use Element do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with TACs. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to significant amounts of TACs. No impact would occur.

For those projects requiring a discretionary action, NO IMPACT d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on a number of factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of the receiving location, each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 24 adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in objectionable odors. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study 25
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 26 a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The Plan Area is already developed and includes landscape areas within street medians and along frontages, perimeters, and within some parking areas of properties as well as a portion of the Southern California Edison (SCE) right-of-way, which contains open space (Redondo Beach 2020a).

The Plan Area is surrounded by other developed areas in Redondo Beach, Lawndale, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. Given the lack of suitable habitat to support special status species in the Plan Area, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to special status species or the habitats that support them. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Plant communities are considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions, high wildlife value, include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. CDFW maintains a list of sensitive plant communities (CDFW 2021). CDFW ranks sensitive communities as “threatened” or “very threatened” and keeps records of their occurrences in the California Natural Diversity Database. As examined under response ‘4.a,’ the Plan Area is already developed and includes landscape areas within street medians and along the frontage of properties as well as a portion of the SCE right-of-way, which contains open space. The existing trees, shrubs and SCE open space do not constitute a sensitive natural community. In addition, according to the USFWS’s National Wetlands Inventory there are no riparian habitats or federally protected wetlands located within the Plan Area (USFWS 2021). Furthermore, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly impact sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study 27
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
In accordance with Section 1602 of the CFGC, the CDFW has jurisdiction over lakes and streambeds (including adjacent riparian resources). CDFW regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has authority to regulate activities that discharge dredge or fill material into wetlands or other “waters of the United States” through issuance of a Section 404 Permit. Finally, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has jurisdiction over “waters of the State” pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and has the responsibility for review of water quality certification per Section 401 of the federal CWA for proposed development projects.

As examined under responses ‘4.a’ and ‘4.b’ of this section, the Plan Area has been previously developed and disturbed and does not include any riparian habitats or federally protected wetlands.

As a result, no state or federally protected wetlands or other waters that may be considered jurisdictional by the CDFW, USACE, or RWQCB occur within the Plan Area. Additionally, the proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife corridors are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature, allowing movement across the landscape. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Examples of barriers or impediments to movement include housing and other urban development, roads, fencing, unsuitable habitat, or open areas with little vegetative cover. Regional and local wildlife movements are expected to be concentrated near topographic features that allow convenient passage, including roads, drainages, and ridgelines.

As examined under responses ‘4.a’ through ‘4.c’ of this section, the Plan Area is already developed and includes landscape areas within street medians and along the frontage of properties as well as a portion of the SCE right-of-way, which contains open space. The Plan Area does not contain any natural communities or habitat areas that would be expected to support populations of native wildlife nurseries or movement. While the Plan Area contains trees, these trees are ornamental and City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 28 are not a part of larger habitat area; they are surrounded by development and do not form a natural community or constitute a habitat area. In addition, the SCE open space contains ornamental shrubs that are not part of a larger habitat area.

Due to the developed nature as described above, the Plan Area does not contain any natural or physical features that connect habitat areas. Therefore, impacts to the movement of native or resident species or on the use of native wildlife nursery sites resulting from the proposed project are not expected. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
According to the street tree requirements in Section 10-2.1900, Landscaping regulations, of the RBMC, no existing street tree shall be removed without the approval of the City. In addition, street tree species, size, spacing, and planting standards are subject to approval of the Superintendent of Parks/Urban Forestry Manager. The Superintendent of Parks/Urban Forestry Manager shall select street trees taking into consideration the following criteria: that the selected tree as proposed to be located will not harm public sidewalks, streets, and infrastructure; that the tree is consistent with water conservation objectives; that the tree requires low maintenance and no pesticides; that the tree will enhance the visual character and identity of City streets; and that the tree complements appropriate existing street trees. The City does not have any additional ordinances or polices protecting biological resources.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. Rather the intent of the proposed project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards.

Specific projects developed after the AACAP requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with street tree removal. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study 29
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation or Natural Community Conservation Plans in the City of Redondo Beach. Further, there are also no approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans in the city. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 30 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study 31
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5? □ □ □ ■
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Historical resources include properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or as a local historic resource or landmark. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15064.5, “[s]ubstantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.”
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction or ground disturbing activities. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development.

Rather the intent of the proposed project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects developed after the AACAP requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with adverse changes to historical resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 32 b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Although the City does not maintain an inventory of archaeological sites and the California Historical Resources Information System was not consulted for this analysis, it is understood that archaeological sites are present within the city. Therefore, the potential to encounter unidentified resources in the city and within the Plan Area is considered moderate. Undeveloped properties within the Plan Area have a higher probability of containing previously unidentified archaeological resources given the probable lack of previous ground-disturbing activities on those properties.

However, ground-disturbance into native soils within the Plan Area could contain previously unknown prehistoric or historic-period resources.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction or ground disturbing activities. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Human burials outside of formal cemeteries can occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts.

Excavation during construction activities could have the potential to disturb these resources, which could include Native American burial sites. Although it is unlikely that human remains are present, all properties within the Plan Area have at least the possibility of containing previously unidentified human remains.

Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Public Resources Code Section 5097. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains.

Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protect them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. They also include established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to resolve any related disputes.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study 33
All development projects are subject to State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 which states that, if human remains are unearthed, no further disturbance can occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction or ground disturbing activities. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development.

Rather the intent of the proposed project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects developed after the AACAP requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated disturbances to human remains. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a disturbance to human remains. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 34 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Energy
Initial Study 35
6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ □ ■
California Energy Consumption
California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 50th among states, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate. In 2019, California consumed approximately 1,688 trillion British thermal units (Btu) of motor gasoline, 2,219 trillion Btu of natural gas, and 30.9 trillion Btu of coal (U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2021). The single largest end-use sector for energy consumption in California is transportation (39.3 percent), followed by industrial (23.2 percent), commercial (18.8 percent), and residential (18.7 percent) (EIA 2021).

Most of California’s electricity is generated in-state, with approximately 30 percent imported from generating facilities outside of the state, including imports from Mexico (EIA 2021). In addition, approximately 33 percent of California’s electricity supply comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, geothermal, and biomass (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2022a). Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 accelerates the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standards Program by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent of total retail sales by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045.

To reduce Statewide vehicle emissions, California requires all motorists use California Reformulated Gasoline, which is sourced almost exclusively from in-state refineries. Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California with approximately 13.1 billion gallons sold in 2021 and is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and aviation (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2022). Diesel is the second most used fuel in California with 4.2 billion gallons sold in 2015 and is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles (CEC 2022b).

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 36 a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Redondo Beach has not adopted a renewable energy or energy efficiency plan. However, the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which contains policies for the conservation of energy resources (South Bay Cities Council of Governments 2017). The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts related to confliction with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study 37
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? □ □ □ ■

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □ ■

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■

4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ □ ■
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property? □ □ □ ■
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ □ □ ■
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 38 a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? The Plan Area is located in a seismically active area of Southern California; however, according to the California Geological Survey (CGS), the Plan Area is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (CGS 2019). There are no faults present within the Plan Area, and the nearest fault to Plan Area is the Avalon-Compton Fault, located approximately six miles northeast (CGS 2019).

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that meets the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects developed would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with earthquake faults.

Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause or exacerbate potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? As discussed under response ‘7.a.1,’ the project site is situated in the seismically active Southern California Region and is therefore susceptible to ground shaking during a seismic event. Although the nearest mapped fault (i.e., the Avalon-Compton Fault) is located approximately six miles northeast of the Plan Area, strong ground shaking within the Plan Area may occur in the event of a sufficiently large earthquake on this or other nearby faults. However, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study 39
flexibility in design standards. Specific projects would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the frequency or severity of ground shaking. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to fluid form during intense and prolonged ground shaking or because of a sudden shock or strain. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the groundwater is less than 30 feet from the surface and where the soils are composed of poorly consolidated fine to medium sand. According to the CGS, the Plan Area is not located within a liquefaction zone (CGS 2019). Furthermore, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with liquefaction. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects from liquefaction risk. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
According to the CGS, the Plan Area is not located in an area subject to landslides caused by earthquakes, nor is it downslope from an area subject to seismically induced landslides (CGS 2019).

The Plan Area and surrounding area are relatively flat. Furthermore, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiting discretion would require project-level CEQA City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 40 review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with landslides. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause impacts related to landslides. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil may occur when soils are disturbed but not secured or restored, such that wind or rain events may mobilize disturbed soils, resulting in their transport off-site. and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with loss of topsoil. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement or spreading of soil toward an open face. Lateral spreading may occur when soils liquefy during an earthquake event, and the liquefied soils with overlying soils move laterally to unconfined spaces. Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is caused by a variety of activities that include, but are not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater, pumping of oil and gas from underground, the collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and hydrocompaction.

As examined under impact response ‘7.a.1’ of this section, although the proposed project is in a seismically active area, the Plan Area is not located on unstable soils or a geologic unit at risk for liquefaction or landslides. The Plan Area consists of compact, relatively flat land that is surrounded by developed land. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study 41
improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with unstable geologic units or soils.

Therefore, the proposed project would not create or exacerbate conditions related to unstable geologic units or soils. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Soils that volumetrically increase (swell) or expand when exposed to water and contract when dry (shrink) are considered expansive soils. A soil’s potential to shrink and swell depends on the amount and types of clay in the soil. Highly expansive soils can cause structural damage to foundations and roads without proper structural engineering and are generally less suitable or desirable for development than non-expansive soils because of the necessity for detailed geologic investigations and costlier grading applications. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with expansive soils.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to risks associated with expansive soils. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The project is in a developed area that has existing sewer systems and other infrastructure capable of accommodating development. Additionally, the proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 42 amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with septic tanks. Moreover, no septic tanks are proposed under the project. Therefore, there is no potential for adverse effects due to soil incompatibility with septic tanks. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
There are no known geologic features or paleontological resources in the plan area. Additionally, the proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with paleontological resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study 43
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ □ ■
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (i.e., wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence which takes place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions.

GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.

GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is 28 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014).2
Anthropogenic activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere that trap heat. Since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and 2 The IPCC’s (2014) Fifth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 28. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the IPCC’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25.

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 44 nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 46 percent, 158 percent, and 23 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2021).

Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2019).
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with GHG emissions and confliction with applicable plans or policies to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant environmental impact or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study 45
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ □ ■
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ □ □ ■
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 46 a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts. Therefore, no impacts to the public or the environment resulting from the accidental release or exposure to hazardous materials as a result of project implementation would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The Redondo Beach Unified School District (RBUSD) oversees 14 schools in the city, including eight elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one alternative education school, and one adult school (RBUSD 2022). There are also numerous day care facilities located throughout the city. The nearest schools to the Plan Area include Madison Elementary School, located approximately 700 feet north, and Birney Elementary School, located approximately 750 feet south.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study 47
the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Any future land use would be required to obtain necessary approvals to store, use and dispose hazardous waste. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop an updated Cortese List, which includes information on hazardous material sites collected from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the USEPA. The analysis for this section included a review of the following resources on March 7, 2022, to provide hazardous material release information:
 SWRCB GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2022) 4
 DTSC EnviroStor database (DTSC 2022)
 USEPA Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) (USEPA 2022) Based on review of these databases, it was determined that the Plan Area does not contain any active hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The GeoTracker database identified four leaking underground storage tank (LUST) Cleanup Sites with a cleanup status of “Completed – Case Closed” within the Plan Area:
 Exxon #7-2515 (Former) (T0603703880): Located at 2714 Artesia Boulevard East, the site is classified as a LUST Cleanup Site, listed for potential gasoline contamination of an aquifer used for drinking water supply. The site’s cleanup status is listed as “Completed – Case Closed” as of January 25, 2010.
 Rapid Gas #8 (T0603705527): Located at 2118 Artesia Boulevard, the site is classified as a LUST Cleanup Site, listed for potential gasoline contamination of soil. The site’s cleanup status is listed as “Completed – Case Closed” as of November 4, 2008.

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 48  Exxon #7-2824 (Former) (T0603703882): Located at 1700 Artesia Boulevard, the site is classified as a LUST Cleanup Site, listed for potential gasoline contamination of soil. The site’s cleanup status is listed as “Completed – Case Closed” as of December 11, 1996.  Aviation Shell Service (T0603792950): Located at 1650 Artesia Boulevard, the site is classified as a LUST Cleanup Site, listed for potential gasoline contamination of an aquifer used for drinking water supply. The site’s cleanup status is listed as “Completed – Case Closed” as of October 20, 2010.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Additionally, the Plan Area does not contain any active hazardous materials sites as discussed above, and thereby, any new land use would not require new development on any active material sites. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The Plan Area is not located within two miles of a public airport. The airports nearest to the Plan Area are the Hawthorne Municipal Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles northeast, and Torrance Municipal Airport - Zamperini Field located approximately five miles southeast. According to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Plan Area is not located in either of the airports’ hazard areas (Los Angeles County ALUC 2004).

Furthermore, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Plan Area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study 49
transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects developed after the AACAP requiring discretion, would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact would.

NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The Plan Area is in an urban area of Redondo Beach. Undeveloped wildland areas are not located in proximity to the Plan Area. The Plan Area is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) or Very High Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) for wildland fires (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2022). The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 4.4 miles south of the Plan Area in the City of Palos Verdes Estates (CAL FIRE 2022). Furthermore, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects developed after the AACAP requiring discretion, would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any sitespecific impacts associated with wildland fires. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 50 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study 51
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ □ ■
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ □ ■
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ □ ■
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ ■
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ □ ■
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ □ ■
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 52 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Redondo Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB, which is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the water quality control plan for the Los Angeles Region.

Title 5, Chapter 7, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the RBMC requires construction activities and facility operations of development and redevelopment projects to comply with the current Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to lessen the water quality impacts of development by using smart growth practices and integrating low impact development practices and standards for stormwater pollution mitigation through means of infiltration, evapotranspiration, biofiltration, and rainfall harvest and use.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any sitespecific impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or the substantial degradation of surface or ground water quality. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Redondo Beach receives its water service from the California Water Service Company (Cal Water), which has provided water service to the community since 1927. The Plan Area is within the Hermosa-Redondo Subdistrict of the Dominguez District of Cal Water. The water supply for the Hermosa-Redondo District is a combination of groundwater from the West Coast Subbasin, imported water purchased from the West Basin Municipal Water District, and a small amount of recycled water (Cal Water 2021). The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study 53
amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with groundwater supplies and sustainable groundwater management. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 54 mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with drainage. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in runoff that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding on- or off-site, or increased polluted runoff.

No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer, the Plan Area does not contain any flood hazard areas (FEMA 2021). Furthermore, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with flood flows. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter drainage patterns to an extent that would redirect or impede flood flows. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The Plan Area is not located near any dams, levees, or other major bodies of water that could produce seiche impacts within the Plan Area. The Plan Area is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and, according to the California DOC is not inside the boundaries of any regional tsunami impact areas (DOC 2019). No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study 55
guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 56 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Initial Study 57
11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve the construction of new roads, railroads, or other features that may physically divide established communities in the city. Consequently, there would be no impact associated with the physical division of an established community.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 58 improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards.

Upon adoption by the City, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include reducing the number of required parking spaces and allowing inventive parking configurations to increase the supply of parking without the need for construction more parking. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increase in development and there would be no impacts related to conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Initial Study 59
12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted to promote conservation and protection of significant mineral deposits. SMARA requires the State to identify and classify mineral deposits within the State as either: (1) containing little or no mineral deposits (Mineral Resource Zone [MRZ]-1), (2) significant deposits (MRZ-2) or (3) deposits identified but further evaluation needed (MRZ-3 and MRZ-4). According to the California DOC Mineral Land Classification Maps, the Plan Area is designated MRZ-3, indicating that the area may contain mineral deposits; however, the significance cannot be evaluated using available data (Miller 1994). The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a loss of availability of a known mineral resource or further the loss of available mineral resources. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 60 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study 61
13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ □ ■
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ □ ■
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
Existing Noise Setting
Based on the City’s General Plan Environmental Hazards/Natural Hazards Element, overall noise levels experienced within the city are generated by a combination of mobile and stationary sources including noise generated by traffic or traffic-related sources (including passenger vehicles, or emergency vehicles), airplane traffic flying overhead to and from various smaller regional airports and airfields (i.e., Hawthorne Airport and Torrance Airport), daily construction and commercial operations (i.e., deliveries, waste removal, petroleum extraction activities, machinery operation, car washes, entertainment activities, etc.), and stationary utility uses (i.e. SCE Power Plant; SCE elevated high-tension electricity transmission lines; Atcheson, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad traffic) (Redondo Beach 1993). Areas in the city that are subject to exposure to the greatest noise levels include Artesia Boulevard at its respective intersections with Inglewood Avenue and Aviation Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard between Hawthorne Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard, Aviation Boulevard between Marine Avenue and the City of Hermosa Beach municipal boundary (west of Harper Avenue), which are located partially or fully within the Plan Area (Redondo Beach 1993).

According to the Environmental Hazards/Natural Hazards Element, land uses identified as noisesensitive include single- and multi-family residential, the South Bay Hospital, and the vast majority of local public school and public open space facilities whose parking areas and open space areas directly front major streets (Redondo Beach 1993).

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 62 a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any sitespecific impacts associated with ambient noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant increases in permanent ambient noise levels or exceedance of City standards. No impact would occur.

For those projects requiring a discretionary action, NO IMPACT b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the excessive generation of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study 63
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the city does not contain any airports and is not located within an Airport Influence Area (Los Angeles County ALUC 2004). The airports nearest to the project site are Hawthorne Municipal Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the Plan Area, and Torrance Municipal Airport - Zamperini Field located approximately five miles southeast of the Plan Area. Furthermore, there are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Plan Area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 64 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Initial Study 65
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City of Redondo Beach has an estimated population of 66,484 with an average household size of 2.28 persons (DOF 2021). SCAG estimates that the city’s population will increase to 72,900 by 2045, an increase of approximately

9.7 percent or 6,416 persons (SCAG 2020). The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, that serves that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. Additionally, the proposed project would not directly increase the city’s population, as no new housing is proposed. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, projectlevel CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 66 b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any sitespecific impacts associated with displacement. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study 67
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ □ ■
2 Police protection? □ □ □ ■
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The City of Redondo Beach Fire Department provides fire protection services in the city and maintains a Mutual Aid Agreement with other fire departments in the region. The Fire Department has three facilities in the city, including two fire stations and a fire boat (Redondo Beach 2020b). The Plan Area is served by Fire Station Fire Station #2, located at 2400 Grant Avenue, approximately

0.3-mile south of the Plan Area. Other stations respond to emergencies within the Plan Area as needed. The Fire Department already serves the existing development within the Plan Area.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 68 that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with fire protection services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. No impact would occur. For those projects requiring a discretionary action,

NO IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The City of Redondo Beach Police Department provides police protection services in the city and maintains mutual assistance programs with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Police Department is located at 401 Diamond Street, approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the Plan Area.

The Police Department already serves the existing development within the Plan Area.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study 69
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? RBUSD provides primary and secondary public education services to students living in the city.

RBUSD oversees 14 schools in the city, including eight elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one alternative education school, and one adult school (RBUSD 2022). The nearest schools to the Plan Area include Madison Elementary School, located approximately 815 feet north, and Birney Elementary School, located approximately 0.2 mile south.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with schools. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The City currently owns and operates a total of 35 public parks, open space areas, and recreation sites, occupying approximately 155 acres of land (Redondo Beach 2004). These areas are all part of the city recreation and parks system. The closest public parks to the Plan Area are Andrews Park, located approximately 840 feet south, and Perry Park, located approximately 0.2 mile south.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 70 Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with parks. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Initial Study 71
16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ ■
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the City currently owns and operates a total of 35 public parks, open space areas, and recreation sites, occupying approximately 155 acres of land. These areas are all part of the city recreation and parks system. The closest public parks to the Plan Area are Andrews Park, located approximately 840 feet south, and Perry Park, located approximately

0.2-mile south. The City’s current estimated population is 66,484 (DOF 2021). The City’s General Plan established a citywide parkland level of service goal of three acres per 1,000 persons (Redondo Beach 2004). With approximately 155 acres of public parkland in the city, there are approximately

2.3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which does not achieve the City’s service goal.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with the deterioration of existing City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 72 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial deterioration of existing recreation facilities. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. While the intent of the AACAP is to transition existing commercial uses to preferred land uses (restaurant and office), the project does not directly permit land uses. Implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance amendments described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. For those projects requiring a discretionary action, project-level CEQA review would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study 73
17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Upon adoption by the City, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Application of the design guidelines by reference in the City’s Zoning Code pose no impact related to a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system because the City of Redondo Beach Circulation Element and South Bay Bicycle Master Plan guidance were incorporated into the AACAP, and therefore no conflicts were identified.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. Impacts would be less than significant.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 74 b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies criteria for evaluating transportation impacts.

Generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.

VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Specifically, the guidelines state that VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Upon adoption by the City, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. Application of the design guidelines by reference in the City’s Zoning pose no impact related to inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) because these project components would not directly result in new growth or substantial new development, generating additional trips within the Plan Area. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) and no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Application of the design guidelines by reference in the City’s Zoning Code pose no impact related to transportation hazards because these project components are not expected to introduce geometric hazards and would be designed to provide unobstructed visibility. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. In addition, the design guidelines proposed include language that ensures that the proposed traffic circulation for individual projects will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of residents residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood.

For those projects requiring a discretionary action, Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use and no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Initial Study 75
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Application of the design guidelines by reference in the City’s Zoning Code pose no impact related to emergency access because these project components are not expected to introduce geometric hazards and would be designed to provide unobstructed visibility. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. In addition, the design guidelines proposed include language that ensures that the proposed traffic circulation for individual projects will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of residents residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and no impacts would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 76 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study 77
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
or cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? □ □ □ ■
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? On May 30, 3023, the following NAHC-identified local Native American tribal groups were formally notified that the City initiated environmental review of the proposed project and were invited to provide AB 52 consultation:

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 78  Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians  Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
 Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council3  Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
 Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians4
The electronic correspondence is included in Appendix D. The City received one request for consultation via email on June 12, 2023, with Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California (Tongva). Ms.

Christina Conley, Cultural Resources Administrator under Tribal Chair, Robert Dorame, stated that the Tongva have concerns regarding tribal cultural sensitivity with regards to the project. She also stated the Tongva would like to be a part of the Phase I archeological survey with respect to the ground disturbances. Lastly Ms. Conley stated that in the past, “this land was disregarded as culturally significant when it came to construction and our tribe lost a significant amount of tribal cultural resources.”
In an email response on June 13, 2023, Mr. Greg Kapovich, Waterfront and Economic Development Director for the City responded to Ms. Conley to notify her that the proposed project includes an amendment to our municipal code only, and it does not include any construction and no ground disturbances. Mr. Kapovich also stated that future construction projects would be reviewed for each individual project as plans are submitted for construction and the Tongva will be given the opportunity to review those projects for ground disturbances (and other CEQA matters) on a caseby-case basis.

In an email response on June 15, 2023, Ms. Conley responded thanking Mr. Kapovich for clarification.

As of the date of this document, no further responses have been received by the City from local Native American tribal groups.

NO IMPACT
3AB 52 letters were sent to two contacts at the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. 4AB 52 letters were sent to two contacts at the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study 79
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ □ ■
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ □ ■
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ ■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ □ ■
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 80 The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Upon adoption by the City, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. Application of the design guidelines by reference in the City’s Zoning pose no impact related to inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) because these project components would not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with water supply, wastewater generation and treatment, stormwater, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Athens Services is the City's exclusive franchise waste hauler that services all residential and commercial waste and recycling programs. Solid waste from Redondo Beach is collected by Athens Services and taken to their recycling facilities, which currently consist of the City of Industry Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) and the Sun Valley MRF (Athens Services 2017a). Food waste is processed and delivered to their compost facility, American Organics, in Victorville (Athens Services 2017b). Unrecyclable solid waste collected by Athens Service is delivered to the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, Chiquita Canyon Landfill, or the El Sobrante Landfill, or various San Bernardino County landfills that accept waste from Los Angeles County, including Mid-Valley Landfill and San Timoteo Landfill.

The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. Upon adoption by the City, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. Application of the design guidelines by reference in the City’s Zoning pose no impact related to inconsistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) because these project components would not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study 81
design standards. Specific projects would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with solid waste generation and compliance with federal, state, and local solid waste reduction statutes and regulations.

Therefore, the proposed project would not generate excess solid waste or conflict with any statutes or regulations pertaining to solid waste. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 82 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Initial Study 83
20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas
or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Plan Area is in an urban portion of Redondo Beach. Undeveloped wildland areas are not located in proximity to the Plan Area. The Plan Area is not located in a FHSZ or VHFHSZ for wildland fires (CAL FIRE 2022). The nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately 4.4 miles south of the Plan Area in the Palos Verdes Estates (CAL FIRE 2022). Therefore, the Plan Area is not located near a state responsibility area or classified as having a high fire hazard. Furthermore, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 84 the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

NO IMPACT
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
As discussed above, under response ‘20.a,’ the Plan Area is not located near a state responsibility area or classified as having a high fire hazard. Furthermore, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts. associated with exacerbating wildfire risks and exposing people or structures to significant risks. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? As discussed above, under response ‘20.a,’ the Plan Area is not located near a state responsibility area or classified as having a high fire hazard. Furthermore, implementation of the specific Zoning Ordinance described in the Description of Project section would not result in any substantial physical effects as the Plan Area is fully developed. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction. The proposed Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Initial Study 85
Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts associated with infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the proposed project would not require additional roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 86 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study 87
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory? □ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ □ □ ■
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not result in development that would create impacts related to biological resources as no development would occur in a sensitive biological resource area. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments include design guidelines and other standards by reference only and entail no construction or ground disturbing activities. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 88 that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in new growth or substantial new development. Rather the intent of the proposed project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any impacts associated with eliminating important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As discussed in Sections 1 through 20, the proposed project includes an amendment of the City’s Zoning Ordinance that serves to meet the parking and mobility objectives identified in the AACAP.

The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. The changes to the Zoning Ordinance do not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development.

Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific impacts. The proposed project would not directly result in any impacts to the above-discussed areas and therefore, project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 13, Noise, the proposed project would not directly result in a specific development project or a substantial amount of new development. Rather, the purpose of the project is to provide parking management strategies and standards that would ensure the mobility needs of the AACAP are met with greater efficiency and increased flexibility in design standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments would relax parking standards and offer more flexibility for parking options that serve to “right size” parking throughout the corridor and “incentivize” the “preferred uses” and recommended design elements such as “outdoor dining” in the Plan Area while allowing for improved pedestrian access between commercial properties and adjacent residential developments, when feasible. Specific projects requiring discretion would require project-level CEQA review and identify and potentially require mitigation for any site-specific Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study 89
impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 90 This page intentionally left blank.

References
Initial Study 91
References
Bibliography
Athens Service. 2017a. Athens Services. https://athensservices.com/ (accessed March 2022). ______. 2017b. Organics Recycling. https://athensservices.com/in-the-news/organics-waste-andab-1826/ (accessed March 2022).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019. CGS Information Warehouse: Tsunami Hazard Area Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ts_evacuation/ (accessed March 2022).
______. 2020. Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2018. Map published November 2020. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/LosAngeles.aspx (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. California Sensitive Natural Communities.

August 18, 2021. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline (accessed February 2022).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2022. “Fuel Taxes Statistics & Reports.” https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed March 2022).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. State Scenic Highway System Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed March 2022).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022a. “2020 Total System Electric Generation.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020- total-system-electric-generation (accessed March 2022). ______. 2022b. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/diesel-fuel-data-facts-and-statistics (accessed March 2022).

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation [online map]:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed March 2022).

California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2022. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). https://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed February 2022).

City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 92 California Water Service (Cal Water). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. HermosaRedondo District. June 2021. https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/HR_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed March 2022).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. https://hazards-fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html (accessed March 2022).

Fehr & Peers. 2022. Artesia Aviation Corridors Area Plan (AACAP) Zoning Ordinance Amendment Draft CEQA Transportation Assessment. March 25, 2022.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R.

Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C.

Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2004. Airport Land Use Plan. https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf (accessed March 2022).

Miller, R.V. 1994. Update of Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, California, Part II - Los Angeles County. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed March 2022).

Redondo Beach, City of. 1992. Land Use Element of the General Plan. May 26, 1992. https://www.redondo.org/depts/community_development/planning/general_plan/default. asp (accessed March 2022).
______. 1993. Environmental Hazards/Natural Hazards Element. September 1, 1993. https://www.redondo.org/depts/community_development/planning/general_plan/default. asp (accessed March 2022).
______. 2004. Recreation and Parks Element.
https://www.redondo.org/depts/community_development/planning/general_plan/default. asp (accessed March 2022).
______. 2011. City of Redondo Beach Official Zoning Map. Last update February 1, 2011. https://www.redondo.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24217 (accessed March 2022).
______. 2020a. Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan. Adopted December 8, 2020. Available at:
https://www.redondo.org/depts/community_development/planning/general_plan/default. asp (accessed February 2022).
______. 2020b. Redondo Beach Fire Department. https://www.redondo.org/depts/fire/ (accessed March 2022).

Redondo Beach Unified School District (RBUSD). 2022. “School Directory.” https://www.rbusd.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=858151&type=d&pREC_ID=122144 3 (accessed March 2022).

References
Initial Study 93
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2022. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Activation with Associated Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Consistency. May 4, 2022.

South Bay Cities Council of Governments. 2017. City of Redondo Beach Climate Action Plan.

December 2017. http://southbaycities.org/sites/default/files/RB%20CAP.pdf (accessed March 2022).

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/airquality-management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed March 2022).

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. Final Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. Adopted September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adoptedfinal-plan (accessed March 2022).

State of California. 2019. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. January 16, 2019. https://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed March 2022).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed March 2022).

United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2021. “California - Profile Overview.” Last modified: February 18, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2 (accessed March 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. “Climate Change Indicators:

Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases.” Last modified: July 21, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmosphericconcentrations-greenhouse-gases#ref2 (accessed March 2022). _____. 2022. Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS). https://www.epa.gov/enviro/sems-search (accessed March 2022).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory Map. 2021. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed February 2022).

List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS under contract to the City of Redondo Beach. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Danielle Griffith, Principal-In-Charge
Marco Mendoza, Project Manager/Senior Planner
Shannon Carmack, Principal Architectural Historian
Steven Treffers, Architectural History Program Manager
Matthew Gonzalez, Senior Archaeologist/Project Manager
Pedro Gonzalez, Assistant Project Manager/Archaeologist Ashley Losco, Architectural Historian
Shannon McAlpine, Environmental Planner
City of Redondo Beach
Artesia and Aviation Corridors Area Plan Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Parking Components 94 This page intentionally left blank.

Redondo Beach City CouncilSeptember 5, 2023

Redondo Beach City Council
September 5, 2023